Freedom from religion
From Issuepedia
Contents |
[edit] Overview
Freedom from religion is the freedom to choose not to engage in religious activity. It does not imply the freedom to suppress religious messages in the public sphere, as those messages are generally protected by freedom of speech.
It is frequently claimed that freedom from religion is not part of freedom of religion, and that laws guaranteeing the latter do not guarantee the former – implying heavily that one has a legal obligation to engage in religious activity of some sort and that atheism is therefore illegal or at least somehow a less protected viewpoint than those based in religion. These claims are generally baseless.
Freedom from religion is a necessary right in a free society.
[edit] Links
[edit] Reference
-
Wikipedia: no equivalent page (as of 2008-08-10) -
Conservapedia: no equivalent page (as of 2008-08-10) -
dKosopedia: no equivalent page (as of 2008-08-10) -
SourceWatch: no equivalent page (as of 2008-08-10)
[edit] Filed Links
[edit] version 2
- 2008-07-29 [Talk|Index] Catholic Clergy Call for Reparation in Response to Communion Desecration § [2]“The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy .. respond to the sacrilegious and blasphemous desecration of the Holy Eucharist by asking for public reparation. We ask all Catholics of Minnesota and of the entire nation to join in a day of prayer and fasting that such offenses never happen again. .. We find the actions of University of Minnesota (Morris) Professor Paul Myers reprehensible, inexcusable, and unconstitutional. His flagrant display of irreverence by profaning a consecrated Host from a Catholic church goes beyond the limit of academic freedom and free speech. .. The same Bill of Rights which protect freedom of speech also protect freedom of religion. The Founding Fathers did not envision a freedom FROM religion, rather a freedom OF religion. In other words, our nation's constitution protects the rights of ALL religions, not one and not just a few. Attacking the most sacred elements of a religion is not free speech anymore than would be perjury in a court or libel in a newspaper.” A very interesting interpretation of the constitution. Commentary: Pharyngula
[refresh]
