Freedom of Religion or Freedom From Religion

[KSig RC]

I'm not going to quote the wall of text earlier, but the distinction between "Freedom of Religion" versus "Freedom from Religion" is as close to spurious as can be without going over (which is the Price is Right Corollary, of course).

The entire concept of "no state-sponsored religion, no state sponsoring of one religion over others" can be taken, at a high level, to exclude essentially any religion or religious action on the part of the state. Since it would be impossible to be all-inclusive, the state is de facto secular as a result. NOTE: this is in the ideal; keep that in mind as you read.

Of course, that does not exclude everything that could be construed as religious, as the change in your pocket would attest to, should it earn itself a brain and the ability to speak.

(Particularly if you want to consider "atheism" a religion in and of itself, you've just steamed a poop onto the distinction yourself - congrats!)

Also let's not compare nations that don't even operate under the same governing principles to the US situation - it's like saying that, although it was marred by things like the Black Sox in 1919, the World Series can be instructive on how to play contract bridge.

EDITED because holy crap there are a lot of i's in "religious"

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AnotherKD

But when you say "they" all the time, it's lumping every atheist into your same category, which isn't fair.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

So I fixed this for you. As I previously stated, a particular group of atheists MAY have a belief system, but saying ALL atheisism is a religion is stupid.

Exactly. Y'all said what I was trying to say, but you did it with way fewer words.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Ha. Just continuing the debate! It's kinda interesting.

It's all good.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Exactly. Y'all said what I was trying to say, but you did it with way fewer words.

It's all good.

Lol...may husband says we argue to same point all the time. We just don't always speak the same language.

[KDMafia]

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I think the argument for freedom from religion is the issue of making law respecting the establishment of religion. It has been interpreted that the United States can't endorse one religion over another and through issues related to only invoking one "god" and only using one religious symbolism there is an argument that I believe is valid.

Also, a belief system is not the same as a religion. We all have belief systems, but unless there is a specific dogma and unified rules it is not a religion. Therefore, just because athieists are vocal and may sue over their belief in how they view the constitution, that does not make them a religion any more than the NRA is a religion.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KDMafia

Also, a belief system is not the same as a religion. We all have belief systems, but unless there is a specific dogma and unified rules it is not a religion.

You clearly haven't interacted much with Unitarian Universalists.*


* "Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion that embraces theological diversity; we welcome different beliefs and affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person." www.uua.org



(Sorry, but I couldn't resist. )

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

You clearly haven't interacted much with Unitarian Universalists.*


* "Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion that embraces theological diversity; we welcome different beliefs and affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person." www.uua.org



(Sorry, but I couldn't resist. )

Yeah, they've always intrigued me. If people of all theological faiths get together, what do they talk about?

[SWTXBelle]

Atheists' lawsuit thrown out due to lack of standing:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...w/7673962.html


There's a great deal of debate related to the event. Apparently it was featured on a state website and official stationery was used for invitations - both of which can be construed as crossing the state/church line.

It's a fine line - Perry should be able to attend a religious event, but it shouldn't come across as being state-sponsored.

I loathe Rick Perry. His handling of the prayer event has been almost as heavy-fisted and bumbling as his handling of the governorship.

[SWTXBelle]

Oh, I'll back 100% the right of any military member NOT to have to attend any services. THAT is completely wrong if it happens.

I assume you are saying it is debatable because some have claimed to have been forced - link? I would hope that everyone could agree that forcing someone to attend a service would be exactly what the founding fathers had in mind with the concept of no government instituted religion.

[SWTXBelle]

Does the military not have non-religious counselors? They certainly should if they do not.

eta - found this: http://www.militaryatheists.org/chaplain.html

and this http://www.disinfo.com/2011/05/athei...ary-chaplains/

I'd like to see something a little less fuzzy than "Christian beliefs pervade military culture, creating subtle pressures on non-Christians to convert." Subtle? How subtle? 70% of the military is Christian, so it's not surprising that Christian beliefs "pervade" - of course, WHICH beliefs would be an important thing to know, and the form that pervading takes is important, too.

[Drolefille]

I have links, but I am out of town through Tuesday again, so if I have time not at a convention I'll update here.

I read a good book about the experiences of a now out former service member, and his experiences, along with those of the others he talks about in the book explain a lot.

[SWTXBelle]

Thanks, Drole - I am interested in knowing the exact situations and whether or not it is a case of undue pressure being put on a service man/woman (unacceptable) or another case of "I regard all expressions of Christianity (insert religion of your choice here) as being a personal affront", which is the philosophy I object to - I also want to know whether or not it is a case of a few anecdotal experiences or something more widespread and documented.

Let me be clear - I would not want any service personnel to feel obligated to have to participate in any religious services. I also do not want the government to deny those who serve the right to continue to maintain their religious observances if at all possible (I could imagine scenarios when that might conflict with military operations).

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Thanks, Drole - I am interested in knowing the exact situations and whether or not it is a case of undue pressure being put on a service man/woman (unacceptable) or another case of "I regard all expressions of Christianity (insert religion of your choice here) as being a personal affront", which is the philosophy I object to - I also want to know whether or not it is a case of a few anecdotal experiences or something more widespread and documented.

Let me be clear - I would not want any service personnel to feel obligated to have to participate in any religious services. I also do not want the government to deny those who serve the right to continue to maintain their religious observances if at all possible (I could imagine scenarios when that might conflict with military operations).

The accounts I've read include things like, the only way to not have duty/other obligations is to attend religious service, and your service is run by THE chaplain, not by the chaplain of the religion of your choice. There are other stories where it was very 'encouraged' to attend, even in the face of not technically being required or forced. If I can find the title of the books I've read I'll share as well. But for now, I'm back to the gaming con with the people dressed as comic book characters and steampunk awesomesauce

(Thanks for the patience on the sources)