How exactly is "freedom of religion" NOT freedom from religion?

Question

It is often said that freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. How does it NOT mean that? Freedom to be Christian implies freedom NOT to be Jewish. Thus freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom from religion. Please explain your reasoning those that say it does not. Why? How?

Answer 1

The expression is generally used in the context where someone who is secular has some objections to a religious display in the public sphere, e.g. the Ten Commandments displayed in a court room. The basis of the objection is that there should be a separation of church and state. Thus, the counter objection is that it is freedom of religion not freedom from religion thus the irreligious person should not object if others feel that displaying it is appropriate.

Now, there is more to the debate than that but at least you should know where it comes from.

Answer 2

"Freedom from religion" means that you have the right or at least the opportunity to be free from all religious influence. Generally speaking, religion permeates our society and culture. You drive down the street, you see churches with "signs" with Christian messages. You turn on the TV, politicians and televangelists and even Bugs Bunny cartoons include religious messages and beliefs. Etc. In our culture, the only people who have "freedom from religion" are those who are carefully insulated from all religious influences (generally: the children of dedicated atheists who do not indoctrinate their children with atheism).



Realistically you could only have "freedom from religion" in a community made up entirely of atheists who did not teach atheism (atheism itself being a religious belief).



Some people view "freedom from religion" as simply a political standard - that politics should be completely free from religious influences. In a democracy that is simply not possible - not even in a democracy in which all of the voters are atheists (because atheism itself is a religious belief). Like the type of "freedom of religion" mentioned above, this type of "freedom of religion" is not really practical (that is: practically speaking freedom of religion cannot be mandated by law or achieved by any other practical means except in an oppressive society in which all forms of religious belief are denied any sort of expression outside of a religious institution - cannot be taught in public schools, cannot be mentioned in tv or radio shows or in newspapers and magazines or on publicly-posted signs, cannot be preached on the street, etc.)



- Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/

Answer 3

I observed a comedy act by capacity of invoice Maher and in one section he mentioned which you mustn't call yourselves picked on or martyr's once you have an annual assembly right here. Then a photo of an excellent elite, gold gilding everywhere inn convention room replaced into shown. So actual. The church I grew up in had a development that replaced into boring to start with yet interior 15 yrs, it had prolonged to 10x it is length with a gaggle of extra bldgs to hold Sunday college in mutually as the huge considerable bldg (with a lot of seperate rooms that are actually a kitchen, eating room, interest room, nursery) is empty. The final time I went there to fulfill a chum of my mom's, i did no longer even comprehend the area and replaced into lost b/c much extra have been extra. So no, it is not any longer an unusual concept that they think of they choose 'freedom of religion' yet have a extra healthful and declare Christianity is being 'attacked' while we would like Christian words taken off our distant places money and out of our pledge or if a real concept is taught in technological understanding with regard to the initiating of the earth.

Answer 4

I think you only have half the answer. Consider the US. There are people in it that are not religious at all. Our Constitution grants them the freedom to be non-religious without penalty, just as it grants Christians and Jews the rights to be what they are without adverse consequence, but still people of one religion are confronted with beliefs and people from other religions, or people whose religion is to be non-religious. Non-religious people are confronted with the words, "In God We Trust" on our money. Our nation was founded on religious principles, even if there is no official religion. Our pledge says that we are "one nation, under God." So,even though non-religious people have freedom to be non religious, they are not free from seeing and hearing references to religion, if you look at it one way. They don't have to participate, but still they see and hear others participating, so they are not free from it. The same is true in any country. If I, as a Christian, go to a Jewish country that offers freedom of religion, I still see and hear them participating. Looking at this philosophical question from that perspective, no country that offers freedom of religion can be truly free of religion at the same time. If we offer freedom of religion, that implies that we tolerate ALL religions, which means we stand the chance of coming into contact with one of those other religions. I don't know if that makes sense to you, but it is the best way I can explain it.

Answer 5

Freedom of Religion is the right to worship as you please. If you wish to be Christian the government will not interfere in your affairs. If you're Jewish the government won't cart you off to a death camp.



It is the government's promise to allow you to worship as you desire without official repercussions, and indeed to protect your right to worship as you wish. There is no official state religion (unlike most states on Earth) and there is no prodding from the government to be a particular faith.



Freedom from Religion would be a world devoid of faith, populated by atheistic individuals whose hearts and souls are governed by science and reason. Therein lies the difference. One is a guarantee of freedom to follow whatever religion you wish, while the other is the nonexistence of religion as a concept, practice and cultural fixture.

Answer 6

I think your confusing Freedom of religion and Freedom from religion in terms of their definition. Sure, your free to believe and not believe in God. That is freedom of religion itself!



But that does not mean that your free from living in a society that has a huge Christian influence on its culture. If that bothers you.........well too bad......

Answer 7

Are you suggesting that Atheism is a religion?

Its your choice if you don't believe, but its not your choice to interfere with mine.

And that is what your "religion" is all about.

I think Atheist are unimaginably selfish they interfere with the celebration of Christmas, Easter, tell me Why isn't anyone griping about Halloween?

Answer 8

I think that learning about religion, is just learning about the world and the environment that we live in. Ignorance, will never defeat ignorance. We can't beat the Christians by playing their game. Let them pray, they can pray for me, they can preach to me. They can not change what I know to be true in my heart. So help me, my children will know and they will not be raised that way.

Answer 9

Because it traumatizes the religious to think someone can exist without a need for an imaginary friend

Answer 10

Should be "Freedom of Faith"

Answer 11

Who says that? I have never heard anyone making that claim.

Answer 12

Satan or Jesus pick one.