"freedom of" v. "freedom from"

David Traver · Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 01:50 am Post subject: "freedom of" v. "freedom from"

Here is an interesting letter printed in the Peninsula Clarion, Kenai Alaska on January 29, 2007.
Who is goofier, the woman who wrote it, or the paper that published it? I'm going to go with the woman as the goofier. The paper was just trying to make a buck. The editor probably thought it was a hoot.

Strangely, however, this "freedom of religion" versus "freedom from religion" argument has been advanced by Sen. Leiberman. See http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010219/willis

What Senator Lieberman and the author of the letter did not do was to check the actual Constitution (not reprints). Had they done so, they would have seen that "freedom of religion" does not appear anywhere the actual document. Check it out http://tinyurl.com/92s3w6

Who is goofier? The Senator who gets it wrong, or the kook who gets it wrong?

Olan Barnes · Joined: 17 May 2004 Posts: 1648 Location: Michigan

Amendment I.*
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.

David Traver · Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 02:35 am Post subject:

Right Olan!

Notice that the words "freedom of religion" do not appear in the amendment. They are commonly used in publications of the amendment, but they are nowhere in the constitution. I guess it pays to read the thing though once in a while. I suggest it for everyone.

Here is a nice pocket edition http://tinyurl.com/4l2aqq

Olan Barnes · Joined: 17 May 2004 Posts: 1648 Location: Michigan

The founders thought that England and other countries such as France and Italy were in the business of establishment of religion or elimination of religious faith that they wanted to put that issue in the bill of rights - that the US could not be in the business of "establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

============================

From your pocket edition:

"Religion, freedom of A1 21"

David Traver · Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 05:44 am Post subject:

Olan, you do understand that the language you just posted and the index are not a part of the constitution, right?

Olan Barnes · Joined: 17 May 2004 Posts: 1648 Location: Michigan

Granted the index is not but it is the understanding of congress - a common sense sort of thing:

"U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
110th Congress, 1st Session
July 25, 2007
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),"

The other quote os part of the first amendment which is part of the Constitution which is in the Bill of rights amended the same time the Constitution was drafted by the founders:

"Amendment I.*
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"

That is a complected thought separated by a ( ; ) saying no establishment of religion or prohibition of the free exercise of - where am I wrong? Freedom for exercise of religion not freedom from religion - protection to practice atheism unless it is a religion unless some think it is a religion now.

David Traver · Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 02:02 pm Post subject:

With whom do you agree, Alice Shannon, or Sen. Lieberman?

The First Amendment regulates Congress, not the people. This is an important distinction. It is a clear statement that the Congress must be free from creating any religious law. Thus, a better index caption for the First Amendment would be "Freedom from Religion" rather than "Freedom of Religion." If the Congress had "Freedom of Religion" it could establish any religious law it wished, such as Sharia.

Nonetheless, religiosity has crept into the Congress's law making over the centuries. A good example is the credo on our currency, which states that issuing party, the United States government, trusts in "God." The subtle establishment of religion encompased in the bad law that made that possible is further explored by the lady from Alaska, who correctly points out that the Act of Congress that placed that credo on our money endorsed the monotheistic God of Christianity. Such government endorsement of a religious credo is exactly what the First Amendment prohibits.

If you think this is harmless error, I suggest asking your Senator to propose a bill that states "In Vishnu we Trust" or "In Allah we Trust" or "In Science we Trust." You will note that non-Christian, non-monotheistic religions, or the utter absence of belief in a Deity are not encompassed in the Congress's definition of God,

Try this on for size:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under [insert name of god, gods, goddesses, spirits, here or use "nothing"], indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

The addition of God to that which we must pledge allegiance crept in in 1954, when President Eisenhower, during the dark days of McCarthyism, caved. It was a mistake according the the intent of the First Amendment.

I am a person of faith, but perhaps not your faith, unless you happen to enjoy the poetry of Hafiz. I also argue that everyone has a Constitutional right to be an atheist and to not have that position compromised by government preference for monotheism. It appears my position is contrary to the position of the woman from Alaska and Senator Lieberman, and fully consistent with the actual intent and wording of the First Amendment.

Olan Barnes · Joined: 17 May 2004 Posts: 1648 Location: Michigan

Even when I do not agree with you totally I sure do enjoy your images - we should hit an art museum together some time.

David Traver · Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 08:11 pm Post subject:

I can't seem to recall that we have ever agreed about anything!

How about Chicago, around July 1st. It's the best time to be in Chicago. Let's do it.

Check for the Art Institute and any big exhibitions. We'll do lunch too! All Connectors are invited.

Olan Barnes · Joined: 17 May 2004 Posts: 1648 Location: Michigan

Now do not be so harsh - we agree on more than you think - I am a firm believer in union rights and collective rights to bargain. When we do agree I just have no need to comment as you notice I do not believe in a ditto or an at a boy and your SSA knowledge is beyond approach. I must say DDS is not always the enemy - just some of the time and I do give free advice to friends of former clients - as recently as yesterday so this web site keeps me in touch.

July first does sound good - been to the Chicago Art Institute and was disappointed that American Gothic was being loaned out at the time. I was there around the time of my transplant and last Summer I was at the Science and Industry Museum in Chicago - interesting to see a Submarine and a model train going from coast in the same room.Chicago land of interesting politics and Museums.

BTW we saw King Tut at the Field Museum and a dinosaur named Sue so I am in that neck of the wood quite a bit. But parking and getting around by Taxi is pricey compared to what I am used to.

Now this is really off topic but you started the subject line. :wink:

http://www.fieldmuseum.org/

http://www.artic.edu/aic/

http://www.msichicago.org/