Freedom OF Religion = Freedom FROM Religion
True
Side Score: 9
|
 |
False
Side Score: 14
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
Casting a vote to both sides because of varying interpretations of 'Freedom FROM Religion.' Freedom from religion can be looked at as the ability to not have a religion oneself, but it can also be looked at as being free from exposure to the religions of others. In the case of the former, I vote true, and in the case of the latter, I vote false. When looking at it as a question of individual religious choice, then freedom of religion would also necessitate freedom from religion, any way you slice it. If we have the freedom to choose whatever religion we want, and have not been indoctrinated into any particular religion since birth, then for the duration of the time period where we are choosing a religion, we do not have one. If there is no allowance to not have a religion, then there is no actual choice in religion. Remaining undecided or choosing to believe in none at all are both equally valid and protected choices under this model. Side: True
1
point
If I told you you have the freedom of choice on what soda to drink, then its common sense to assume that not wanting to drink soda would be an option. The same goes with freedom of religion. You may practice any religion you want, but you also have the option to not practice any religion at all Side: True
2
points
But it wouldn't imply that you would be free from seeing anyone drinking a soda in public right? Isn't that more closely what is meant by "freedom from religion?" I think we need to be careful in what we argue is "freedom from religion." It doesn't mean that you are free not to follow a religion, it traditionally means that you are free from any religious activities in the public sphere (no prayers at a school, even if not school sponsored for example). Finally, even if we accepted your definition, that wouldn't mean they are equivalent, but rather that the latter is a variant under the former. Side: False
1
point
I can support this, at least up to the point where it's used to attack the beliefs of others. The list of things that atheists (not atheists in general, but those who define themselves primarily as atheists, also called 'hard atheists' or 'strong atheists') place under the category of "forcing religion on me" has long since crossed the line of ridiculous and into the surreal. Side: True
1
point
Accept on thing or decline it, both are possible options to decide from, unless more options come in to the act for a solution. So you say that freedom of religion is equal freedom from religion. From one perspective you are right that both options consider one topic. But as well as equality they are very different. Side: False
1
point
|
Freedom OF Religion = Freedom FROM Religion How are they in any way equivalent? One might say that the former infers that latter; however, the former could be interpreted to mean that you must have a religion, with the freedom to choose which religion you have. But I digress, either way you interpret the former, the latter cannot be equivalent. Side: False
1
point
How do you have freedom of religion, if you don't have the freedom to not choose a religion at all. If one doesn't want to be a part of any religion, then Freedom of religion doesn't apply to them, because they don't have FULL freedom of that choice, it being limited. Side: True
Unless you say that the lack of religion is a religion, then the lack of religion is not included in the "freedom of religion", by mere language usage. You would have to have another freedom, which is that of belief, or that of opinion, in order to support anything without a religion. Since the freedom is that of religion, then it follows that the freedom is applying to religion. This does not mean that there is a freedom outside of religion. However, one could argue that the freedom from religion is a subset of the freedom of religion, but neither way shows that both the former and the latter are equivalent. Side: False
2
points
The Constitution outlines, among other things, what the government may not do. Not infringing on the freedom of speech means that there is no freedom FROM religion in the public square. Freedom OF religion means the government will not coerce worship or support of a religion, nor shall it prohibit religious practice (given it doesn't breach other civil laws). If someone wants to bible thump on the corner, it's their right. Side: False
2
points
Casting a vote to both sides because of varying interpretations of 'Freedom FROM Religion.' Freedom from religion can be looked at as the ability to not have a religion oneself, but it can also be looked at as being free from exposure to the religions of others. In the case of the former, I vote true, and in the case of the latter, I vote false. When looking at it as freedom from the religion of others, it simply does not follow. Speech and religious expression are both protected (even if said protections have been eroded) by the US Constitution. Obviously, this isn't applicable to other nations, but this issue is particularly heated within the US, so I'm acting under the assumption that that is the target for this debate. While certainly, one is free to not practice any religion, either due to not believing in any OR not being decided as to which one believes in, that freedom is both universal and individual. In other words, part of this freedom is accepting that others have the same freedom, and that their ability to speak about and practice their religion- or lack thereof- is equally protected. People love to go on about how others are 'forcing their religion' onto them, but this is rarely, if ever, the case. If you are to tell someone that they cannot speak about their religion, you are not acting within your rights, but are in fact violating theirs. That extends to many things, including objecting to a christian individual wearing a crucifix, a catholic individual carrying a rosary, a jewish individual wearing a skullcap. Even when they are working for the government, they remain individuals. It is reasonable to object to, say, a nativity scene being displayed at a court, as that does carry an implication of a government body favoring a specific religion. It is not reasonable, however, to object to a jewish government employee wearing his skullcap at work. If one truly takes issue with someone speaking about and/or practicing his or her religion, they have options available to them. If they are in a public place, or on the property of the religious individual, they may relocate. If they are on their own property, they may ask the individual to leave. If the religious individual in question pursues them (or fails to leave), they can be charged with harassment or trespassing. If the one taking issue opts not to relocate, or not to expel the religious individual from his or her property, then he or she must accept that the religious individual will speak about and practice his or her religion, as that is protected by law. Side: False
1
point
|
