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?

[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.

Oh I agree. He was merely expressing the US Christian fundamentalist view of atheism, though expressed (alarmingly) by a president.

This looks like another strawman. Can support the claim that this is the common view among Fundamentalist Christians?

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.

The way that the First Amendment pertains to atheists was already clear. Bush’s opinion did nothing to change it the laws in America. Since Bush’s opinion was about American citizens and Obama’s bill was about citizens of other nations, the bill did not relate to Bush’s words in any way. Historia has done an admirable job demonstrating that the right not be religious was already protected and in America and no laws or court cases in America in the 21st century have had any effect on that.

[historia]

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.

Again, my friend, you are simply confused here.

The bill that President Obama signed into law in 2016 amended the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. That law directs the U.S. government to create foreign policy and conduct advocacy on behalf of individuals persecuted in foreign countries on account of religion, and authorizes actions in response to violations of religious freedom in foreign countries.

It does not in any way change or extend the religious freedom of American citizens living in the United States.

This example simply does not support your hypothesis.

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?

Yes, there was a change: The law now directs the U.S. government to also conduct advocacy on behalf of atheists in foreign countries who are being persecuted.

The NBC News article that you quoted (but didn't cite) above gives examples of who this amended law would help:

[T]he U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a federal panel that was created under the original 1998 law, highlights numerous instances of persecution of atheists and other non-believers.

The report plays no favorites, singling out important U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia, where the poet Ashraf Fayadh was sentenced to death last year for "apostasy" — specifically, for spreading atheism. The sentence was reduced in February 2016 to eight years in prison and 800 lashes.

Regulations enacted in 2014 by the Saudi Interior Ministry, in fact, classify "calling for atheist thought in any form" as terrorism.

The report also harshly criticizes Egypt, which convicted Mustafa Abdel-Nabi, an online activist, to prison in absentia in February for "blasphemy" after he published posts about atheism on his Facebook page. A year earlier, another Facebook user, Sherif Gaber, was sentenced to prison for discussing his atheist views online.

It seems like you're just not reading the sources you are citing thoroughly enough, as they are actually refuting your argument.

[TRANSPONDER]

It seems that you are right. It is directed particularly towards countries where atheists do not have rights. That would seem to suggest that atheists in the US already had those rights. I still have a recollection that (after the infamous G. Bush remark) atheists in the US did become aware of some legislation that gave them the same status in law as any religious believer. But maybe the Obama bill is not where I should be looking.

[TRANSPONDER]

a p.s I dug a bit more and it looks to me as though I was right. While the Obama bill was aimed at protecting the rights of atheists in other countries, Atheists in the US saw it (and from what I recall legitimately) as applying to equal rights for atheists under the law in all countries including the US.

historia..comments? Or was I right after all?

[Purple Knight]

Should those that choose NOT to participate in religion be forced to live by the rules of one certain religion?

That's going to be difficult as there's not a society on Earth that will voluntarily free you from Thou Shalt not Kill and let you go around killing everybody.

This is common sense but it's also important to recognise the fundamentally religious nature of moral rules. I can't prove Thou Shalt not Kill because I can never get an ought from an is. Never. Not without committing the is-ought fallacy. And if we have different goals, we're just not going to see eye-to-eye.

So we're stuck with this basically religious, completely unprovable rule we enforce on everyone either just for the heck of it, because people insist upon it, to maintain the peace, or because it works well to generate the kind of society the lawmakers want.

[TRANSPONDER]

One can get over that by seeing the morality as Not religious but instinctive, socially evolved and the subject of human codes of ethics and laws. This was never to do with religion and need not be confused with it. Human law codes are remarkably similar in basics no matter what the religion is.

[nobspeople]

Should those that choose NOT to participate in religion be forced to live by the rules of one certain religion?

That's going to be difficult as there's not a society on Earth that will voluntarily free you from Thou Shalt not Kill and let you go around killing everybody.

This is common sense but it's also important to recognise the fundamentally religious nature of moral rules. I can't prove Thou Shalt not Kill because I can never get an ought from an is. Never. Not without committing the is-ought fallacy. And if we have different goals, we're just not going to see eye-to-eye.

So we're stuck with this basically religious, completely unprovable rule we enforce on everyone either just for the heck of it, because people insist upon it, to maintain the peace, or because it works well to generate the kind of society the lawmakers want.

Good point.
Or, maybe it's man that influenced these religious ideas?
In other words, man said thou shall not kill but it was attributed to something considered, by a few, to me 'more moral' than mankind.
Granted, it seems it's easier to hate than love (for example) but from what I've seen, love is, in the end, much more powerful.

[TRANSPONDER]

The way it's looking now is it that it is an evolved social survival instinct (reciprocity) and is as basic to humans as fear of death and wanting to get your end away (as we say here in Limeyland ) and, if at one time nobody know where these ideas came from, just as nobody knew what made lightning or comets, and 'God' was the easy answer and Religion had yet another claim to authority, we don't have to let them get away with it any longer.

We know a bit better and there is no reason to allow religion to claim the credit for reciprocity or the Golden rule, though almost all religions have done so.