There’s a simple, fundamental idea at the heart of the right to freedom of religion. It’s so simple that it is often forgotten.
It is the right to freedom from religion.
If you’re a religious person – a person of faith – clearly you don’t want the values of another faith being imposed on you.
You don’t want to be denied the particular personal practices and observances of your faith.
You don’t want the government or anyone else to tell you what you should and should not believe, how you should or should not pray, how you should or should not have a personal relationship with god, or that your personal life should be conducted according to the values of another faith.
Oddly enough, that’s exactly what atheists and agnostics want too.
Freedom of religion more or less requires a secular government, or one that operates in a secular fashion, because a non-secular government means that freedom of religion no longer truly exists, and that’s as true for you, if another faith takes that lead, as it is for them if yours does.
Freedom of religion allows you to believe what you want to believe, without prejudice, and without criticism, so long as you do not practice that religion upon others – for their freedom is as important as yours. Unless everyone has the right to be free from the religion of others, nobody truly has the right of freedom of religion and what freedom there is will always be at risk.
I say it’s 2012 and we shouldn’t be bowing and scraping to invisible dudes in the sky.
I say it’s 2012 and it’s none of your business what anybody else does in that department (and it’s been that way since at least 1776).
Which is the point of the OP.
So when you’re opining on the topic, maybe you should avoid first-person plural unless you have a mouse in your pocket.
.
It’s a nice idea, but one of the main elements of religion is “Saving” everyone else, even if we think we don’t need it. This is one reason why Australia has Chaplains in schools, this is why people protest outside abortion clinics, this is why we have street preachers.
The people who do this aren’t doing it for the life we have now, but for the credit they will get after we are all dead.
The English speaking world is having a creeping imposition of state sponsored religion, not for the benefit of the citizens, but for the post-death benefit of those who do the imposing.
Dark Ages 2.0 anyone ?
One of the problems here is historical context. It could be argued that to the people at the time of the founding of the United States – the people as a whole, not just those who drafted the constitution – “freedom of religion” meant in everyday terms “freedom to practice this particular form of christianity without being oppressed by the church of the Old World”. There were not exactly a lot of atheists back then.
And I can tell you, that is how a whole lot of American christians see it today – “freedom of religion” means the right for christianity – their flavor of it specifically – to not be challenged and to be allowed to remain the dominate shaping force of American culture.
Secular arguments about what freedom of religion really means make sense, but getting a lot of people to understand that will be coming at it from an alien point of view.
It’s all capitalism’s fault!
If you look at constitutions of various European states, most of them have some sort of state religion, and those states could not be more secular. In America they have to compete and outdo one another 
Basically, Kai, what I’m driving at is that if you don’t give it to others, it doesn’t exist – and you don’t really have it yourself, except in a very ephemeral form.
Brave of you to take this on Tateru and I agree with you 100%.
The moment you take some action to stop a religious person from sharing their experience with you (often part of religion), that’s the moment you do indeed take away “their” freedom for yours. In most cases politely declining works if you find yourself in that situation.
Or what if I want the freedom from gays? Or the freedom from a democratic or republican ideology? Where’s the line where one loses freedom because “I don’t like it”.
What if I want the freedom from atheists? Who gets to win?
What I’d really like is the freedom from social networking, which is more invasive than religion these days.
Respectfully, @ Kai, that is a common misconception that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. It was not.
Some were, in fact, overtly opposed to Christianity. Some had been devout Christians by heritage but the biggest reason they became colonists was to escape from the church of England that had interwoven its power with the British Crown. They knew first hand how a dogmatic state would be the antithesis force against the climate of liberty and governance by consent they sought to establish.
The founding fathers were the original “Spiritual not Religious” people around and it was one of the things that made this country so unique upon the world. To build a nation NOT based on “Might Makes Right” and NOT based on the will or ritual of Dogma but instead solely “instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Specifically, most every founder of our nation was a Deists. They believed in the existence of a God or supreme being that gave order to the universe that was eternal and good, but flatly rejected having a relationship with Him through Christ. It has been argued that Jefferson was a Unitarian but none only one of them declared themselves a Christian.
It is equally wrong to say the founders were atheists. They believed in divine providence and manifest destiny but their definition of God was as a universal concept not as a religious construct. Further, they defended early colonist Catholics who were persecuted in the new world by those who were retaliating for past oppression in the old world. They proposed instead a more holistic definition, saying (and I quote): “America should be a country where peoples of all faiths, including Catholics, could live in peace and mutual benefit.”
As Tateru rightly points out, they architected a freedom of religion AND of non-religion in order to protect and preserve the individual and inalienable right to, as Locke put it and the most famous line of the Declaration of Independence put it, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And most of them knew first hand that a nation governed by any one ideology or dogma would ultimately be an oppressive nation. They recognized how much blood had been shed in the name of God and sought to build something more enduring and ultimately more enlightened.
It may sound over simplistic but that is at the same time it’s beauty. The Founding Father’s guiding philosophy was NOT based on ANY religion per se. It was and remains “Live and Let Live.”
