Looking for a well reasoned definition...

[manifold]

If you had the right to be free from any sort of religious pressure - freedom from religion - then public expression of religious significance would be strongly regulated, if not banned.

What do you mean by 'public expression'?

An expression open for and intended that everyone should see, that is not limited to a 'private' setting - an outdoor Christmas tree as compared to one indoors, for example.

I've only ever heard people argue against displays on public property. I've never once heard even the most left wing, anti-Christian atheist suggest that you can't put Christmas decorations on your house.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What do you mean by 'public expression'?

An expression open for and intended that everyone should see, that is not limited to a 'private' setting - an outdoor Christmas tree as compared to one indoors, for example.

I've only ever heard people argue against displays on public property. I've never once heard even the most left wing, anti-Christian atheist suggest that you can't put Christmas decorations on your house.

Welll...
If you had the right to be free from any sort of religious pressure - freedom from religion - then public expression of religious significance - such as Christmas decorations on your house - would be strongly regulated, if not banned. Else, you're -not- free from religion.

 

[manifold]

An expression open for and intended that everyone should see, that is not limited to a 'private' setting - an outdoor Christmas tree as compared to one indoors, for example.

I've only ever heard people argue against displays on public property. I've never once heard even the most left wing, anti-Christian atheist suggest that you can't put Christmas decorations on your house.

Welll...
If you had the right to be free from any sort of religious pressure - freedom from religion - then public expression of religious significance - such as Christmas decorations on your house - would be strongly regulated, if not banned. Else, you're -not- free from religion.

If you want to define it that way then I'd agree that nobody has such a 'freedom'.

But I've already said as much earlier and asked a follow-up question, which is: What argument have you ever heard for which 'you don't have freedom FROM relgion' is actually a legitimate rebuttal and not simply an attempt at deflection and obfuscation?

The only time I've ever heard people use that talking point is in defense of relgious displays on 'public property', in which case it's a weak attempt at deflection since arguments against public property displays are based, right or wrong, on the establishment clause and not the free exercise thereof clause.

 

[yota5]

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. (Wikipedia.)

As with all of the articles in the Bill of Rights this establishes freedom from the governments meddling in our affairs. Liberals have distorted the first amendment to mean something all together different than its original intention.

 

[manifold]

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. (Wikipedia.)

As with all of the articles in the Bill of Rights this establishes freedom from the governments meddling in our affairs. Liberals have distorted the first amendment to mean something all together different than its original intention.

Can you give me an example?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've only ever heard people argue against displays on public property. I've never once heard even the most left wing, anti-Christian atheist suggest that you can't put Christmas decorations on your house.

Welll...
If you had the right to be free from any sort of religious pressure - freedom from religion - then public expression of religious significance - such as Christmas decorations on your house - would be strongly regulated, if not banned. Else, you're -not- free from religion.

If you want to define it that way then I'd agree that nobody has such a 'freedom'.

How else would you define "Freedom from Religion"?

 

[manifold]

Welll...
If you had the right to be free from any sort of religious pressure - freedom from religion - then public expression of religious significance - such as Christmas decorations on your house - would be strongly regulated, if not banned. Else, you're -not- free from religion.

If you want to define it that way then I'd agree that nobody has such a 'freedom'.

How else would you define "Freedom from Religion"?

Freedom to not practice religion.

But regardless, I'm more interested in getting an answer to my follow-up question that you trimmed from my post you quoted.

Do you have one?

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you want to define it that way then I'd agree that nobody has such a 'freedom'.

How else would you define "Freedom from Religion"?

Freedom to not practice religion.

If you already had a "well-reasoned" defintion, why did you start this topic?

 

[manifold]

What argument have you ever heard for which 'you don't have freedom FROM relgion' is actually a legitimate rebuttal and not simply an attempt at deflection and obfuscation?

The only time I've ever heard people use that talking point is in defense of relgious displays on 'public property', in which case it's a weak attempt at deflection since arguments against public property displays are based, right or wrong, on the establishment clause and not the free exercise thereof clause.

Is there anyone here with the courage and brains to try to answer this?

So far nothing but blatant deflection and chronic wussitis.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As with all of the articles in the Bill of Rights this establishes freedom from the governments meddling in our affairs. Liberals have distorted the first amendment to mean something all together different than its original intention.

Their defintion of "prohibit the free exercise" is self-servingly broad.
Compare and contrast that to their definition of "infringerment" re: the right to arms.

 

[Ravi]

What argument have you ever heard for which 'you don't have freedom FROM relgion' is actually a legitimate rebuttal and not simply an attempt at deflection and obfuscation?

The only time I've ever heard people use that talking point is in defense of relgious displays on 'public property', in which case it's a weak attempt at deflection since arguments against public property displays are based, right or wrong, on the establishment clause and not the free exercise thereof clause.

Is there anyone here with the courage and brains to try to answer this?

So far nothing but blatant deflection and chronic wussitis.

Don't be silly. It is a perfectly valid rebuttal to the whine that the government shouldn't be spending tax payer money erecting a creche.

 

[manifold]

As with all of the articles in the Bill of Rights this establishes freedom from the governments meddling in our affairs. Liberals have distorted the first amendment to mean something all together different than its original intention.

Their defintion of "prohibit the free exercise" is self-servingly broad.

