Rep vs. Dem Differences

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

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
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".

I would say that the remarks of many here would support my thesis that they
believe that religion should be suppressed from public view entirely.
Freedom of religion means anyone can worship anywhere at any time, even if
they are a public official. You should not lose your civil rights just
because you became a government employee.

This thread reminds of a joke over on a humor news group:

Can you imagine what would have happened if Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie
had children? Jackson is a Jehovah's Witness. Lisa Marie is an agnostic.
Their kids would have gone around knocking on doors for no reason
whatsoever.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

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".

I would say that the remarks of many here would support my thesis that
they
believe that religion should be suppressed from public view entirely.

From publicly funded ones.

Freedom of religion means anyone can worship anywhere at any time, even if
they are a public official.

You should not lose your civil rights just
because you became a government employee.

Government employees can't go to church?

C J Campbell wrote:

I would say that the remarks of many here would support my thesis that they
believe that religion should be suppressed from public view entirely.

Well, don't take mine that way. I simply do not wish to see anything remotely
resembling the English "penal laws" of the late 17th century or the similar laws the
Puritans set up in their area of the world. It was primarily in reaction to those
that we wound up with freedom of and from religion in our Constitution.

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