Rep vs. Dem Differences

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Brian Burger" wrote in message

It's part of the problem, I think, with international relations - US
politics is skewed so far right that the rest of us just can't relate
anymore.

My wife likes to remind me that America was founded and raised by
religious
types who were so weird and to the right that they felt a need to escape
Europe to exercise their religious freedom. The Quakers, the "puritans"
(as we call 'em now)...

Except that neither the Quakers nor the Puritans had much to do with the
founding of America beyond being some of the earliest settlers.

C J Campbell wrote:

Except that neither the Quakers nor the Puritans had much to do with the
founding of America beyond being some of the earliest settlers.

Not directly, but the freedom from religion amendment to the Constitution had as much
to do with reaction to the way the Puritans ran their section of the Colony as it did
the national religious dictates of England.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


C J Campbell wrote:

Except that neither the Quakers nor the Puritans had much to do with the
founding of America beyond being some of the earliest settlers.

Not directly, but the freedom from religion amendment to the Constitution
had as much
to do with reaction to the way the Puritans ran their section of the
Colony as it did
the national religious dictates of England.

To the contrary, it is the freedom OF religion amendment, not freedom FROM
religion. And it had far less to do with Puritanism than it had with the
Masonic philosophies of the founding fathers. Puritanism was not interested
in freedom of religion, but other colonies actively promoted it.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

What this amendment says is that there shall be no 'official' religion of
the United States, nor shall any law prohibit the free exercise of religion.
There are altogether too many people who wish to eradicate religion from the
country, which would be a direct violation of this right.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

To the contrary, it is the freedom OF religion amendment, not freedom FROM
religion.

Can't have one without the other.

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

To the contrary, it is the freedom OF religion amendment, not freedom
FROM
religion.

Can't have one without the other.

You certainly can. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. Freedom FROM
religion amounts to a prohibition of religion, whereas freedom OF religion
means that anyone can worship who, what, or how they wish, or not at all if
it suits them.

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, C J Campbell wrote:


"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

To the contrary, it is the freedom OF religion amendment, not freedom
FROM
religion.

Can't have one without the other.

You certainly can. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. Freedom FROM
religion amounts to a prohibition of religion, whereas freedom OF religion
means that anyone can worship who, what, or how they wish, or not at all if
it suits them.

Errr... the last part of your sentence ("...or not at all...") IS freedom
from religion, isn't it? IE you can choose to be free from religion, while
other people can choose to practice whatever religion they want.

They aren't mutually exclusive, the larger one (freedom of...) should
automatically include the detailed one (freedom from...).

Where it gets complicated, of course, is where someone else's religion
invades public life. "In God We Trust", and stuff like that... I'm not
going to go there right now, it's even MORE off topic that we already
are...

Brian.

"Brian Burger" wrote in message
ia.tc.ca...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, C J Campbell wrote:


"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in
message
...

To the contrary, it is the freedom OF religion amendment, not
freedom
FROM
religion.

Can't have one without the other.

You certainly can. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. Freedom FROM
religion amounts to a prohibition of religion, whereas freedom OF
religion
means that anyone can worship who, what, or how they wish, or not at all
if
it suits them.

Errr... the last part of your sentence ("...or not at all...") IS freedom
from religion, isn't it? IE you can choose to be free from religion, while
other people can choose to practice whatever religion they want.

BINGO!!!

They aren't mutually exclusive, the larger one (freedom of...) should
automatically include the detailed one (freedom from...).

....depending on how you hold. You can't have freedom of religion unless you
correspondingly have freedom FROM it as well. That's what a secular republic
is all about, though the US was the first (and probably the only one) in
history,
America's New Secular Order (Novus Ordo Seclorem).



Where it gets complicated, of course, is where someone else's religion
invades public life. "In God We Trust", and stuff like that... I'm not
going to go there right now, it's even MORE off topic that we already
are...

See above.

Brian Burger wrote:

They aren't mutually exclusive, the larger one (freedom of...) should
automatically include the detailed one (freedom from...).

Of course. The set of subsets of any set includes the empty set.

The problem is that C.J. Campbell believes that "freedom from" implies that
religion is kept away. Others on this thread apparently read this as
"freedom from imposition of".

- Andrew

C J Campbell wrote:

..... or not at all .....

That's freedom *from* religion.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.