Impersonal attacks

[jwgh]

I see that Elizabeth Dole noted yesterday that the Constitution guarantees 'freedom of religion, not freedom from religion'.

Whenever I read something like that I feel like the person is standing in front of me, pointing a finger right in my face, and saying, 'You suck, and you and everyone like you belong in jail.'

Anyway, I suppose that by parallel construction we are also guaranteed:

Freedom of speech, not freedom from speech!
Freedom of the press, not freedom from the press!
Freedom to assemble peaceably, not from assembling peaceably!
Freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances, not from petitioning the government for a redress of grievances!

Comments

[doctroid.livejournal.com]

You liberal whackos who think you have some inalienable right to not speak, not publish, not assemble, not petition for redress, and not believe in God make me sick. You probably think you have the right to not bear arms, too.

[jwgh]

Haw haw! Here I am, not speaking right now! That's me, not speaking at -- aw, crap.

[palecur.livejournal.com]

I'm confused, since all of those are pretty correct. I don't have the freedom from anyone else's speech, modulo libel. Believe me, there's plenty of people on the Internet whose speech I wouldn't mind being free from.

Freedom from the press? It is to laugh. No-one is free from the press.

And Liddy's quite right -- the Establishment Clause doesn't imply a clean-room religion-free goal for everything. It just means 'no official state religion'.

But I don't think you suck or belong in jail. Because you're CUDDLICIOUS MR BEAR OF BEARINESS.

[jwgh]

Well, I'm not sure what 'freedom from religion' is supposed to mean. I took it to mean 'not being religious'. In that case the analogy to 'freedom from speech' would be 'not speaking', etc.

But I guess she probably meant something else by it, though I'm not sure just what. Here's the part of the speech that addresses this issue:

Two thousand years ago a man said, "I have come to give life and to give it in full." In America I have the freedom to call that man Lord, and I do. In the United States of America we are free to worship without discrimination, without intervention and even without activist judges trying to strip the name of God from the Pledge of Allegiance; from the money in our pockets; and from the walls of our courthouses. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The right to worship God isn't something Republicans invented, but it is something Republicans will defend.

I guess the argument is that someone has an inalienable right to put 'In God We Trust' on currency and if I don't like it that's too bad, but I'm not sure if it's the government or what.

[chicken-cem.livejournal.com]

I just HATE that moniker, "activist judges". The anti-gay marriage bigots use that same phrase when speaking about the Massachusetts Supreme Court. It is just an untrue moniker. I don't see how a judge who is simply trying to fairly apply the Constitution to all Americans could possibly be an "activist".

[palecur.livejournal.com]

Hating it won't make it less true, regrettably. I'm as down with the hot dude-on-dude action as the next SF Bay Area dweller, but having read the Massachusetts decision it's kind of hard to see where else, other than the judicial nether regions, it could have come from. It sure wasn't based on the Massachusetts Constitution. If we, as a people, want to create a new marriage-like institution that our gay pals can be in, we should pass legislation to that effect, not have judges wave their imperious hand and create new institutions de novo.

[kerri9494.livejournal.com]

Hating [the moniker 'activist judges'] won't make it less true, regrettably.

That's right. Because all the OTHER judges are not 'active'...they just sit around on their asses, playing sock-puppet to the autocratic administration, serving the whims of the despots who put them into power.

If we, as a people, want to create a new marriage-like institution that our gay pals can be in...

Uhhh...my pals who have TEH GAY are part of the 'we as a people' too, you know. (I hear they're even letting WOMEN VOTE these days!)


having read the Massachusetts decision it's kind of hard to see where else, other than the judicial nether regions, it could have come from.


I'm not sure what is in the Constitution of the United States, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or the written law of either entity that prohibits a woman from marrying a woman, or a man from marrying a man. Is there something there? Because if you could cite that for us, it would make this whole issue a lot easier for the nation to deal with. Con Law will teach you that, in our nation of 'freedom', the Constitution is used generally to limit freedoms, not grant them. They don't have to be granted. That's the whole premise of a 'free country'.

[chicken-cem.livejournal.com]

"Our gay pals"? Huh? Did you not see my icon? Hello, gay.

[palecur.livejournal.com]

With the context quote, yeah, that sounds a little more RAH GOD RAH than I'm really comfortable with. I think the God references on the money, and even in the post-1955 version of the pledge, are 'under the radar' enough that I don't really care. You can probably get a crusty traditionalist like me to support reverting to the original version of the pledge without too much trouble, but I like the money stuff. It's comfortable, traditional, and taking it out would bug me.

Well, insofar as there's money being printed, you could argue that you could print anything on it you like, and it's only the government's current monopoly on issuing currency that makes it an issue. So it's really an argument for private currency, which would be pretty interesting, actually.

