This is exactly what I'm takling about. You can say all you want that you just want to be left alone, but you are openly hostile to Christians here. I don't dispute that you may have been harrassed by some Christians, but that doesn't indict all Christians or Christianity. But that does not stop you from broad-brushing all Christians when you say, "...only this sector feels the need to bother other citizens, and often judge and condemn them...". You are speaking of a very small group that is not representative of the entire religion. Besides, nobody is arguing (at least I haven't seen it here) for government funded displays of iconography, etc. For the most part we've been talking about cases such as the woman who was prohibited from wearing a pendant because of where she worked. What I hear you saying is not to worry about those people's rights, and just to focus on suppressing them even more so that hopefully one day you won't have to deal with hecklers.

This is a loaded topic. It is worded in such a way that if you are legitimately bothered by inapropriate and unconstitutional actions on the part of some citizens(nativity scene on county court property, prayer at an all school veterans day assembly, etc) then you are one who wants "freedom from religion" and you are an atheist simply because you believe in the constitution and it's provisions stating that the "free exercise thereof" of religion is o.k., while the "establishing" of religion is to be avoided at all costs. This issue is not black or white, it is one about shades of gray, and putting it into "freedom from" language simplifies it too much.

Orat,

If you read the whole thread my views about the right to wear religious jewelry should have been clear. I debated the possible reasons for the law, but I think one should have this freedom of expression, and Id like it to be across the board.
This thread in in its beginning was running concurrent with the Alabama judge's Ten Commandments statue issue and I believe was an offshoot of that thread, the religious jewelry part of it was only a tangent to the 'from or of question'.

As far as hostility, I did not say that 'all Christians bother people' , I said "only this sector", which for me amounts to the inordinate amount of Christians who feel it appropriate to hound people at their front door, accost them in public, or adorn public buildings with iconography (Ten Commandments), which is defended by many as perfectly reasonable. I dont think it is, which is the basis of this debate. If debating the issue as 'I dont agree and this is why...' is hostile, then you prove my point for me all too well. Why was it an issue recently of telemarketers? Invasion of home and privacy. Then there is a prevailing opinion, 'if you are not with us you are against us' when one runs contrary to commonly held belief systems. The problem usually is that others are not against the belief system, just question it, but the dogmatists are against others who do not believe 100% as they do. Much too difficult with so many sects, even within Christian thought.

The other religious groups dont seem to feel this same burgeoning need. No other religious group has ever knocked on my front door or tried to convert me in public, nor insist their religious texts be displayed in public in the USA. Which leads to the question, why do Christians feel its ok to do this? Perhaps I should better qualify the position as 'many' or 'enough that it is noteable'. You say it is a very small group, but I dont think non-christians would agree, especially in the south. Yes, it is usually Witnesses, Mormons and Baptists who go door to door, in droves. Never has a Catholic tried to convert me. I dont know which christian churches and people keep wanting to display the Ten Commandmants in public schools, insist on prayer in them, or in public buildings, but there are plenty and enough defending it to make the debate question poseable in the first place.

The question 'of or from' is very broad and I have treated it as such. Because I am not a christian, I have a non-christian viewpoint. This does not make me hostile to Christians, but personally irritated by conversionists. I am not an atheist either. I believe everyone has a right to their beliefs, as I do mine. However belief is the pivotal word. Not fact, science or law, even by majority.
I dont think anyone has the right to expound their religious beliefs to the infringement of others rights and/or/over their beliefs, in the US, because of our Constitution AND our 'melting pot' society which to me, leaves public places and government policy neutral and IMO public schools.
Here, in the US we tout freedom of religion and often rail on others for extreme dogma and state law enforcement in accordance with religion, therefore WE are obligated to keep religion out of our common law, public policy and places.
Therefore I am firmly in the 'from' camp. Its really a very simple explaination if you care to get beyond subjectivity.

Note: For me these are only separation of church and state issues in the political sense. Living in America I realize I must put up with people trying to sell me stuff at my door, magazines, girl scout cookies and personal gods. I appreciate 'cultural' expressions of all kinds, ie: holidays, church parades, lighting, songs, religious expression and its arts and teachings. Its the permanent public tributes to religious dogma that I dont think are justified in the US, because we are not mono-religious.

Artemise:

Not at all. It is some of the more aggressive statements you've made in the past that lead me to say you are hostile towards Christians. I mean, heck, you called saying "Jesus loves you" a "nasty trait". I'd say they were being nice in their own way. But you somehow interpret this nice thing as some kind of offensive action. Then you said, "Peg them down and they implode". You aren't just saying you dissagree. You obviously have a "bone to pick".


And those "non-christians" who would not agree would be sorely mistaken. According to stats I've seen (forgive me for not having them at hand), over half of the US population considers themselves Christian. So that's over 140 million people (at half). Believe me, if it was not a small portion of 140 million, you'd KNOW it.


I just think we need to be careful how we define infringement. Some would say that even having to hear someone else pray infringes on them. But if that's infringement, then nobody has any freedom to do anything. And that's where the "of and from" debate comes in.

I am new to this board - but from what I've read, I can see that it consists of quality debate. Hats off to all of you for respecting ech other and not resorting to base insults (which is the norm on some other boards).Now, my two cents on the topic:

"Why is it that religion is seemingly shunned in politics, and why isn't the freedom OF religion right not payed as much attention to as the freedom from religion right?"

I disagree with the premise. The word 'shunned' is not apt here. I believe what the poster is describing is the fact that some editorials have been written which question the 'wisdom' of Bush wearing his beliefs on his sleeve - considering his position as the head of a country with no official affiliation.

The freedom OF religion is a matter of interpretation. We have churches and synogogues all over this land - and these institutions are legally entitled to exist. People are free to attend these when they like, without fear of harrassment. That ALONE sets us apart from a lot of other countries around the globe.

I think the story about the school teacher sums up my feelings on this. She is free to wear her cross around her neck - and no-one can confiscate that cross or harrass her for believing in Christ. HOWEVER, the point about the constitution is 'sanctioning' or 'sponsoring' any particular religion. Children are impressionable. If there is just ONE child who sees that child as a role model, and is otherwise 'on the fence' about his/her religious beliefs (if any), then it is theortetically possible that -in a State school - this child will be swayed. For that remote possibility, why not just wear the cross beneath the clothing and be thankful we live in a country where - while at work - you are free to wear symbols that are dear to your heart.