Have you ever heard someone say that our constitution provides freedom of religion, not freedom from religion? The first time I heard this, I was dumbfounded. It seems obvious that this shows a complete disregard for what freedom actually means, but I couldn't articulate why. I've thought about it for a while now, and here's what I came up with. It involves extending that lack of "from" to all other parts of the bill of rights. For example, freedom of speech. Going with the from/of idea, people do not have the freedom to hold their peace. So a boy is walking home from school, and some other boys start shouting, "Hey, are you a bright? Are you a faggot?" The boy ignores them, thinking they'll go away. They jump him, and he is seriously injured. His parents sue for damages and lose because there is no constitutional protection for those who do not speak. And then there's freedom of the press. Does this mean that not subscribing to a newspaper is unconstitutional? And which press qualifies as constituitional press? Which stories are constitutionally news? Coming back to religion, what does the freedom of religion cover? Deists are theists, spiritual people, but they are not religious. Is this unconstitutional?
My first encounter with this picky way of wording things was in an on-line video that I stumbled upon. Hopefully I can find it again. Meanwhile, I've discovered the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which might be interesting to those of you whom I haven't offended with this post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment