TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 7:22 pm
[W]hat does it mean other than 'any religion, but not No religion' ?
Let's look at some examples that have been offered up so far:
That article, in turn, quotes Rick Perry, the former Governor of Texas:
Boston wrote:
While signing legislation guaranteeing people’s right to say "Merry Christmas" (which is, in itself, an incredibly silly bill), Perry popped off, "I’m proud we are standing up for religious freedom in our state. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion."
This
Youtube video captures the same speech, or at least part of it. But, frankly, there's not a lot to go on here, as Perry doesn't expound on what he means.
We might note, however, that the legislation Perry was signing into law simply reinforced the right of students and educators to say "Merry Christmas," and so was not about imposing religious adherence on atheists.
Another example:
Joe Hotchkiss, "
Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion," from the
Augusta Chronicle (2012).
This is a more substantial argument. He is basically saying that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not require that all religious expression be excluded from the public square so that the nonreligious don't have to be exposed to religion, which seems to be what he means by "freedom from religion."
We might note here, too, that Hotchkiss explicitly says that it doesn't bother him that some people choose to be nonreligious. Much like the Texas example, this is not an argument about imposing religious adherence on atheists.
Okay, last example:
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 5:57 am
a jstor abstract, that referred to an idea (around 2004) that freedom of religion did not imply freedom From religion.
I suspect you mean this journal article: Gidon Sapir and Daniel Statman, "Why Freedom of Religion does not include Freedom from Religion,"
Law and Philosophy (2015) vol. 24 iss. 5, pgs. 467-508 (accessed from
JSTOR).
At over 40 pages, this is an even more substantial argument. It's far more theoretical than the Hotchkiss editorial, and is written from an Israeli perspective, but is, I think, broadly applicable to all liberal democracies.
The authors make the basic point that constitutional protections for specific groups of people don't inherently provide protections for people not in that group. For that reason, an atheist does not derive his right to not practice any religion from the constitutional protections for religious expression. Instead, his right to be nonreligious is derived from a broader right of conscience.
The authors expressly say that no one should be forced to adhere to a religion.
It seems, then, that none of these people are saying anything like "any religion, but not no religion."
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 7:22 pm
Oh - happy new year to all by the way
You too. Happy new year!