“Freedom from” anything is anything but freedom

[Dorothy Mae]

A poster brought up the Freedom from Religion organization the other day. I thought about this some years ago and thought about shedding some light on what sounds like an increase in freedom by changing “of” to “from.”

Now it sounds like more freedom doesn’t it? Freedom from anyone else’s religion. But let’s use a different noun there and see how it actually plays out.

How about a silly one, freedom from bananas. I really dislike bananas so I’m in favor. A world where I am free from bananas in every conceivable form. No bananas at the store because it’s might right to banana free stores. No eating bananas in public (if you grow them in your garden behind a fence I can’t see through and so can legally obtain one in the first place) because we live in a Freedom from Bananas country. Would banana possessors be prosecuted so they need to meet in secret home groups to consume bananas? Dunno.

It’s silly, I know, but it sheds light on the whitewashed name “freedom from” which actually means “NO FREEDOM TO” as long as two people can see each other (or smell in the banana free land.)

It is a deep loss of freedom as one man’s personal preferences dictate the whole country’s rights and freedoms limitations.

 

[Milk-Drops]

The Freedom from Religion organization is run by people who are free from being religious. Basicly is just a longer way of saying they are Atheists.

The organization focuses on keeping the constitutional standard of separation of Chruch and state.

Here is their about section from their website.

What is FFRF's Purpose?

The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion. In modern times, the first to speak out

ffrf.org

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The Freedom from Religion organization is run by people who are free from being religious. Basicly is just a longer way of saying they are Atheists.

Except the principle is them being free from other people practicing their religion as well. Otherwise they were always free to be atheists. No reason to found such an organization. There is no compulsory religion in the US ever.

The organization focuses on keeping the constitutional standard of separation of Chruch and state.

Here is their about section from their website.

What is FFRF's Purpose?

The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion. In modern times, the first to speak out

ffrf.org

The separation of church and state was to protect the church from the state. Their focus is not bringing more freedom but less. Believers under their view, are not allowed to practice who they are, less freedom.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Except the principle is them being free from other people practicing their religion as well. Otherwise they were always free to be atheists. No reason to found such an organization. There is no compulsory religion in the US ever.

You should read their about section. They explain what their focus is and the nature of their name.

There are cases where the separation of Church and state happen and that is where they step in.

The separation of church and state was to protect the church from the state. Their focus is not bringing more freedom but less. Believers under their view, are not allowed to practice who they are, less freedom.

Can you name any such case where they removed a believer's personal right?

I'm familiar with the organization and they do make it clear they aren't stopping anyone from going to church , organizing events, doing evangelism, having 501c3s, entertainment, etc.

It's a foundation for when religious organizations try to expand into public schools, the law, etc.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The Freedom from Religion organization is run by people who are free from being religious.

Since you like giving links to them, could you give a link to them trying to answer the question, "What (if anything) do you mean by your word, 'religion'?" I've a hunch an apt name for them may be something along the lines of "Freedom From Being Able To Respond Rationally To That Question Foundation." And, if they can't deal with that question, they may as well call their organization, "Freedom From Zwoggleborf Foundation," which would be no more meaningless than their current name.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Since you like giving links to them, could you give a link to them trying to answer the question, "What (if anything) do you mean by your word, 'religion'?" I've a hunch an apt name for them may be something along the lines of "Freedom From Being Able To Respond Rationally To That Question Foundation." And, if they can't deal with that question, they may as well call their organization, "Freedom From Zwoggleborf Foundation," which would be no more meaningless than their current name.

You are free to click on the link and explore the website.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

You are free to click on the link and explore the website.

IOW, even you know they can't answer the question I stated.

 

[Milk-Drops]

IOW, even you know they can't answer the question I stated.

Why do you think they could not answer the question?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Why do you think they could not answer the question?

Because nobody can answer the question, "What (if anything) do you mean by your word, 'religion'?" who uses their word, "religion," in a cognitively meaningless way.

