that the Bill of Rights contains a Freedom from Religion? "There can be no religious freedom without the freedom to dissent." Anne Gaylor

>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof<

There are two clauses in that excerpt from the 1st Amendment. The first -- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" -- is called the establishment clause. It says the government cant impose a particular religion on the people. By extension, they can't impose ANY religion. That means we are free to have no religious beliefs.

The second clause is the "free exercise" clause. If we are free to exercise any religion we want, then, by extension, we are free to choose religions that believe less and less and less until there is nothing left to believe.


The 1st Amendment also says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." That would include criticism of religion. Unfortunately, it would also include proselytizing and other intrusive religious practices. So we are not guaranteed freedom from religious people getting in our faces.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2012 09:42AM by Stray Mutt.

In an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists Association, Jefferson coined the phrase "wall of seperation between church and state." in his remarks concerning the First Amendment.

In addition to what you just explained, Stray Mutt, the First Amendment is designed to keep government out of religious affairs and religion out of government affairs. It also takes away any entitlements religion might think it has over the general population.

In denying mormonism its polygamous desires, for example, the government is not "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Instead, government is upholding the establishment clause. Were the government to allow mormons to practice polygamy while denying others the same liberty, the government would be guilty of First Amendment violation. The same holds true if government allowed the general populace to practice polygamy but denied mormons the same freedom. Since government does not allow anyone to engage in said practice the law is just.

Mighty fine thinkin' by them Founding Father fellers ifin ya axe me!

Historically speaking, religion has been and still is notorious for over-stepping its bounds. That's where the free speech and press stuff comes into play. Those who exercise such liberties have a responsibility to be accurate. Nevertheless, it is always right to expose abuses. Thanks to the First Amendment, even the most sacred institutions are not immune.

In short, we are all free to believe or not so long as we stay within the limits of the law.

Timothy



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2012 10:29AM by Timothy.

This is the point in your post I was struggling with:

"In denying mormonism its polygamous desires, for example, the government is not 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Instead, government is upholding the establishment clause."

I questioned this idea, that disallowing polygamy was upholding the establishment clause. Surely groups can practice whatever marital arrangements they want. The denial of polygamy seemed a cultural bias against one particular practice more than the avoidance of one religion for all people set down by the government.

"Were the government to allow mormons to practice polygamy while denying others the same liberty, the government would be guilty of First Amendment violation. The same holds true if government allowed the general populace to practice polygamy but denied mormons the same freedom. Since government does not allow anyone to engage in said practice the law is just."

This last point helps me with this idea that government had to deny polygamy to Mormons in order for the government to be consistent with the establishment clause. I'm having a problem generalizing this though: If some religious group wants to use psilcybin mushrooms, even though these things are outlawed to the rest of the populace, apparently that religious group can get an exemption under the Constitution, according to the Supreme Court. I think in that case the standing of Native Americans who get that exemption is different from the standing of Mormons, who still come under the full jurisdiction of the US government.

I guess I'm still wondering about this point though and hoping someone will develop it: How is it exactly that one group's religious practice is denied on the grounds of the establishment clause when one suspects that there are practices, every bit as peculiar or culturally distasteful, that would be allowed based on the establishment clause?

"Freedom of religion" seems to be the rallying cry of every nut who wants to douse flowers in gasoline and light them in ceremonial swastika patterns, or who wants to live on a polygamous compound--such groups do exist--or who wants to smoke marijuana for religious purposes or who wants to forego medical treatment for religious reasons.

The line seems to be whether something is the law of the land or not. If the proposed religious practice is against the law of the land, then that practice is not protected, typically. But is the establishment clause used to deny illegal religious practices or are they just against the law?

Were it not for the establishment clause, free exercise thereof would grant everyone a free pass to do anything illegal so long as it was done in the name of religion.

"Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion"

Magistrate: "You are charged with speeding through a school zone. How do you plead?"

Defendant "Well, your honor, its a major tenet of my religion to speed through school zones whenever the opportunity presents itself."

Magistrate: "Oh, sorry for the inconvenience **BOOM** CASE DISMISSED!"

As much as religion wants things to work that way it ain't gonna happen.

Without the establishment clause, government would have no choice but to allow mormons to practice polygamy. Its the establishment clause that grants government the power to regulate religion when it gets out of hand.

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2012 01:14PM by Timothy.

just had to issue a Fatwa that says that the Muslims under his 'control' had to start obeying the speed limit laws because they would say: " well if Allah is going to take me he will..and if not he will protect me."or some such tripe...here is link:
http://www.abigmessage.com/fatwa-from-dubai-says-that-breaking-traffic-laws-is-not-islamic.html

a little excerpt:
"A survey done in 2008 of 260 traffic policemen found that 92% believed that the most likely causal factor for deaths due to motor vehicle crash injuries was destiny.

OY VAY!!!

+1! LOL! Best post of the year!

Why can't you break someone else's nose but may break your own at your pleasure.

you're right. Just against the law.

It has nothing to do with the establishment clause giving government authority to regulate religion. It's the opposite. Government can, typically, pass laws that happen to impact a certain groups religious beliefs without the law being being considered a violation of the establishment clause.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2012 12:14AM by thingsithink.

They didn't coin the phrase although they used it. Even if they did it is not as powerful coming from known deists. Roger Williams coined the phrase, one of the founders of the Baptist church in America, an abolitionist and and an all round amazing religious figure.