[doctroid.livejournal.com]

In a crucial way, "freedom of religion" differs from the other First Amendment rights like "freedom of speech". Freedom of speech means you can say "George W. Bush sucks" and the law cannot prevent you or punish you. Government can, however, try to persuade you to say "George W. Bush is great". Freedom of religion means you can worship however you please, and the law cannot prevent you or punish you. Can government, however, try to persuade you to be a Christian? As I read the Bill of Rights, no, it can't -- or shouldn't. Look at the First Amendment: and see a key difference in the wording (emphasis and formatting mine):

Congress shall make no law

• respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
• or abridging the freedom of speech,
• or of the press;
• or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assemble and petition all are to be permitted; but only for religion is there the additional proviso (italicised) that none is to be imposed, either. I see that as, in fact, a guarantee of freedom from religion, or rather, from state-established religion. Contrary to Ms Dole, not only is it there in the Bill of Rights, it's the only "freedom from" in the First Amendment.

[ceruleanst.livejournal.com]

When people say "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion," they mean that nobody has the right to be atheist. Apply that to speech, and it would mean nobody has the right to remain silent.

When people say "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion," they also tend to mean that they have the right to impose their religion on me. You do have freedom from other people's speech; for instance, harassment is a crime, and if you don't want to hear from certain people, that is your right. You don't have to read the whole Internet. You could turn off your TV and even unplug your phone if you wanted, and it would not be "censorship."

[palecur.livejournal.com]

When people say "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion," they mean that nobody has the right to be atheist.

Do they now.

Tell me more about what I mean when I say stuff. It's really enlightening.

See, what I thought I meant when I said it was something more along the lines of "You don't have the right to shut up other people just because they're religious. Not even if they're elected officials. No, just because the President said God in a speech doesn't mean we're shipping off non-Christians to Jebus re-Neducation Camp next week."

When people say "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion," they also tend to mean that they have the right to impose their religion on me.

Indeed. Well, in the spirit of imposing my religion on you, I suppose I should make some comments about the upcoming Fall Equinox celebration at Mabon and other wicca-related noises.

[jwgh]

I suspect 'freedom from religion' has no clear meaning, so people just read into it whatever they want. It sure sounds smart, though.

Mostly when I see the phrase come up it's in the context of stuff like the Pledge of Allegiance or the money thing or the Ten Commandments in the courthouse. People may not like that Jimmy Carter's a fundamentalist, but they're not going around saying that that disqualified him from being President, are they? Maybe I'm reading the wrong blogs.

[jwgh]

Hmmm, I guess JC wasn't a fundamentalist, just evangelical. I get all these God terms mixed up.

[sunburn.livejournal.com]

I read this comment before the one before it (it's short and I was skimming) so naturally I mistook which JC you were referring to.

[doctroid.livejournal.com]

See, what I thought I meant when I said it was something more along the lines of "You don't have the right to shut up other people just because they're religious. Not even if they're elected officials.

Oh, well, if that's all you mean, then no problemo. Anyone who wants to talk about his own religious views, that's OK with me, as long as I'm not compelled to listen. Anyone who wants to take time out for a prayer at home, or at work, or at school, whatever, that's fine -- again, as long as they're not pressuring me to listen or join in. It's just that I usually assume "no freedom from religion" means "it's OK for the government to put the Ten Commandments up on the courthouse wall and a Christmas creche in front of City Hall and to require schoolchildren to assert their belief in God every morning and in general to ram some sort of watered-down non-denominational Judeo-Christian monotheism down citizens' throats at every opportunity, as long as you don't actually send them to jail if they then go out and worship Buddha or something." And that, really, is not OK.

[ceruleanst.livejournal.com]

I never heard you say it, so I don't see why you think it's about you. The majority of instances I see it in are from people who want to legislate morality based on the pretext that America is a Christian nation, and are in a good position to do so. Many who utter the phrase are even shaky on the "of" part, and will go on to say things like "It means we're free to worship The Lord Our God... but it shouldn't be twisted around to defend the practice of witchcraft. You can't tell me that's a real religion."

[urbeatle.livejournal.com]

it's gosh-darned liberals like Libby Dole who are sending our country to hell. I've read the Constitution, including the First Amendment, and it doesn't mention "freedom of religion" at all! wacko liberals insert the word "freedom" in order to allow false non-christian religions to spread!

what does it literally say? that congress shall make no lack *respecting* the establishment of religion! so congress should be disrespectful of all religions. and, since religion is Man reaching up to God, but christianity is God reaching down to Man, only christianity should be allowed!

oh, and atheism, too. but none of you buddhist wackos.

[avocado123.livejournal.com]

Libby Dole can kiss my fat white buddhist ass.

Freedom of speech means someone will take the above sentence and turn it into award-winning fanfic.

[drea-ri.livejournal.com]

I second the above Buddhist post.
Everyone can kiss my Satanic ass. And yes, I will burn and love it, dance in the fires of hell, and NO- I don't need you jesus freaks to 'save' me. And, in America I have the right to have my beliefs. And NO, I am not breaking the law or harming animals and children. Anyone who dares make such uneducated comments to my comment can stop before they start. mmwaahahahaaaaa

[revjack256.livejournal.com]

Americans want what's right. We, as a people, deserve that. We deserve freedom. And by golly, we will have it. Because we deserve it. As Americans.