I haven't given much consideration to the from/to dichotomy as it specifically pertains to religion, so thank you for spurring something interesting for me to ponder. The first thing that popped into mind was whether creating special rules for religiously-inspired speech (the First Amendment aside) is a valid or workable approach. The old bromide of 'keep your religion out of politics" has its roots not in the right or the left, but in desire to be "free from" the imposition of someone else's beliefs...but only if those beliefs are ascribed to religion. Suppose I arrive at a position espoused by, e.g., the so-called religious right, but that position is informed by legal philosophy, or political considerations...is my attempt to implement, to impose, as it were, that position somehow socially more valid because it's not religiously motivated? Turned around, does the fact that a position might have its genesis in one's religious convictions somehow make that position invalid ab initio, because its first principles are suspect? Is this the height of egoism?
To bring this wide-ranging speculation back on topic :-) I think Heinlein would join me in being very much in the freedom to camp!
I didn’t get my early political beliefs from Heinlein, so I don’t know. However, I was strongly influenced by Anthem from Ayn Rand, which was IMO heavy on the ‘from,’ which, I suppose, implied ‘to.’
Galahad:
To bring this wide-ranging speculation back on topic :-) I think Heinlein would join me in being very much in the freedom to camp!
I think Heinlein would join the Constitutional 'camp', -- which specifies we have freedom of religion, - and, -- a freedom from legislators making laws that respect specific religions.
Thus, -- there is no constitutional dichotomy.