Why do you think they do not have the question (nor an answer to it) in their FAQS? Obviously, their fan base/target audience couldn't care less about the fact that FFRF uses their word, "religion," meaninglessly, and the brains at FFRF certainly could not care less about preempting an answer to the question, should anybody come along and ask it at some point. So we, of course, find no FAQ entry such as, "What do we mean by 'religion'?" or "What is religion?" or "What makes something a religion, or religious?"

If you think they can answer the question, feel free to quote and give a link to the text in which you think they are answering it.

Now, FFRF is the organization for which one, David Silverman, is or was a spokesman, no? Maybe not...I don't remember, nor is it even the least bit material, here. But, remember when that sage made a pathetic noise about Tim Tebow, some years ago?

"Silverman believes that Tebow is “full of crap” when he publically [sic] displays his Christianity on the football field and said his prayers are for publicity."​

The article quotes Silverman:

“It’s not that Tebow prays, it’s that he waits for the cameras to be on him to do it,” Silverman says. “He’s totally faking.”​

​

Either Tebow is praying, or he is faking—in other words, not praying. Which is it, Silverman? In one, short sentence, Silverman glaringly contradicts himself, demonstrating that thinking rationally is not his cup of tea. And, if Tebow were faking, instead of praying, then why is snowflake Silverman having such a meltdown? Isn't that what FFRF folk want—for people to NOT be praying in public? If Tebow is not really praying, then Tebow is just one of Silverman's fellow non-Christians. People who think the way Silverman thinks have no hope of being able to make a self-coherent pronouncement in response to an elementary question such as the one I've stated, above, about one of the very words they have chosen to use in the name of their own noisemaking organization.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Because nobody can answer the question, "What (if anything) do you mean by your word, 'religion'?" who uses their word, "religion," in a cognitively meaningless way.

Well considering the purpose of the organization, its working under the legal definition. A lot of them are ex Christian and Muslem, so those people are free from their former religions.

Why do you think they do not have the question (nor an answer to it) in their FAQS?

Because its not important to their mission or objectives.

Obviously, their fan base/target audience couldn't care less about the fact that FFRF uses their word, "religion," meaninglessly, and the brains at FFRF certainly could not care less about preempting an answer to the question, should anybody come along and ask it at some point. So we, of course, find no FAQ entry such as, "What do we mean by 'religion'?" or "What is religion?" or "What makes something a religion, or religious?"

I think it would be easier if you just shot them an email, instead of soap boxing.

If you think they can answer the question, feel free to quote and give a link to the text in which you think they are answering it.

How about you shoot them an email?

Now, FFRF is the organization for which one, David Silverman, is or was a spokesman, no?

its currently Fan Baker and Annie Gaylor.

Maybe not...I don't remember, nor is it even the least bit material, here. But, remember when that sage made a pathetic noise about Tim Tebow, some years ago?

"Silverman believes that Tebow is “full of crap” when he publically [sic] displays his Christianity on the football field and said his prayers are for publicity."​

The article quotes Silverman:

“It’s not that Tebow prays, it’s that he waits for the cameras to be on him to do it,” Silverman says. “He’s totally faking.”​

​

Either Tebow is praying, or he is faking—in other words, not praying. Which is it, Silverman? In one, short sentence, Silverman glaringly contradicts himself, demonstrating that thinking rationally is not his cup of tea. And, if Tebow were faking, instead of praying, then why is snowflake Silverman having such a meltdown? Isn't that what FFRF folk want—for people to NOT be praying in public? If Tebow is not really praying, then Tebow is just one of Silverman's fellow non-Christians. People who think the way Silverman thinks have no hope of being able to make a self-coherent pronouncement in response to an elementary question such as the one I've stated, above, about one of the very words they have chosen to use in the name of their own noisemaking organization.

Wouldn't, for someone not material to this conversation, you have a lot to say. As for that, Silverman is not the leader, so who cares what that man said? Other people run it now.

 

[God Is My Judge]

A poster brought up the Freedom from Religion organization the other day. I thought about this some years ago and thought about shedding some light on what sounds like an increase in freedom by changing “of” to “from.”

