Replies

"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?