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?

[Miles]

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?

Nice question!

As tired as I get from being exposed to religious trappings and activities, be they clothing, pins and jewelry, songs, billboards, holiday artifacts, and pestiferous door knockers, I gotta say it's better to have freedom of religion---if for no other reason than being able to identify one's antagonists and foes. In fact, I think it would be great if all those who profess a religion be encouraged to wear a symbol of that religion on their outer clothing, preferably on their chest.

.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

I agree with you conclusion, but I think that it is for different reasons.

I support freedom of religion because freedom from religion - the freedom not to be exposed to any ideas I don't already agree with - is not freedom at all. It is at best well intentioned persecution of minority voices. More likely it is just persecution without any good intentions.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

I agree with you conclusion, but I think that it is for different reasons.

I support freedom of religion because freedom from religion - the freedom not to be exposed to any ideas I don't already agree with - is not freedom at all. It is at best well intentioned persecution of minority voices. More likely it is just persecution without any good intentions.

So you'd be for Islam and Buddhism being mandatorily taught to children? Falun Gong being declared the official State relgiion?

[bjs1]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

I agree with you conclusion, but I think that it is for different reasons.

I support freedom of religion because freedom from religion - the freedom not to be exposed to any ideas I don't already agree with - is not freedom at all. It is at best well intentioned persecution of minority voices. More likely it is just persecution without any good intentions.

So you'd be for Islam and Buddhism being mandatorily taught to children? Falun Gong being declared the official State relgiion?

How did you get there? That clearly contradicts what I wrote. Genuinely, what was the thought process that got you from, "He supports freedom of religion," to, "He supports an official State religion"? What part of "It is not freedom to insist we never be exposed to ideas we don't already agree with," means, "We should make it mandatory to teach these things"?

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

I agree with you conclusion, but I think that it is for different reasons.

I support freedom of religion because freedom from religion - the freedom not to be exposed to any ideas I don't already agree with - is not freedom at all. It is at best well intentioned persecution of minority voices. More likely it is just persecution without any good intentions.

So you'd be for Islam and Buddhism being mandatorily taught to children? Falun Gong being declared the official State relgiion?

How did you get there? That clearly contradicts what I wrote. Genuinely, what was the thought process that got you from, "He supports freedom of religion," to, "He supports an official State religion"? What part of "It is not freedom to insist we never be exposed to ideas we don't already agree with," means, "We should make it mandatory to teach these things"?

Christianity is the State religion in Norway - one of the biggest populations of atheists. Having a State religion wouldn't, necessarily, mean it would be imposed. You would be free to have your religion, but others would be free to make their religion the State religion, too.

But, glad to hear you disagree with countries making Christianity - or any religion - the State religion! Amen!

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

I agree with you conclusion, but I think that it is for different reasons.

I support freedom of religion because freedom from religion - the freedom not to be exposed to any ideas I don't already agree with - is not freedom at all. It is at best well intentioned persecution of minority voices. More likely it is just persecution without any good intentions.

Well you're here, aren't you? That alone makes a good case that people can seek out different views if they want them.

As long as there are spaces like this one, and they are protected, spaces that people can enter freely if they so desire, I prefer freedom from religion. I'm not saying it's morally right, but that's not what you asked. You asked what was better. And there are always going to be people who get offended and make trouble because they were exposed to something they didn't want. At a certain point of exposure, they feel like it's being rammed down their throats or being pushed in their faces. Keeping public spaces neutral, or at least keeping any mandatory participation spaces neutral, is a good way to deal with the conflict fairly.

The exact size of the spaces as far as who gets what space doesn't matter. As long as people who want not to be exposed can have that (minimum, they should have the mandatory participation spaces like schools), and people who want to express themselves can have that, I don't think it matters that sometimes, people don't get exactly what they want.

There's a huge conflict between discriminators, the vast majority, legitimate victims of discrimination, and power-trippers who are out to punish people for discrimination they did not receive. Those on the ends are an extreme minority but they affect they playing field disproportionately. Why not take them off of it? I see no better way to avoid both cases of legitimate discrimination, and cases where a baiter succeeds in convincing everyone he's been discriminated against, than keeping some places neutral.

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 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.

[bjs1]

[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.

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.

[bjs1]

[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.