Americans: do you really believe "Freedom of religion" excludes freedom from religion?

Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion. The freedom to leave or discontinue membership in a religion or religious group —in religious terms called "apostasy" —is also a fundamental part of religious freedom, covered by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (From Wiki)

Your brother is wrong.

Of course not, but I have found many Americans (and others) are confused about the freedom of religion clauses. No one has a "freedom of religion". It expresses a restriction on the government, not a right of the people. (Unlike express rights of speech and assembly.)

When interpreted, it shows an underlying "given" in the Constitution, that everyone has a right to believe whatever they want. Essentially, it exists unspoken, because how could "thought police" ever be considered a reality and be implemented? That would be insane.

Religion, in the sense of the first amendment, is directed at organized religion. It shows the government can't favor any one organization over another in this regard. Since the first amendment goes on, in one paragraph, to include the express rights of speech of assembly, we can then see what the authors meant.

If I want to get a bunch of people together that don't believe in god to talk about it, and we do so peacefully, it has just as much legal standing as a theistic organization.

My mother believes the same thing, darling...and considers atheism and "non-traditional" religions to be anti-American...and the political figures she follows reinforce that belief while hypocritically calling atheists "divisive" and "dangerous."

She continues to believe this, even though she has at least 3 atheist or non-traditionally-believing kids. She just ignores our atheism/pantheism/Wiccan beliefs and pretends to be surprised when we remind her that we're not Christian.

Statistics have shown that the majority of Americans think that atheists can't be trusted and don't want the same things that they do. Not only that - they would be more upset at the idea that their child was an atheist than they would be if their child was gay, would be more upset to have their child marry an atheist than a member of any other minority group, and would not vote for an otherwise qualified political candidate with whom they otherwise agreed if they found out that candidate was an atheist, so I think that means that yes, your brother is in the majority.

Pathetic, isn't it? Especially when you consider that the founders felt so strongly about freedom of and from religion that they made protection against establishment and for free exercise of religion the first two clauses of the Bill of Rights.

If freedom of religion does not include the freedom to have no religion, then it is not freedom of religion.

By your brother's argument does our freedom of speech mean that we have to talk all the time? Or does the freedom of speech include the right to remain silent if we want?

I suspect that your brother's definition of a 'true American" is someone as bigoted as he is.

To answer your first question, yes freedom of religion excludes freedom from religion. People have the right to express religion so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to life, liberty (which certainly includes their right to free expression of religion), or property.

To answer your other question, you have the freedom to believe or not to believe, but not the freedom to interfere with another's free exercise of religion or free exercise of no religion. We do not have the right to not be offended unless we make the personal decision not to be offended by anything whatsoever.

The First Amendment's clauses on religion are

that Government shall make no law preventing free practice of a religion (freedon "To")

or establishing a religion (freedom "FROM")

Those people who think otherwise are misinformed

Those politicians who say otherwise are generaly just pandering

"Is he part of the majority?"

If he was, 'the majority' would be either ignorant or liars.

Believing in God is not a requirement to be American. Anyone can use wordplay and say 'you're not a true this or that', but I'm afraid, that anyone who is an American citizen IS AN AMERICAN.

There are really 2 issues here:

1 - The 14th amendment spells out the criteria for citizenship:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Read through that as many times as you want: under the only criteria for "true" Americanism, atheists are citizens.

2 - The Supreme Court is the only body in the land qualified to interpret how laws are applied. This is based in Articles III and VI in the Constitution. In Everson v Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black penned this majority opinion:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"

Again, read carefully: the U.S. policy is that religion is not to be favored over non-religion.

---------

The key here is that your brother is not defining what a "true" American is, how he derived that definition, or how he knows it to be true. He's defining the word "American" to include religiosity without any justification for why that must be.

Now, there is a cultural current that, unfortunately, sees religiosity as part of the American social identity. A study by the University of Minnesota published in the American Sociological Review explains that atheists are essentially the new marginalized group, in the same way that various ethnic groups were marginalized in the past. The full article, along with its complete data sets and calculations, can be found here:

http://www.soc.umn.edu/~hartmann/files/atheist%20a...

I always find this bit of the conclusion of the article to be somewhat illuminating:

"It is about an understanding that Americans share something more than rules and procedures, but rather that our understandings of right and wrong and good citizenship are also shared (Hartmann and Gerteis 2005). To be an atheist in such an environment is not to be one more religious minority among many in a strongly pluralist society. Rather, Americans construct the atheist as the symbolic representation of one who rejects the basis for moral solidarity and cultural membership in American society altogether. Over our history, other groups have, perhaps, been subject to similar moral concerns. Catholics, Jews, and communists all have been figures against which the moral contours of American culture and citizenship have been imagined. We suggest that today, the figure of the atheist plays this role—although we emphasize that this is for contingent historical and institutional reasons, and we also emphasize that this is the case regardless of the morality and patriotism of actual atheists."

--------

If you're brother is going to stick to this, ask him to contact me about paying my taxes sometime. After all, people who aren't Americans aren't subject to income tax, but the IRS seems quite certain that a portion of my paycheck always belongs to them. If he has a shred of integrity, he'll pull out his checkbook.

hey,

LOL that's a joke! No, everyone has a CHOICE to a religion or no religion, a religion can't be "truly" forced onto someone, because then people would hypocritically believe.

Everyone has the right to believe what there brains want them to...and what makes sense and the truth to them!

1) Americans: do you really believe "Freedom of religion" excludes freedom from religion?

No. One can - in America - if he or she has the necessary means live in a situation in which he or she is free from religion. However, logically the guarantee of freedom of religion excludes a **guarantee** of freedom from religion.

The two **guarantees** are - logically - mutually exclusive.

Your example is not really relevant to the question. Your brother - supposedly believes in freedom of religion with the specific exclusion of atheism. Atheism **is** a religious belief ("I believe there is no such thing as God"), and your brother supposedly does not want Americans to have the freedom to have that particular religious belief.

- Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/