Not that it really matters but originally the establishment clause was fought for by religion itself.

http://www.wallofseparation.us/the-origins-of-wall-of-separation/

In the words of the late, great Johnny Carson "I did not know that! ... That's weird. wild stuff!"

Timothy

you are much more likely to have the free practice of both. When you intertwine them... not so much.

...claim church-state separation is a myth. Of course they would say that, because they want to use the government to enforce their religious agenda.

I particularly enjoyed the OP's quote from Anne Gaylor. How is it possible to have freedom of any kind without dissent?

I'm just amazed at how so few words can have so much meaning.

Free exercise does, in fact, cover no exercise at all. More importantly, however, is the guaranteed liberty to freely speak out for or against whatever's on your mind.

That said, I'm compelled to remind that being an atheist in this country is like being an Exmo in Utah. Its not that I've betrayed or otherwise hurt anyone. It's just that I no longer buy into the fantasy.

Is that so wrong?

Timothy

Only if you are trying to force it on others against their will.

Other than that, un-believe away!

It's just that I no longer buy into the fantasy.

Is that so wrong?

what is wrong is that you believe in G.I.Joe but not G.I. Jane...or do you?? :)

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2278897263999&set=o.172946062791143&type=1&theater

Demi Moore she ain't, but 'nuff said!

Timothy

Wow! Thank you, Stray Mutt!

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/isamericaachristiannation.html

Not exactly. The point is, I think, experience shows that we are never "free from religion" as it's part of the majority of the people's belief system to some degree.

We can argue and discuss whether we are a Christian Nation of not. Makes no real difference which side we take. Each side is convinced they are the correct one anyhow! :-)

We are certainly filled with religious influences from our money to the thousands of other influences in how people live and speak and conduct their lives.

So, we can take it or leave it. Why cause divides? Why not just respect and honor differences and stop being Right Fighters!

... help draft the document in question.

Might not have those liberties you claim to cherish.

Timothy

One of the biggest debates going on in this country in many ways hinges on the question of freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

The gay rights battle have people trying to use the bible as a reason to pass laws, courts are striking down laws that encroach on gay rights because there is no secular reason to justify having them, there is only religions reasons and that isn't good enough. As strange as it sounds, in many ways the gay rights battle is not about gay rights, it is about freedom from religion.

At a time when the issue of freedom from religion is being tested on the national stage, to try to say not to discuss it is to invite the sort of ignorance that will cause loss of the right.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2012 12:39AM by MJ.

The idea of freedom of and from relegion and true seporateion of church and state would alow everyone to see everyones diffrenes but not feel forced to have to live them. Like the god refrences on the bledge of alegance and on your money. Without that christian relegion may feel trapped but the right to beleve means time will be taken for any relegion to speak. Imagine a time when in a cort of law a person puts thair hand on thair own choice of relgions book.

If you don't want to, then don't. If you don't want others to do it either, I say mind your own business.

I agree with Tim's take on this. As a US citizen, the Constitution concedes to me the right to not pretend to believe in and serve any higher being. If we had the opportunity to ask one of those founding fathers, I think they look at as with that "Are you nuts?" look, then say of course there is freedom from religion too. Religion of any kind cannot be forced upon citizens, like it was in England. We do not have to get married in a church or have a marriage officiated by clergy to make our marriages legal. That there's an example of freedom from religion.

Experience shows we are always free from religion. We're not free from nutjobs spewing nonsense though.

The "majority of peoples' belief systems" will be "none" within my lifetime. Thankfully.

//Not exactly. The point is, I think, experience shows that we are never "free from religion" as it's part of the majority of the people's belief system to some degree.//

We have a right in this country to be free from having to participate in a religion and/or believe in a(some) deity(s). You have rephrased the original argument according to different standards, which is the Strawman logical fallacy.

//We can argue and discuss whether we are a Christian Nation of not. Makes no real difference which side we take. Each side is convinced they are the correct one anyhow! :-)//

We do not live in a country that is governed by a Christian theocracy, no. Nor is it Constitutional (by our Constitution) to impose laws based on Christianity or any other religion. Beyond that, you're right -- who cares?

//We are certainly filled with religious influences from our money to the thousands of other influences in how people live and speak and conduct their lives.//

Hopefully those influences will begin to fade. They haven't done us any good as a country.

//So, we can take it or leave it. Why cause divides? Why not just respect and honor differences and stop being Right Fighters!//

Because some religious people are attempting to limit the lives and choices of those who do not believe as they do through quasi-legal means. As a person of conscience I cannot sit back and pretend that's okay. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. I will not help evil to triumph although you are, of course, free to live as you choose.

Yes Suzie Q, the Bill of Rights and the Establishment Clause prevents religious freaks from using government to be its "Right Fighter." They can scream and howl to their heart's delight, but it's under the scornful eye of the founder's who had the foresight to put a constitutional impediment to their delusional conformity-driven rants.

You can only be free to practice your religious beliefs if you are free from having other religious beliefs imposed on you.

If the US government were in the business of legitimizing religion it would reduce our ability to exercise to that which has been legitimized.

Churches flourish in the U.S. because the U.S. does not have a state church. Churches are free to compete and people are free to choose whichever one suites them. This increases the religious intensity here.

On the other hand, some countries in Europe have an official churches supported by state taxes, and the governments discourage non-state churches. As a result the state church is lazy, not having any competition, and the population, not having many choices doesn't feel much religious interest.

An irony here may be that if atheists want to succeed in making the U.S. less religious, they should establish the support of a state church :p



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2012 12:37AM by robertb.