Does freedom of religion include freedom FROM religion?

Religion is suppose to be in the heart.

 

That's a fair enough question. I can see valid reasons for both sides of the argument, but I'd say that the right of the council to say the prayer trumps the supposed agony of you having to sit through it.

In addition, I don't think a city council opening prayer rises to the level of a federal "establishment" of religion.

 

More likely to argue that, than what...? Because, you know, I have literally never heard anyone suggest that. And I live in a country where "no religion" is the leading religious position.

No, there isn't, you're quite right. I think when people say that, they are failing to properly articulate what they really mean, which is "I have the right not to be forced into doing something religious." Like sitting in a creationism class, or saying a prayer before something, or swearing on God in court.

Maybe where you live. Round here, if its clear you are not granted permission to be on my property, then you are trespassing.

 

Anyone who would demand that the "State" force his metaphysical notions upon everyone else needs to have someone else's metaphysical notions forced upon him.

That empathetic lesson would inculcate an egalitarian, moral principle: Do unto others ...



.

 

But, it hasn't been working, Natty.

 

And government keeping it's nose out of it and giving to respect to matters of religious faith. It doesn't just say everyone is free to engage in religion as they see fit but that government shall have no part in it.

 

Yes that would be government giving respect to a religious view and engaging in religious ceremony also giving respect to it. Individuals are free to do so on their own dime and their own time. That would include the other members of the city council who could privately pray at home or out in their car or even in their private office before the meeting started. For it to be a part of the official meeting violates the Constitution.

 

It works only where it is practiced.

 

It doesn't have to be federal. 14th amendment has incorporated the 1st. States and locals have to abide by it as well. Using public authority while speaking from the public pulpit to push a private religious view IS a violation. To be clear: City council members while not wearing their city council member hats and sitting at the table heading up a meeting, can pray to cthulu for all I care. Once they put on the hat they're supposed to be impartial and acting as an arm of the government.

 

But only one side can win. And It should be my side. Public schools and government should be entirely religious neutral. They should give absolutley no time or effort into supporting any religious cause.

 

Possibly. But if they also refuse people of other faiths from putting forth an opening prayer, it should be condemned. And this happens quite frequently as well. At that point, the government , even if only at a local level, is clearly pushing one religion over others. They have no buisness or right to do that. Wouldnt you agree?

 

That would fall under Separation of Church and State.

 

Not fighting the fight until one is prepared is the best for both sides of the debate. If ID* does not have a good standard theory it will be ripped to shreds in public forums and opinion, so we lose.

* (the name creationism is not PC, or if one does use creationism it should be quantified ie progressive creation etc)

Anyway while I would rather wait for ID to developed a standard theory that most non highly educate religious proponents as well as PhDs can agree with and one that will pass peer review would be wonderful. However even before a theory is developed I think that when teaching evolution the teacher would be required to admit there are competing ideas so the students will know its ok to choose what to believe even if they must pass evolution 101. Of course I do not take all evolutions claims to be true, its simply not the best most complete theory. Nor is abiogenists which isn’t much better than the thousand year old Greek ‘theory’ of spontaneous generation. I agree that evolution does occur at a 'local level'. However please do not ask me to claim that its possible given the time at hand for animals to change kingdoms etc. Its an untenable position for a variety of reasons.


reva

 

When in Rome...........I am a Deist but I have no issues sitting through any prayers at family or friends gatherings. I even went back to church for a Christmas service a few years back which was the first time I attended church in over 10 years. I find it boring and all but it didn't harm me in anyway. If I visited Japan I would expect to have to sit through some Shinto or Buddhist prayers or some Islamic prayers if I was in the ME.

 

Your OP question is overly broad and a false choice.

No you are not "free" from being exposed to religion. The First Amendment is a constraint on government. It is not a constraint on individuals from freely exercising their religion in a manner that might make you aware of their mere existence.

 

Religion has caused more conflict and death than any other cause and continues to do so today.

I was raised as a Christian but I am now an Atheist. When you die, the lights go out. End of story.

 

Hmm... I wonder how many of those who support prayer in school and the Ten Commandments in courtrooms would be as supportive to praying toward Mecca in class or having verses from the Quran in courtrooms?

 

In philosophy or history class? Mention away. In science class? Not until you have a scientific theory with supporting evidence.
I'm a Christian. Doesn't mean I disregard scientific evidence or try to teach philosophy as science. It drives people away because they feel that you are either lying or stupid.

 

If atheism is a form of belief then such a notion can be realized.

 

And those are on your own dime and your own time. No government involvement.

 

That's the attitude! I have no problem with interacting with the religious, on the contrary I get butterflies in the stomach when we can agree and work together.

I'm accustomed to keeping my beliefs to myself anyway - it's not worth the fight. That's what PF is for

 

'Freedom from' having religion imposed on you, or being forced to worship or follow any religion, yes it does.

'Freedom from' seeing religion around you in society, and having to allow for and being tolerant/understanding about the beliefs/opinions of others, no it doesn't.

In the case of creationism in schools, that parents should certainly be free from having religious ideas imposed on their children and having them forced to accept things like creationism as religious 'truth' without other alternative ideas being taught to them. On the other hand, it certainly does not mean that they shouldn't be educated about ideas of religious theory (alongside 'scientific' theories and theories from other religions) so that they can, as they mature, make up their own mind and choose their own path and opinions/beliefs (and so that they have a level of understanding of other people's beliefs so that they can, in turn, be tolerant and understanding about them).

 

By "they" I assume you are referring to fellow councilmen who happen to be Christian? If they want to pray before a meeting, how does that infringe on your rights? They aren't making you pray. There is no government sponsored compulsion to pray. If you and any other agnostic councilmen decided to send out a Voyager-I Golden Record type prayer to any deity that may or may not exist, that wouldn't infringe on the rights of the other councilmen. They may think it silly, as you may likewise consider their prayer to be, but nobody's rights are being trampled on by you engaging in that activity.

Personally, I'm a Christian but the type of overt and flowery prayers that generally take place in public meetings like you describe is usually more about the people around them and putting up airs than it is about a higher power. That is counter to what I believe Christianity to be about. So you could say that the action that you describe is counter to my religious beliefs, but I don't feel like I've had my rights infringed upon by others engaging in that action. They aren't forcing anything on me. They are engaging in action on their own that does not harm me.

 

No, but it should

 

An individual certainly. That is free speech and freedom of religion. BUT. Once government gets involved, such as enforcing christian only prayer in government meetings. Or trying to enforce christian only prayer in schools. Then I believe that it goes to far.