Freedom FROM Religion

Why no comment from the Supreme Court? Why call them Supreme? They should always be required to state why they vote the way they do. Instead of intolerance towards the displaying of one religion, wouldn't it be better to encourage the display of as many different religions in the community that the community votes to display? Heck have a Baptist, Moslem, Catholic, Hindu, whatever the voters vote for. Gimme some feedback and edification on this folks, thanks.

spotrep

They should always be required to state why they vote the way they do.

Isn't that what the "Majority Opinion" and "Minority Opinion", issued by the court following each vote, already does?

The let stand a federal court ruling, so they didn't rule, and therefore, didn't right opinions. The opinions of the Fed court were considered sufficient.

On what basis can a governmental institution post the 10 commandments?

To be frank, I've not heard a good argument supporting the posting of the 10 commandments. They keep losing in court, so it's obvious that no one is coming up with a clincher argument.

Keep in mind that I am a very vocal Christian and DO support a 10 commandments initiative in our own local school system. It has lost at every level of court, so far, though.

That is because there is not a good clincher argument.

They are really the anchor of Western and Judeo-Christian civilization. Name a law of ours that isn't in some way so derived.

Fear of God, diminishes that of man.

If we're not already in it, there's another civil war coming in this country.

"To be frank, I've not heard a good argument supporting the posting of the 10 commandments."

Well, under the US Constitution you don't need one. Freedom of religion is held to be a divinely conferred right, with which the US government may not interfere, and there is nothing in the Constitution to say that employees of the government may not exercise that right.

The God-haters can only invoke the tendentious and insupportable argument that any exercise of religion by any employee of any government agency constitutes the establishment of an official state religion, which is patent nonsense.

It's a very clever ploy, actually, to advance an argument that is so bad the only response is, "That's nonsense," and then demand that the opposition present reasoned or factual evidence in rebuttal.

It seems to me that freedom to move within a fixed space is not freedom at all. So long as a person's freedom doesn't impinge upon another's, logic dictates that an individual who expresses her religious beliefs is being free, but a governing institution that expresses those beliefs is creating a boundary. Anyone choosing to remain outside of that boundary (i.e., being "free from religion") is truly being free, and anyone who claims they espouse freedom but who also demands people should remain within the boundary of religion is a hypocrite.

Just my opinion, of course.

"It seems to me that freedom to move within a fixed space is not freedom at all."

Sorry, but that's just not reasonable.

As humans are not infinite, all our freedoms have boundaries. As a society, we create more boundaries as we see fit--for instance, murder is off limits. However, the existence of laws against murder, of this boundary, do not mean that we are not "free at all."

Every freedom is limited. The question is not whether freedoms are circumscribed--they always are--but only how narrowly circumscribed they are. And the fact that freedoms are always circumscribed in no way indicates that they do not exist.

"logic dictates that an individual who expresses her religious beliefs is being free, but a governing institution that expresses those beliefs is creating a boundary.

Nope, sorry, logic dictates no such thing. As a matter of fact, your statement is excruciatingly illogical.

A boundary is created only when some sanction--whether criminal or merely discriminatory--is imposed on those who do not accept the religious belief expressed.

If a judge has the 10 Commandments hanging on the wall of his courtroom, anyone in America is free to tell him, "I don't believe in that or in God," and no sanction will be imposed. The judge will not be more likely to find him guilty or to impose a harsher sentence, the bailiff won't whack him on the head, he won't be put on some government surveillance list...his freedom to believe as he chooses and to express those beliefs will be respected.

"Anyone choosing to remain outside of that boundary (i.e., being "free from religion") is truly being free"

There's a story about a mathemetician who, upon examining the work of a colleague said, "That's so bad, it's not even wrong."

Any religious person is freer than the atheist, because he is free to choose whether or not to believe in God, angels, miracles, and all the rest. The atheist *may not* believe in those things. His freedom is more narrowly circumscribed than that of the man whose mind is open to the possibility of the Divine.

"and anyone who claims they espouse freedom but who also demands people should remain within the boundary of religion is a hypocrite."

Uh, huh. And as soon as you meet a Christian or a Jew who "demands" that everyone believe in his--or any--religion, zip right on down to Ripley's and get your name in the books.

The struggle in America today is not between believers "demanding" that everyone be a believer (on the one hand), and noble, open-minded atheists and agnostics struggling to remain free of this tyranny (on the other).