Example?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What argument have you ever heard for which 'you don't have freedom FROM relgion' is actually a legitimate rebuttal and not simply an attempt at deflection and obfuscation?
Is there anyone here with the courage and brains to try to answer this?
So far nothing but blatant deflection and chronic wussitis.

BTDT.

If you had the right to be free from any sort of religious pressure - freedom from religion - then public expression of religious significance - such as Christmas decorations on your house - would be strongly regulated, if not banned. Else, you're -not- free from religion.

And in response -you- agued that "nobody has such a freedom."
Was your rebuttal legitimate? Was it simply an attempt at at deflection and obfuscation?
:shrug:

 

[manifold]

What argument have you ever heard for which 'you don't have freedom FROM relgion' is actually a legitimate rebuttal and not simply an attempt at deflection and obfuscation?
Is there anyone here with the courage and brains to try to answer this?
So far nothing but blatant deflection and chronic wussitis.

BTDT.

If you had the right to be free from any sort of religious pressure - freedom from religion - then public expression of religious significance - such as Christmas decorations on your house - would be strongly regulated, if not banned. Else, you're -not- free from religion.

And in response -you- agued that "nobody has such a freedom."
Was your rebuttal legitimate? Was it simply an attempt at at deflection and obfuscation?
:shrug:

Clearly you lack the courage to accept the challenge.

You may be excused.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What argument have you ever heard for which 'you don't have freedom FROM relgion' is actually a legitimate rebuttal and not simply an attempt at deflection and obfuscation?
Is there anyone here with the courage and brains to try to answer this?
So far nothing but blatant deflection and chronic wussitis.

BTDT.

If you had the right to be free from any sort of religious pressure - freedom from religion - then public expression of religious significance - such as Christmas decorations on your house - would be strongly regulated, if not banned. Else, you're -not- free from religion.

And in response -you- agued that "nobody has such a freedom."
Was your rebuttal legitimate? Was it simply an attempt at at deflection and obfuscation?
:shrug:

Clearly you lack the courage to accept the challenge.

Even more clearly, I vigorously and directly accepted the challenge - and now, you're tucking tail and running away from the response.

YOU argued that nobody has such a freedom.
-Was your rebuttal legitimate? If so, then you have the answer you;re looking for.
-Was it simply an attempt at at deflection and obfuscation? If so, then you're exaclty the sort of person you're complaining about.
You choose. Let us know.

 

[manifold]

M14,

I've argued no such thing. So not only are you a pussy, you're a lying pussy.

I repeat my challenge, and await your weak attempt at deflection.

What argument have you ever heard for which 'you don't have freedom FROM relgion' is actually a legitimate rebuttal and not simply an attempt at deflection and obfuscation?

The only time I've ever heard people use that talking point is in defense of relgious displays on 'public property', in which case it's a weak attempt at deflection since arguments against public property displays are based, right or wrong, on the establishment clause and not the free exercise thereof clause.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm looking for a well reasoned definition of 'Freedom FROM religion'.

I often hear the same talking point repeated over and over, that the 1st Amendment provides for freedom OF religion but not freedom FROM religion. I honestly do not see a well reasoned difference. I've made this request in the past, but nobody has ever been able to supply a reasonable definition of 'freedom FROM religion' that actually qualifies as an individual 'freedom'. Most would agree that the 1st Amendment protects one's right not to practice any religion. And isn't that freedom from religion?

No.
The 1st amendment provides that the state will not interfere with a person's religious preferences. This means that the state cannot confer privileges upon people or oppress people based upon their religion. It means that the state cannot prevent people from openly practicing their religion, providing they aren't imposing on anybody else's right in doing so.

In other words, the state cannot force you to accept a religion, but it also cannot prevent you from practicing your religion. That isn't a freedom from religion. That's silly. It's freedom from the oppression of the state.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've argued no such thing.

Your question:

What argument have you ever heard for which 'you don't have freedom FROM relgion' is actually a legitimate rebuttal and not simply an attempt at deflection and obfuscation?

Me:

If you had the right to be free from any sort of religious pressure - freedom from religion - then public expression of religious significance - such as Christmas decorations on your house - would be strongly regulated, if not banned. Else, you're -not- free from religion.

Your response:

If you want to define it that way then I'd agree that nobody has such a 'freedom'.

:shrug:

 

[yota5]

Manifold, can I say the Lords prayer in any public building? Can a teacher open a class with a passage from the bible? Before the radicalization of our society by communist agitators in the 1960's, I used to be able to do all of those things. Now, instead, my grandchildren must pass through metal detectors to get into school. Even then their safety can't be assured. Crime is rampant. The very fabric of our society has been seriously eroded. Have you looked around lately. The silent majority isn't silent any longer. We're going to take our country back.

 

[manifold]

Manifold, can I say the Lords prayer in any public building? Can a teacher open a class with a passage from the bible? Before the radicalization of our society by communist agitators in the 1960's, I used to be able to do all of those things. Now, instead, my grandchildren must pass through metal detectors to get into school. Even then their safety can't be assured. Crime is rampant. The very fabric of our society has been seriously eroded. Have you looked around lately. The silent majority isn't silent any longer. We're going to take our country back.

You used to be able to buy and sell black people and rape your wife too.

Precedent doesn't make a thing right.