“what if I want the freedom from gays?”
Then you should probably not have sex with them.
@Tateru Heheh, true I suppose although I’m not making that statement, just another of those social hot topics.
It’s an interesting topic that does bring up a couple of points that I’ve personally observed.
The first is that religion these days isn’t the biggest culprit of telling you what’s right from wrong, what you should or shouldn’t do … that has changed to the entire population, governments and advertising and talk shows, etc. Everyone knows what’s best for you these days, not just religion and will gladly force that on you.
The other point is that the biggest driver and the thing that holds community together far easier than any other factor is a common enemy. People pull together when they have targets in common. Call it communities lowest common denominator.
Of course this kind of thinking results in less freedom for everyone under the guise of freedom or what’s best for you. A law passed in my state recently adds a 20% tax on soft drinks with too much sugar because it helps obese children not become obese. Lack of freedom because you abused your freedom. In this case it’s all about the money, but you are now free to not have fat soda pop drinking children.
I’d say first define freedom. Is that for everyone to have their freedoms (along with the frictions) or just for a subset to push for their freedoms at the expense of other peoples?
Personally I go with the former.
A “religious person” has no right to “share their experience with you”, even if they claim that’s “part of their religion”. Memetics are not mandatory.
So here’s a thought… We obviously no longer have a consensus on a foundational underpinning of Christian values in this country. If there is a Devil, he has succeeded in dividing us this far. If we collectively accept this fundamental (pun intended) level of division, we should easily accept the idea of individual communities establishing their own civil codes, based on whatever religious, atheist or other core value system they wish.
We can have a completely religion free Government! As long as they are not murdering anyone… wait… “Thou shalt not kill,” isn’t that Biblical? OK… we’ll let that one slide… Maybe as long as they are not stealing… wait… “Thou shalt not steal,” dog gone it… that one’s in the bible too. Ok, OK… we’ll leave it always telling the truth…. damn! …. “Thou shalt not lie” is in there too!
The challenge “modern” society has is they want to pick and choose the values that are convenient for them to ignore, while refusing to acknowledge that Western Civilization, despite its flaws and mistakes, was born of and operates on a largely Judeo-Christian value system. To completely strip that away, would also strip away many, if not all the protections afforded to citizens.
ps. @Max http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/beliefs.html
“A “religious person” has no right to “share their experience with you”, even if they claim that’s “part of their religion”. Memetics are not mandatory.”
On the contrary, it is inherent in most religions to be outward facing. In the case of christianity, they will tell you that the word gospel means “good news” and that it’s meant to be shared, as is caring for the poor and homeless, visiting the sick and many other community activities. Many religions share these same concepts and beliefs.
But right now you have the right to share that someone else shouldn’t have the right to share something with me. I don’t begrudge them that right, although I will send a Jehovah’s Witness or Mormon packing when they come to my door. Of course I do that to anyone soliciting something at my doorstep, which is not limited to only religion.
But you’re saying that their right to share should be taken away, my right to not mind it is irrelevant, but your right to share and say someone else shouldn’t have that right to share should be protected?
At what point does freedom become self serving? Your statement sounds like censorship based on personal belief to me.
Isn’t freedom of religion really just the combination of freedom of thought with freedom of speech? (religious actions other than thought and speech are still subject of all sorts of laws and other restrictions)
@Dartagan: It may be “inherent in most religions to be outward facing”, but that doesn’t grant them the right to a hearing. You’re free to speak, and I’m free to not listen.
To call this “sharing” is a vague euphemism.
(Of course most religions are “outward facing”; they’re memes with viral aspirations.)
@Valiant Good ideas can be found in most holy books. It’s not like secularity or atheism rejects religion and its values inherently.
@Dartagan In most countries, your right to speak and express yourself stops at the right of another person to not listen to you. That’s the standard limitation on free speech. All rights have boundaries whenever they come into conflict.
@Maggie Loved the viral comment, and point well taken.
@Tateru Will have to defer on other countries, you’d think after some years online it’d be easier to be globally minded.
Basically I think your piece was spot on about religious freedom needing a secular government else one religion would dominate all others. I probably got a bit off topic there.
I think it has more to do with equality for multiple religions (or multiple sects within a religion) than freedom from religion though. I get not wanting a message or belief system forced on you, but we live in a world where everyone has something that they want you to hear, and they’re all competitive for their respective audiences, from there it becomes a set of laws on how/when/where they can market their message.
If religion had its act together they’d do more “talking” by example and less having to proselytize, drawing less of that reaction in the first place. Their own teachings tend to at their core tell them to shun politics, religion-as-business, etc. Some of them still didn’t get the memo.
And then there is Benny Hinn.
@Valiant
“Thou shalt not kill,” oh wait a minute, that was illeagle in pagan Rome. Oh and and I believe they also had prohibitions on stealing too and an advanced legal code that forms the basis of law in many countries and… oh wait a minute, maybe our civilisation is based on pagan Rome and pagan Greece as well what you said.
God bless those pagans eh?
They made us (partly) what we are today.