The struggle is between narrow, doctrinaire anti-religous fanatics who are demanding--and invoking the sanction of law to enforce their demands--that all expression of religion be suppressed (on the one hand), and those who truly respect freedom of conscience and oppose that tyranny (on the other).

The one group is seeking to enforce the command, "You may not;" while the other wishes the law to read (as before), "You may choose for yourself. Do, or don't, as your conscience dictates."

Which is freer?

#10 of 10

Hello dsc,

" our freedoms have boundaries. The question is… how narrowly circumscribed (freedoms) are "

Liberal (civil) libertarians espouse freedom insofar as they do not impinge upon the freedom of others. It's disappointing how far out onto that narrow plank of political spin you go in order to maintain your (incorrect) definition of "freedom." You espouse a much narrower ideal, and then go about creating some wild and fallacious claim to "freedom," when in fact it'd be much more sensible, parsimonious, and truthful to call your philosophy a giant rulebook.

Let me get analogy-happy here - if life were a large, playing field, the libertarians would say, "you are free to do as you wish, as long as you stay on the field." The freepers would claim, "you are free to do as you wish, as long as you stay on the field..." followed by a list of regulations thicker than the current NFL rulebook.

If life were a song, and political ideals were our instruments, you'd insist we all be restricted to a cowbell, and then add "but we're free to play whatever songs we want!"

"The judge will not be more likely to find him guilty or to impose a harsher sentence..."

In what fantasy-land is this taking place? In the arena of supervisor/evaluator vs. subordinate/evaluee perception is reality, and just like so many other facets of life conservatives continuously fight until one hundred years after their demise, religious references will all ultimately be removed from government institutions. You know it, and I know it. Is this because the world's going to hell in a hand-basket? Hardly. But most folks aren't ready for that kind of change, as it falls "outside" of their narrowly "circumscribed" rulebook. Some ideas take time, not because the ideas themselves are fallacious, but because people aren't ready for them.

"Any religious person is freer than the atheist..."

You've painted over this one with too broad a stroke, and left me out in the cold. I'm not an atheist, yet I do not subscribe to any religion. And why does this tendency of yours to divide things into black-and-white stop when it comes to that obtuse definition of "freedom"?

"As soon as you meet a Christian or a Jew who 'demands' that everyone believe in his--or any--religion, zip right on down to Ripley's and get your name in the books."

Hold on a moment while I get rid of these Jehova's Witnesses... okay, I'm back.

You're either joking, or philosophically blind. If I choose to conclude you're joking then I'm sorry, but I do not "get it." And if I choose to conclude you're philosophically blind, then no amount of my arguing in this – or any other – forum, would open your mind's eye.

"The struggle is between narrow, doctrinaire anti-religous fanatics who are demanding--and invoking the sanction of law to enforce their demands--that all expression of religion be suppressed (on the one hand), and those who truly respect freedom of conscience and oppose that tyranny (on the other)."

Once again you've left me and folks like me out of the picture. And you've missed the bigger point - freedom of an individual to express his beliefs is a beautiful and necessary right. But you seem to be zeroing in on the extremists. Oh sure, I know the extremist atheists and anti-religious zealots get a lot of attention – almost as much attention as the Protestant preachers who call Islam evil, the Catholic priests whose dalliances with choir boys make the Clintons' personal sex life look like a Norman Rockwell painting, and the occasional young white man who decides to blow up a Federal building.

But extremists tend to get noticed – on both sides – and for every "exemplar" you cite there is an opposing extremist you omit.

dsc, I find most of your philosophy self-consistent, but a bit delusional in its claim of "freeom loving." What amuses me (and disturbs others, I'm sure) is the convoluted steps many freepers take en route to claiming they endorse freedom. Your version of freedom is to real freedom what a choice between Milwaukee's Best and Pabst Blue Ribbon is to the world of beer.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

“Thanks for the thoughtful response.”

Wish I could say the same. I really do. But your response is simply another rehearsal of the same, tired fallacies and misconceptions one always gets from those of your general bent.

“Liberal (civil) libertarians espouse freedom insofar as they do not impinge upon the freedom of others.”

And entirely fail to appreciate what does and does not impinge on the freedom of others, invariably adding to the list of things that do not a long litany of things that do—mistakenly claiming, of course, that they don’t.

