Freedom FROM or OF religion

[nobspeople]

Thanks to TRANSPONDER for the suggestion of starting another thread.

'Freedom of religion does not mean freedom From religion'

Is this true? If true, should it be? If it's not, why isn't it true?
For discussion:
Should those that choose NOT to participate in religion be forced to live by the rules of one certain religion?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to historia in post #17]

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

This is another expression used in denial of church-state separation. When there's talk of religious "expression" in "the public square", the real issue is often religious displays on government property, which implies government favor toward a particular belief.

Did you read the article that I was summarizing there? None of the examples he gave were about religious displays.

I was merely pointing out that it goes beyond the way it's often described.

[TRANSPONDER]

[T]hat referred to an idea (around 2004) that freedom of religion did not imply freedom From religion. Thus it was a known thing with a very specific meaning and I suspect that since atheism obtained equal rights in Law, that saying has vanished as it is really no longer acceptable in Law.

What legislation or court rulings between 2004 and today in the United States (or even elsewhere in the English-speaking world) allowed "atheism to obtain equal rights in Law."

It appears to be this

Second, the Supreme Court has held the Free Exercise Clause to mean that government may not express a preference for “religion over irreligion.”2 In 2005, Justice O’Connor, concurring with the majority’s conclusions in McCreary County v. ACLU, was more explicit:

“The Religion Clauses . . . protect adherents of all religions, as well as those who believe in no religion at all.”3" (American Atheists)

[historia]

[T]hat referred to an idea (around 2004) that freedom of religion did not imply freedom From religion. Thus it was a known thing with a very specific meaning and I suspect that since atheism obtained equal rights in Law, that saying has vanished as it is really no longer acceptable in Law.

What legislation or court rulings between 2004 and today in the United States (or even elsewhere in the English-speaking world) allowed "atheism to obtain equal rights in Law."

It appears to be this

Second, the Supreme Court has held the Free Exercise Clause to mean that government may not express a preference for “religion over irreligion.”2 In 2005, Justice O’Connor, concurring with the majority’s conclusions in McCreary County v. ACLU, was more explicit:

“The Religion Clauses . . . protect adherents of all religions, as well as those who believe in no religion at all.”3" (American Atheists)

You might want to read the very next paragraph from that American Atheist's article:

The statements in McCreary County were not the first time the Supreme Court had noted the First Amendment’s protections extend to atheists. In 1961, the Court referred to "Secular Humanism" as a form of atheism that is nonetheless protected by the First Amendment. In yet another decision [in 1985], the Court "unambiguously concluded" that the First Amendment requires "equal respect for the conscience of the infidel [and] the atheist" as it does to those who profess belief in God.

In other words, there was no legislation or court decision in the United States between 2004 and today that meaningfully changed the law regarding the rights of atheists, as their right to not practice religion was already well established long before then.

[TRANSPONDER]

Very good. I shall have to look into that, as I am sure around the early years of the 21st atheism was celebrating that they now had the same rights in Law as Christianity. Maybe a particular case referred back to the legislation you mentioned. After all the Dover case only built on the Lemon ruling, but it was a significant court decision in itself.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. I did see a headline about a bill protecting the freedom of atheists signed by Obama, but I couldn't access it as one of those damn' pop -ups appeared saying 'we value your privacy -that's why we want your permission to invade it with our blasted cookies'. Perhaps someone knows more about that.

[TRANSPONDER]

Here y' go:

"..update to U.S. law protecting religious freedom late last week, one provision drew special attention: U.S. law now recognizes non-believers as, in essence, a religious group.

Obama's signing of amendments to the International Religious Freedom Act on Friday wasn't widely noticed — except among the community of atheists, agnostics and others who categorize themselves as "humanists."

For the first time, the law — which was originally passed in 1998 — specifies that "the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion is understood to protect theistic and non-theistic beliefs and the right not to profess or practice any religion."

This is what it was all about. The First amendment effectively guarantees freedom of religion, but not No religion. Obama's bill extended that right equally to atheists. That is when the right to Freedom of religion became extended to the right to Freedom FROM religion.

[historia]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #26]

I have to give you an 'A' for effort here, TRANSPONDER. Rarely have I seen someone work so hard trying to salvage an argument so totally wrong.

The First amendment effectively guarantees freedom of religion, but not No religion. Obama's bill extended that right equally to atheists. That is when the right to Freedom of religion became extended to the right to Freedom FROM religion.

What you missed here is that the International Religious Freedom Act -- as it's name suggests -- is not about the religious freedom of American citizens. Rather, it concerns U.S. foreign policy in advocating for the religious freedom of people in other countries.

As the American Atheist article you cited above already pointed out, the Supreme Court ruled as early as the 1960s -- and definitely by the 1980s -- that the First Amendment already guarantees the right of atheists not to practice any religion. No legislation in the 2000s made any meaningful change to that.

[TRANSPONDER]

I have to disagree. The extract I posted makes it clear that though -as you say - it was based on the first amendment which mentioned the rights of religion and the religions, the Obama bill rextended or at least pointed out that it extended to those who were not religious. I recalled there was a was a lot of celebration (in atheism) at the time and Theists claiming that it proved that atheism was a religion and we had to argue that it merely gave atheism the same rights. There was surely a change or at least a legal clarification or why the need for a bill to be signed? Why the need for atheists to make a big deal about it if it changed nothing? I recall whenPresident G Bush notoriously disenfranchised atheists and would not retract. The equal rights of atheists in law certainly needed to be clarified and in legal terms.

[bjs1]

I recall whenPresident G Bush notoriously disenfranchised atheists and would not retract. The equal rights of atheists in law certainly needed to be clarified and in legal terms.

To be clear, Bush never disenfranchised atheists. He stated a personal opinion. Personal opinions, even from the POTUS, do not carry the force of law.

[TRANSPONDER]

I recall whenPresident G Bush notoriously disenfranchised atheists and would not retract. The equal rights of atheists in law certainly needed to be clarified and in legal terms.

To be clear, Bush never disenfranchised atheists. He stated a personal opinion. Personal opinions, even from the POTUS, do not carry the force of law.

Oh I agree. He was merely expressing the US Christian fundamentalist view of atheism, though expressed (alarmingly) by a president. The point is that he, in expressing such a view, shows that clarification of the First amendment as regards the rights of atheists was needed and that is what Obama's bill did and why it was hailed by atheists as unarguably stating freedom From religion as legally protected.