[Osedax]

The thread I pulled the quote for isn't really for having general discussions, but find the below interesting, so I've pulled it out.

Originally Posted by OAW 

3. Separation of Church & State - The Constitution guarantees "Freedom OF religion". It does not guarantee "Freedom FROM religion". So it's pretty silly IMO to get bent out of shape because of a Nativity scene on the grounds of City Hall during Christmas. Or to have a hissy fit because a Bible Study Club wants to meet on school property. Having said that, one has to keep in mind that this means "Freedom of RELIGION". NOT "Freedom of CHRISTIANITY". If you are going to get upset by seeing a Star of David display on City Hall grounds ... or a Quran Study Club on public school property then I daresay you are someone who has confused the two. IOW, if it's open to all then fine. If not, then it's best not to go there at all.

This has always been an interesting discussion.

I also don't have a problem with a Nativity scene on the grounds of City Hall during Christmas. The problem is, having the Nativity scene opens up City Hall to having to respect all religions. So now it's a Nativity scene, star of David, Quran week, Scientology fund raise drive etc etc. I don't have a problem with that stuff, but hasn't City Hall now become a religous billboard?

I'm not decided either way, but kinda lean toward simply not allowing the Nativity scene for the simple reason that it either is unfair to those that don't get to have a "scene", or causes City Hall to be inundated with religion.

[subego]

This is a good question for which I don't have an immediate answer.

Like you, I don't want to disallow the Nativity scene, but your point about equal representation is valid.

If you allow the Nativity scene, you absolutely can't disallow any other religion, which I guess for legal purposes means tax-exempt status.

[nonhuman]

I, for one, believe that freedom of religion requires freedom from religion. Denying the freedom from religion necessitates defining what religion actually is. For example, is atheism a religion? If it is, then we have Constitutional protections as atheists, yet many would deny that using exactly the claim that we only have freedom of, and not freedom from; and all the while many of those same people are simultaneously trying to claim that atheism is just as much a religion as whatever in order to brand us hypocrites.

Similarly consider the Constitution requirement in (I think) Alabama that requires elected officials to acknowledge a supreme being. What is that, if not an attempt to side-step the freedom of religion issue by insisting 'only' that people be theists. What about atheistic religions such as (most forms of) Buddhism? You might argue that this requirement does not violate the 1st amendment because it doesn't require you to be a member of any particular religion, however it does require you to be a member of a particular kind of religion.

Freedom from religion is a necessity for all because without it you are not free from governmental interference in your beliefs.

[OAW]

Well, of course, my position is known for obvious reasons.

However, I will add that what I stated was my position on the topic from an intellectual perspective. My position on the topic from a practical perspective is that it's probably best to just not go there at all. The reason being that a lot of religious sects ... especially those that are more fundamentalist in nature ... will try to use that freedom to have access for their displays but exclude those who do not share their beliefs.

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I, for one, believe that freedom of religion requires freedom from religion. Denying the freedom from religion necessitates defining what religion actually is.

I think it's difficult to define religion without ultimately infringing upon it in some way.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Similarly consider the Constitution requirement in (I think) Alabama that requires elected officials to acknowledge a supreme being. What is that, if not an attempt to side-step the freedom of religion issue by insisting 'only' that people be theists.

This seems wrong any way you slice it. Do you know if there's a SCOTUS ruling which supports it?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think it's difficult to define religion without ultimately infringing upon it in some way.

That's my point! If freedom of religion does not also mean freedom from religion, then we have to define religion in order to determine what belief systems qualify as valid. So if you want the freedom to believe in your religion of choice, even if it's something very mainstream, you should still support the freedom from religion.

This seems wrong any way you slice it. Do you know if there's a SCOTUS ruling which supports it?

As far as I know it's only ever been challenged very recently. Not sure of the current state of the challenge, but I'm pretty confident that it hasn't yet made it to the SCOTUS.

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

So if you want the freedom to believe in your religion of choice, even if it's something very mainstream, you should still support the freedom from religion.

Well, I do, but man that's a tough row to hoe.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan

What meaning could the right to practice one's own religion have, if those who grant the right were to reserve to themselves the power to define religion. They might then say that only Christianity is entitled to the appellation "religion" and that Judaism and Mohammedanism are superstitions and may, therefore, not be practiced by any citizen of the state. Religious freedom means not only the freedom to practice any religion, but also to practice none.

Judaism as a Civilization (2010 edition); page 218

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Similarly consider the Constitution requirement in (I think) Alabama that requires elected officials to acknowledge a supreme being. What is that, if not an attempt to side-step the freedom of religion issue

This sounds like a states' rights issue. Now that I mention it, wouldn't the first amendment only apply to federal government, leaving state and local governments/city-halls free to establish any official religions they want, and exclude others?

[subego]

The First Amendment has been judged to apply to the states via the 14th Amendment, as have most of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...Bill_of_Rights