“It's disappointing how far out onto that narrow plank of political spin you go in order to maintain your (incorrect) definition of "freedom." You espouse a much narrower ideal, and then go about creating some wild and fallacious claim to "freedom," when in fact it'd be much more sensible, parsimonious, and truthful to call your philosophy a giant rulebook.”

Tired, tired, tired. I didn’t make any political claims; my arguments were philosophical, regarding the nature of reality. You have no standing to claim any “broader” or higher ground, because your philosophy is a rulebook too. We are only disagreeing over the content of that rulebook, not over any substantive difference in the structure of things.

“Let me get analogy-happy here - if life were a large, playing field, the libertarians would say, "you are free to do as you wish, as long as you stay on the field." The freepers would claim, "you are free to do as you wish, as long as you stay on the field..." followed by a list of regulations thicker than the current NFL rulebook.”

Why don’t you get logic-happy instead? The very concept of a field on which one must stay necessarily implies the existence of boundaries. Again, you are quibbling over the locations of those boundaries, not their essential quality. You wish to assert that my proposed locations for those boundaries makes my claim to freedom a “wild and fallacious” one, while your different placing of exactly the same sort of boundary is legitimate, wise, and truly free. Nonsense. You’re still establishing boundaries on freedom, and therefore have no standing to assume any moral superiority.

“If life were a song, and political ideals were our instruments, you'd insist we all be restricted to a cowbell, and then add "but we're free to play whatever songs we want!"

If life were a song, and political ideals were our instruments, you'd insist we all teach our children to engage in every self-destructive behavior known to man, and then add “but we’re all free to be happy.”

“In what fantasy-land is this taking place?”

In the real world, where religious people are not the ogres you seem to believe them.

“perception is reality”

Never.

“religious references will all ultimately be removed from government institutions. You know it, and I know it.”

The Soviets tried to do that through seventy-years of state terrorism against their own subjects—and failed. So will you.

“Some ideas take time, not because the ideas themselves are fallacious, but because people aren't ready for them.”

Perhaps, but that’s not the case here. Not every change is a change for the better. What you propose is an evil tyranny.

“and left me out in the cold. I'm not an atheist”

In this case you’re making common cause with them, and so will have to take the hit. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

“And why does this tendency of yours to divide things into black-and-white stop when it comes to that obtuse definition of "freedom"?”

Stale, stale, stale. Can’t you guys come up with some groundless smears that are, if not more effective, at least new? Some things are, in fact, black; others white. Still others may be various shades of gray or unknowable. The slur, “tendency of yours to divide things into black-and-white” is merely an attempt to declare victory without a discussion of whether a thing may actually be black or white.

“Hold on a moment while I get rid of these Jehova's Witnesses... okay, I'm back.”

It is incorrect to misconstrue an attempt to persuade as a demand that one accept a belief.

“You're either joking, or philosophically blind.”

No, I simply recognize the difference between an attempt to persuade and a demand. And that’s without even getting into a discussion of the status of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

“but I do not "get it."

I know, and as getting it will require changing your opinion on a few important matters…well, I ain’t holding my breath, that’s all.

“no amount of my arguing in this – or any other – forum, would open your mind's eye.”

How amusing is the arrogance of the narrow minded. I had to come through where you are to get where I am now. The only thing you’re in a position to “open my mind” to is old errors long corrected.

“Once again you've left me and folks like me out of the picture.”

Nope. “Narrow, doctrinaire anti-religious fanatics who are demanding--and invoking the sanction of law to enforce their demands--that all expression of religion be suppressed.” That’s you.

“And you've missed the bigger point”

I didn’t miss it. I explained quite clearly exactly why you are wrong on that point. I’m not surprised that you were unable to face it—actually, it would have astounded me had you been able to give it rational consideration—but the fact remains that your argument has been rebutted, and you have addressed the rebuttal in no meaningful way.

“freedom of an individual to express his beliefs is a beautiful and necessary right.”

Which you are determined to deny to the maximum extent you think possible.

“But you seem to be zeroing in on the extremists.”

Right now, I’m zeroing in on you, yes. Your position, that all religious expression must be driven out of public life, is extreme and hateful.

“Protestant preachers who call Islam evil”

It is.

“Catholic priests whose dalliances with choir boys make the Clintons' personal sex life look like a Norman Rockwell painting”

Oh, really? Are you actually unaware that the bent one has viciously and violently raped several women, and that at least one of them sought medical attention for the injuries he inflicted in the course of the rape? Did you know he sent thugs around to threaten women he’d “dallied” with to threaten them with a Sopranos-type fate if they didn’t keep their mouths shut about it?

