Welcome to Gaia! ::

Are these two connected, or different?

Freedom of religion, as we know, implies that one can worship whatever he wants, and not to suffer any consequences because of it (obviously, if laws regarding murder or rape are broke, then said person must be arrested). So far there is no problem with anyone.


However, when we enter freedom from religion, then we enter an iffy territory. Some people seem to believe that the two terms are connected, and the former implies the later (myself included). However, others seem to believe that the two terms are not connected in anyway.

Why is this relevant? Political decisions. People that advocate the idea that freedom of religion does not means freedom from religion, seem to believe that anyone from any religion can reach the high power of the governament, and make decisions purely based on it's laws. So, as an example, one would be a christian, yet live in a state where laws where based on the Wicca religion.

So, discuss:

Freedom from religion, a consequence of freedom of religion, or not?

People should be free to worship in whatever way they choose, but at the same time they should also be free not to worship if such is their choice.

Freedom of/from religion most often comes into the spotlight when it is connected to politics, because if the government as a whole acknowleges that a god exists, then it seems to neglect the position of athiests/agnostics. Phrases such as "under God" in the United States Pledge of Allegiance highlight this, as they cause people who have athiestic beliefs to on a daily basis profess the existance of a deity.

As far as separation of Church and State, the term is not official government doctrine; rather it comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. The only constitutional restriction on church and state is that "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or prohibitting the free exercise thereof." (double check on the exact quote, I'm a tired college student who is not yet fully caffienated, and I'm pulling quotes out of my arse right now)

Separation of Church and State, on the other hand, merely means that religious groups shall not hold political power.

And I suppose that that is enough of a random commentary on this topic for the moment.

Its an interesting topic to discuss for me, largely because of my own personal experience. I was once a very fundamentalist Catholic, but am now relatively agnostic/athiestic. I just no longer see a logical justification for the existence of a god in the traditional sense.

This stems largely from a philosophical question: does God love something because it is good, or is it good because God loves it? As I tend to believe in the former, that there is a notion of "good" which does not depend on the favor of any God, then any concept of a God must therefore be subservient to it. And if so, what power does such a god hold?

But I don't consider religon to be a bad thing, or something which people ought to be "freed" from. Instead I see it as being largely personal, and something which the State should not be a part of. The State should of course serve certain principles, such as justice, freedom, equality, and the like, but it should do so without recourse to religious ties. It should rather serve these values out of a respect for its constituents.

Freedom "from" religion would entail as much a discrimination toward those who have a religion as forcing a religion on those who do not hold such beliefs would be. Keeping religion entirely out of public places, by preventing students from praying, and the like, is discriminatory toward such religious groups. Such actions as the banning of Muslim head scarves in France demonstrate an intolerance for religion in general. It is not siding with a particular religion to allow religion to be practiced by citizens, nor is it forcing religion upon those who do not choose it.

Did I ever say that it was founded on Christianity? Or that holy wars were permissible?

Freedom of religion entails freedom from religion. You can not be free to worship as you please if you are being forced to worship a religion you do not believe in.

I am not free to be an orthodox kosher jew if I am required to eat bacon. I am not free to be a christian if I am forced to worship idols I do not believe in (which goes directly against my religion no less). I am not free to be a pagan if I am forced to daily recognize and salute the existence of a monothesitic judeo-christian God when I believe in many gods of which that is not one. I am not free to be an atheist and practice no religion at all if I am required to live by the doctrines of someone else's faith.

You can not worship your own religion and at the same time be forced to live by someone else's religion. Freedom to have and choose religion implies freedom from religions you choose not to have.

Those who discredit this and claim it is not implied tend to be those who are part of the majority religion, those who, because of their numbers, would not need to worry about other religions imposing on them. They are the ones who would be free from all other religions while imposing theirs on everyone else. When one is in the minority (or believes he or she is in the minority) he or she is more prone to claim "freedom from" is inherent in "freedom of."

This can be seen every time a Christian parent, part of the majority that tends to believe "freedom from" does not exist, who claims their child should not be indoctrinated with faiths not their own in the rare circumstances such things happen (evolution, though not religion, is a prime example of "freedom from, only so long as I want it" in action... because they would gladly impose their own beliefs of creationism where others would want "freedom from").

It's a confusion over the wording going on here.

PeerOrlando, Mere was simply stating the phrase "Seperation of Church and State" is not directly in the founding documents of the United States, Very specific but that's what it seems to be to me.

I don't know, Mere you should clarify, I understand your position on religion still so I very well know you don't advocate any policies, politics, or diplomatic acts based on religion.

Indeed, that statement which I made was for clarification's sake, not to support the mixture of religion and politics. In fact, I firmly oppose any juxtaposition of the two.

I was very tired at the time, I apologize for any confusion the wording may have caused.

I was merely clarifying that the term "separation of church and state" was not actually in the constitution, contrary to what many would believe. I've had countless people in real life tell me that it is, which can be a bit of a frustration.