Freedom From Religion

[bjs1]

Background: France has outlawed wearing Abayas, a traditionally Muslim garb, in in school. The stated reason from the French education minsters is, “When you walk into a classroom you shouldn’t be able to identify students’ religion just be looking at them.” This is a relatively new addition to the existing law that all religious symbols are banned in school.

Distinction: In America there is freedom of religion. This means that every individual is free believe and express religious belief, lack of religious belief, or opposition to religious belief as long as it does not directly harm another person.

In France there is freedom from religion. This means that there is a collective freedom from religious institutions, and that no one can be exposed to religious beliefs against their will.

Question for debate: Is it better to have freedom of religion or to have freedom from religion, and why?

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

We all have at least some freedom not to be exposed to ideas we disagree with. If that idea is racism we can exclude the person who possesses that idea from society. Society often effectively criminalises a view when the government won't. Where can you be if you want to express racism? Not in public. Not in a school. Not in a business. Not on somebody else's property. Not on your own property either; if you're outed you'll lose your job and then your house, since you won't be able to pay taxes. In this case, the freedom to not be exposed to an idea we disagree with, comes packaged with people not being allowed to have that idea.

But it doesn't have to be like that, does it? If some spaces are for freedom of expression, and others are for freedom from expression, and people can choose which spaces they frequent, we can effectively have both.

Isn't it better to have the benefits of both?

The Constitution does provide freedom from religion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This concerns government, not people. So the government can't put a religious symbol in a public school, but an individual student can wear a religious article, have a sacred book, etc. Likewise, the government can't outlaw expressions of racism, but private individuals or organizations can oppose and act against racism within their organizations or homes. They still have to tolerate marches and public speech by racists.

This is incorrect. The American Constitution provides freedom OF religion. The government cannot suppport or supress religious practice or expression.

France has freedom FROM religion. The government directly suppress indvidual expression of religion. People who do not wish to interact with religious concepts are protected from doing so.

In America we must tolerate marches and public speeches by racists. In France they do not. Unpopular speech is illegal in France. In the USA freedom of expression exists specifically to protect unpopular speech; popular speech by definition does not need to be protected.

And there is a legitimate debate on which is better.

(If anyone disagrees, then ask if you support pedophiles giving speeches in grade school in favor of pedophilia.)

Some argue that allowing people to openly support Nazism or Communism is fair game, but I wonder. I'm not saying I've decided, only that I wonder if it isn't the role of a decent society to limit some forms of speech (like yelling "fire" in a theatre, slander, etc.)

Then we have to ask, which religions are allowed to have free speech? What about ones that promote pedophilia, drug use, polygamy, anti-science, etc.

I think there is a valid argument to restrict harmful ideas, but we need to understand how that is done.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #7]

I always like to put myself on the other side of a situation. That is, what if I was the one whose freedom was hampered? So let's try that. In this case, would you be okay with freedom from secularism? That is, you can seek out specific designated locations to be non-religios, but may not express a lack of a certain religious belief in many public settings.

Absolutely because I can go there and express my beliefs. That's worth having to wear a cross the rest of the time. The alternative is not that I can be publically atheist. In a world with a demographic where atheism might get relegated to the YMCA on alternate Wednesdays, the alternative is having the right to be atheist everywhere in theory, but having every shop owner, employer, and property owner restrict you from access.

This issue that sparked this thread was France that France outlawed wearing Abayas, a traditionally Muslim garb, in in school. So put that in reverse. Would you be okay with being legally required to wear Abayas and saying appropriate Muslim prayers in school as long as you are free to express opposition to Islam on the internet forums and in designated houses of secularism? You could be non-religious, just not in public. Not in a school. Not in a business.

Absolutely. Many people already have to wear clothes they don't want. We can't express opposition to certain religions on designated internet forums now, so it's an upgrade.

Unpopular speech is not protected in America. It is just left up to anyone not wearing a sash that says, "Government" to punish you. Certain views are punished worse than if the government could do it, and we can't even express opposition to that. Meaningful protection is worth being relegated to a smaller space.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

We all have at least some freedom not to be exposed to ideas we disagree with. If that idea is racism we can exclude the person who possesses that idea from society. Society often effectively criminalises a view when the government won't. Where can you be if you want to express racism? Not in public. Not in a school. Not in a business. Not on somebody else's property. Not on your own property either; if you're outed you'll lose your job and then your house, since you won't be able to pay taxes. In this case, the freedom to not be exposed to an idea we disagree with, comes packaged with people not being allowed to have that idea.

But it doesn't have to be like that, does it? If some spaces are for freedom of expression, and others are for freedom from expression, and people can choose which spaces they frequent, we can effectively have both.

Isn't it better to have the benefits of both?

The Constitution does provide freedom from religion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This concerns government, not people. So the government can't put a religious symbol in a public school, but an individual student can wear a religious article, have a sacred book, etc. Likewise, the government can't outlaw expressions of racism, but private individuals or organizations can oppose and act against racism within their organizations or homes. They still have to tolerate marches and public speech by racists.

This is incorrect. The American Constitution provides freedom OF religion.

That's the second clause that forbids any restriction on practicing religion. The first clause, forbidding establishment of religion, provides you freedom from religion. So you can practice religion if you like, or you can avoid it entirely if you choose, and the government can't prevent this. You have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

France has freedom FROM religion. The government directly suppress indvidual expression of religion. People who do not wish to interact with religious concepts are protected from doing so.

No. Freedom from Religion would be your right to ignore any other person's religious dress or actions. What's going on in France is suppression of religion.

In America we must tolerate marches and public speeches by racists. In France they do not. Unpopular speech is illegal in France. In the USA freedom of expression exists specifically to protect unpopular speech; popular speech by definition does not need to be protected.

The first amendment is consistent here, too. You have freedom of speech. But you do not have the freedom to insist that others listen to you. Freedom from speech.