We could probably stir up a lively debate on the question of whether buggering a teen-age boy is worse than that, but neither looks like a Normal Rockwell painting by comparison with the other.

“and the occasional young white man who decides to blow up a Federal building.”

Tsk, tsk. Intellectual dishonesty. It’s not an “occasional” thing. So far, it’s a one-time event. And it had absolutely nothing to do with your ridiculous assertion that an expression of religious belief on public property is equivalent to the establishment of a state religion.

“But extremists tend to get noticed – on both sides – and for every "exemplar" you cite there is an opposing extremist you omit.”

Nonsense. The playing field is not symmetrical today. In the attempt to assert that “both sides” are equally culpable, extremists like you falsely paint reasonable people as extremists—and meretriciously drag in people like McVeigh, as though they had anything to do with the discussion at hand.

But the fact is that your position is an extreme one, and its opposite is not. The belief that Constitutional protections of freedom of worship should be honored does not make one an extremist. Believing as you do that the Constitution should be trampled underfoot, however, does make you an extremist.

“dsc, I find most of your philosophy self-consistent”

I really don’t care how “you find” it. You’ve demonstrated through your remarks here that you are incompetent to evaluate my philosophy.

“What amuses me (and disturbs others, I'm sure) is the convoluted steps many freepers take en route to claiming they endorse freedom. Your version of freedom is to real freedom”

Self-congratulatory buncombe. We established above that the only difference between your approach and mine is the placement of boundaries. You set the same sort of boundaries as those you wish to look down upon, and pat yourself on the back because yours are “wider.” However, your insistence on those wider boundaries reflects only an ignorance of history or a refusal to learn therefrom. Setting the boundaries where you would wish is, always has been, and can only be, disastrous.

Listen to the man:

“Conservatism is the antithesis of the kind of ideological fanaticism that has brought so much horror and destruction to the world. The common sense and common decency of ordinary men and women, working out their own lives in their own way – this is the heart of American conservatism today. Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before. The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. When we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs, and that we know can be stated as principles, we are saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations -- found through the often bitter testing of pain, or sacrifice and sorrow." --Ronald Reagan (1977)

That’s why I advocate setting boundaries where I do, while you advocate putting them where you do because you reject—on irrational grounds—the “principles…that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations.”

Sorry for the delayed response, but I've been away from the country, defending Democrat and Freeper chickenhawks. (No GOP distinction necessary.) "your response is simply another rehearsal of the same, tired fallacies and misconceptions... from those of your general bent" Why is it you can't directly address me without first generalizing "those of (my) general bent"? And if you want "tired" I suggest you read some Friederich Hayek. He's so tired he died eleven years ago. He told the world what we already know about economics and socialism. You guys have half the formula right, but are dead wrong on morality. "And entirely fail to appreciate what does and does not impinge on the freedom of others, invariably adding to the list of things that do not a long litany of things that do—mistakenly claiming, of course, that they don’t." So many words, so little substance. With this last paragraph you've said nothing more than "you don't understand everything that goes into freedom," which is a lot like saying "you don't understand everything that goes into rice." READ SLOWLY: rice is rice, and anything your recipe calls for just makes my rice less pure. "your philosophy is a rulebook too" Again, I reiterate my argument: libertarianism, simply stated, is "You are free to do as you choose without impinging upon the freeom of others." If you define one statement as a "rulebook" then you're as slick with facile definitions as Bill Clinton is with the word "is." Mine is not a rulebook. It is simple and beautiful; yours is a cumbersome guidebook of hackneyed and prudish Victorian pap. Incidentally, the more you insist outside of libertarianism's central focus - "You are free to do as you choose without impinging upon the freeom of others." - the more you to help make my initial point: Occam's Razor suggests your "freedom" is fictitious. The remainder of your letter veers into a "you're a liberal Democrat" diatribe - a bizarre argument I find extremely misconstrued and simply wrong. I am a libertarian. Freepers are not libertarians. Pushing religion in school, regulating drugs, and military drafts are "Libertarian" ideals. If you guys were libertarians you'd grow some gonads of your own and stop mysteriously resembling the GOP. You're not fooling us real Libertarians. Gotta cut this one short - couple of my partners are getting the Bronze Star this afternoon.