Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Freedom from religion
In my discussions with theists, including my family, I’ve often heard them say, “It’s freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.” I always thought the notion quite offensive. I presumed that they meant that the constitution implied that I could choose any god I wanted as long as I chose a god. I got to thinking recently that both sides may be looking at this incorrectly.
I think that the theists have a serious misconception which drives them to make the errant statement. The misconception is that we want to push our godlessness onto them and remove god from everything. I think, or at least I hope that they realize that on an intellectual level the freedom of religion includes the freedom to choose not to have one. What they think they’re addressing by saying that it’s not freedom from religion is that they should still be able to express themselves religiously. I have no interest in squelching the religious folks freedom of speech.
This issue comes to a head though in America’s public institutions. There is where it’s inappropriate to push theism of any kind as a matter of policy. Asking that there not be state sanctioned prayer in school, getting god off of our money and taking “under God” out of pledge all fall under state sanctioned religion. Any of these alienate atheists in an unconstitutional manner.
We don’t want the religious to stop wearing their crosses or take off their magic underwear. We don’t care if you pray in public. If you want your children to pray in school, tell them to. Just don’t ask our collective government to sanction it. A government by the people is by ALL of the people that it’s supposed to represent, not just the religious.
So in conclusion, on one hand the theists are right. We atheists don’t have the right to freedom from the public expression of religion. We do though, have the right to have our needs and rights represented by our government and the right to choose not to believe in or worship a god.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Logical Solution
Atheists frequently become enraged when Atheism is called a belief or *gasp* religion.
Theists refuse to think of in that light when a US constitutional discussion arises, however.
A simple solution, and one which Theists will probably object to on its face, is to reexamine how we define 'religion' and 'church'.
Religion (and church, when used to refer to same) should be considered an organized or otherwise recognized opinion/belief system regarding divinities, spirituality, and the here-after. An opinion of 'none of it exists' is then a valid opinion by that definition, and would therefore become an EXPRESSLY constitutionally protected position, and not simply an implicitly protected position, as it is currently.
I am sure a good constitutional lawyer could reformat this into a legally sound brief, as opposed to my semi-literate rambling, but I believe that extending the definition of religion is going to be far simpler and more direct than attempting to win the 'freedom of v freedom from' debate.
I covered this elsewhere.
I covered this elsewhere. Basically, my take is that under the US Constitution, you're free from having the other guy impose his religion on you. By definition, that's freedom of religion.
Freedom from religion
Yea....
Some of them are probably thinking that, "Hey, I feel obliged to give money/time etc. to my church/synagogue/whatever.. why do atheists get to get off scot-free?"
Isn't it a boring thing that you feel you must do to be like everyone else? Atheists are just somehow 'cheating.'
It is just no fair that christians have to go to church and listen to the gawd-awful-boring minister tell them what to think about crap that they mostly don't care about. Then, to add insult to injury, they have to pay for that priviledge, while atheists don't... and atheists don't even feel the least bit guilty about it, unlike backsliding christians.
Guts not God
As formerly good English subjects, newly victorious Americans had also thrown off a state church, the Church of England. In the Mother Country of 1786 a nonconformist (not a confessing Anglican) could not become a physician, attorney at law, an officer in HM forces on land or sea, could not attend either Cambridge or Oxford.
Americans were not about to tolerate a repeat performance. The issues were meat-and-potatoes: who eats well, procreates, educates the kids, rises in social standing. Real issues -- not how to communicate with some Being, either theistic or deistic. As Marvin Harris would put it -- we're always talking about "cultural materialism." The race to death of food production and reproduction. Guts lead God by the nose every time.
Amendment 1 protects what used to be called "freedom of conscience." The right of every man (not slave, not female, not propertyless) to freely choose how to conduct his religious life. "Freedom of conscience" provides cover for the atheist, agnostic, deist, and an overwhelming population of the blessedly indifferent.
In what we now call the popular culture, atheism has always been socially unacceptable as Tom Paine quickly found out way back in 1794. Agnosticism as a separate attitude towards established religion didn't even exist until the concept and word were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1895! Deism, then as now, was a safe option.
U.S. courts have consistently held that the 'God' in whom we profess trust on bills and coins refers to a traditional, non-denominational, cross-faith Being. You won't see 'In God we trust' removed any time soon, especially just to please an unorganized mass of "godless atheists."
copyright asserted 2007
freedom from religion = freedom from law
At least, so some people believe. Of course, these are also the people who insist all laws came from God. As such I'm not so sure that what they really fear is that their religion will be taken from them. With some of them I'm pretty sure what they're saying is that you're not free to ignore rules stated within their religion. These ones, of course, can infect the others.
There's another thing though, if they were in the position they percieve us to be in (that of powerful enough to make laws reguardless of whether or not the general populous wants the laws) they would try to outlaw the practice of other religious beliefs. I think they are projecting that aspect of the Christian mission onto us (well, they say people hate those that most represent what they hate about themselves).
Freedom of religion = Freedom from religion
My take on this, for what it's worth, is that "freedom of religion" and "freedom from religion" are one and the same. This is because there is no such as "religion" - only religionS, plural. Even if the US population were 100% christian, there would always be disputes and power grabs between different sects and denominations. Freedom of religion means, among other things, freedom to practice a specific religion with a specific set of beliefs and rituals - and this necessary precludes having another religion shoved down your throat by the coercive power of the state. I.e. freedom of one religion means freedom from all others. Freedom from religion is not just for atheists, it protects everyone!
- No More Mr. Nice Guy!
Nice
A very good point. That's, what I think, the spirit of the amendment is meant to address in the first place. It protects our freedom to choose.