Freedom of Religion or Freedom from Religion? 32 replies

Please wait...

Snake Morrison

There will be death.

50 XP

21st November 2004

0 Uploads

743 Posts

0 Threads

#1 11 years ago

The question posed in the thread title is directed towards what is happening in the United States as well as across the world in many nations. Crosses are being removed from county seals (Los Angeles), the Pledge of Allegiance has been investigated as to whether or not it is unconstitutional in an odd paradox, and in general, any reference to religion is often suppressed. This is being done in an attempt to preserve freedom of religion.

The question I pose is whether we are moving towards freedom of religion or if we are actually moving to freedom from religion. Separation of the church and the state is necessary in any society to some degree, but the original idea of this separation was only intended to ensure that a church did not take full governmental control. This is desirable; I have no problems with this part.

But how does the removal of symbols and ideals honor this separation at all? How does it promote freedom of religion? Do these symbols honestly keep anyone else from believing what they want? Does the pledge, which is free to be said with or without words being left out by anyone, actually change anyone's mind forcefully?

Destroying these things across the world does not benefit a freedom of religion; instead, it just promotes (forced) freedom from religion.




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#2 11 years ago

This movement is no different than any other form of religious persecution. In the past, Catholics persecuted Protestants, Protestants persecuted Baptists... and now atheists are persecuting religious people. There's always some form of persecution going on.




Primarch Vulkan VIP Member

For the Emperor! Knights of Caliban!

154,320 XP

16th March 2004

0 Uploads

13,497 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago

Well in some cases taking down the cross is a bad idea but in other it's also good too, the cross does repersent death after all, but people who are well versed in history (Roman history that its) or could just be simply a persection as machiavelli pointed out. Some could even say Athesit influnce has made it also happen too.


[color=#000000][size=2][b][i]Heralds of the coming doom, Like the cry of the Raven, we are drawn, This oath of war and vengeance, On a blade of exalted iron sworn, With blood anointed swords



-DarthMaul-

I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)

50 XP

11th February 2003

0 Uploads

5,051 Posts

0 Threads

#4 11 years ago

I agree its stupid, freedom of religion and speeration of state were only made and enforced so that a situation with the pope controlling all of europe and delcaring blasphemy to scientists, would not happen in the country..taking crosses down and taking god out is just fuckin stupid. if they dont like it, get the hell outa the country.(since they seem to be telling others to get out, im using the same excuse..)




Blank Stare

AE

50 XP

24th July 2004

0 Uploads

4,323 Posts

0 Threads

#5 11 years ago

I am an atheist, and I think it's absolutly retarded. By labelling it unconstitutional to put a cross up, you are being unconstitutional.




Dot Com

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

26th June 2000

0 Uploads

6,116 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago
Machiavelli's Apprentice;3388489 now atheists are persecuting religious people

That is pretty much a blanket statement. I have a few athiest friends myself and they don't push for a bar on Christianity or Christian symbols. They respect different types of religion too unlike some Christian folk.




Ryette

suburban baroness of bud

50 XP

19th April 2005

0 Uploads

1,887 Posts

0 Threads

#7 11 years ago

Ugh, I hate this, it's ridiculous. I'm not religious at all, but really... what's the point? Yes, the constitution does grant freedom of religion. That means people are allowed to practice their religion as they see fit. You don't have to have anything to do with it.

The pledge of allegience? Don't say "under god" if you don't like it. There's no reason to change.

Crosses? It's just a symbol. You don't have to read into it any further than that.

I'm tired of all those oversensitive dicks who are using excuses to hide a person's faith. The hypocricy in all of that is, they only use a strict interpretation of the Constitution when it benefits them, but when the tables are turned, they whine.




EON_MagicMan

Lumpy

50 XP

27th September 2005

0 Uploads

1,042 Posts

0 Threads

#8 11 years ago

The reason I think this is stupid is that it's going out of the way to change something so trivial, and in many cases, even historical. Still, I would hardly call this persecution. It's just a move towards total secularity, which I value and consider important in government. There's no reason you can't have freedom of religion and freedom from religion at the same time. It's not an either/or kind of thing.




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#9 11 years ago
That is pretty much a blanket statement. I have a few athiest friends myself and they don't push for a bar on Christianity or Christian symbols. They respect different types of religion too unlike some Christian folk.

Anymore than all Christians participated in the Inquisition - but that didn't mean it wasn't happening.




Aeroflot

I would die without GF

169,400 XP

2nd May 2003

0 Uploads

15,205 Posts

0 Threads

#10 11 years ago

I believe in freedom of religion and freedom from religion. People can believe what they want, but I wish they would do so in relative privacy... just like I don't wish to see gay men making out in public.

We have to look at this from a freedom from religion point of view. Ok, we all went to public school (for those who went to private schools: ya'll are wusses) and said the Pledge of Allegiance (for those who don't live in the US: sucks to be you). Remember the part in the Pledge where you said "One Nation, under God"? What so would happen if that was just changed to "One Nation, under Allah" just because some Muslim group wanted it so?

Where would you stand in this case? I have to be honest right now: I would be pissed. Even though I'm not religious, I seem to have some sort of de facto relationship with the Christian God. To be fair, I'd rather abolish the Pledge alltogether. I don't mind "Under God" in the Pledge, but a god which is foreign to me won't do for me. So, I'd abolish the Pledge, because I believe in freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

I don't mean to get at Muslims; I was just giving an example.