Now it sounds like more freedom doesn’t it? Freedom from anyone else’s religion. But let’s use a different noun there and see how it actually plays out.

How about a silly one, freedom from bananas. I really dislike bananas so I’m in favor. A world where I am free from bananas in every conceivable form. No bananas at the store because it’s might right to banana free stores. No eating bananas in public (if you grow them in your garden behind a fence I can’t see through and so can legally obtain one in the first place) because we live in a Freedom from Bananas country. Would banana possessors be prosecuted so they need to meet in secret home groups to consume bananas? Dunno.

It’s silly, I know, but it sheds light on the whitewashed name “freedom from” which actually means “NO FREEDOM TO” as long as two people can see each other (or smell in the banana free land.)

It is a deep loss of freedom as one man’s personal preferences dictate the whole country’s rights and freedoms limitations.

People have gone bananas! Lol!

 

[T. E. Smith]

Paul E. Michael David Silverman was president of American Atheists. No relation to FFRF.

Can you name any such case where they removed a believer's personal right?

I'm familiar with the organization and they do make it clear they aren't stopping anyone from going to church , organizing events, doing evangelism, having 501c3s, entertainment, etc.

It's a foundation for when religious organizations try to expand into public schools, the law, etc.

Indeed! There's no case where they ever removed a believer's personal right. In fact, Dorothy Mae, one of their highlighted cases is where they removed the requirement on employees of one state to take an oath in God's name. (The oath must still be taken, but no longer references God.) To be forced to swear in God's name is a limitation of one's religious freedom. And it's clear which God is being referred to. The Christian God.

It is a deep loss of freedom as one man’s personal preferences dictate the whole country’s rights and freedoms limitations.

This is the modern evangelical narrative, where they pretend that they are the majority and that a privileged elite is squashing their rights. Hence the term "moral majority." That's a total myth. The separation of church and state is good for the church and good for the state. And it is essential for the well-being of the people.

How about a silly one, freedom from bananas. I really dislike bananas so I’m in favor. A world where I am free from bananas in every conceivable form. No bananas at the store because it’s might right to banana free stores. No eating bananas in public (if you grow them in your garden behind a fence I can’t see through and so can legally obtain one in the first place) because we live in a Freedom from Bananas country. Would banana possessors be prosecuted so they need to meet in secret home groups to consume bananas? Dunno.

So you want to make a parallel to religion? Okay, let's consider:

1. Can religious books be sold at stores if the stores so choose? Of course.
2. Can one read the Bible or pray in public? Of course.
3. Does the FFRF want people who are Christians to be prosecuted? Certainly not.

So your comparison collapses.

 

[God Is My Judge]

Paul E. Michael David Silverman was president of American Atheists. No relation to FFRF.

Indeed! There's no case where they ever removed a believer's personal right. In fact, Dorothy Mae, one of their highlighted cases is where they removed the requirement on employees of one state to take an oath in God's name. (The oath must still be taken, but no longer references God.) To be forced to swear in God's name is a limitation of one's religious freedom. And it's clear which God is being referred to. The Christian God.

This is the modern evangelical narrative, where they pretend that they are the majority and that a privileged elite is squashing their rights. Hence the term "moral majority." That's a total myth. The separation of church and state is good for the church and good for the state. And it is essential for the well-being of the people.

So you want to make a parallel to religion? Okay, let's consider:

1. Can religious books be sold at stores if the stores so choose? Of course.
2. Can one read the Bible or pray in public? Of course.
3. Does the FFRF want people who are Christians to be prosecuted? Certainly not.

So your comparison collapses.

I agree, separation of church and state is good. Hope that will be the case. But I can assure you the state would not keep its nose out of the church. Every Christian martyr died as an enemy of the state. Oh! and stop speaking myths.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Paul E. Michael David Silverman was president of American Atheists. No relation to FFRF.

Indeed! There's no case where they ever removed a believer's personal right. In fact, Dorothy Mae, one of their highlighted cases is where they removed the requirement on employees of one state to take an oath in God's name. (The oath must still be taken, but no longer references God.) To be forced to swear in God's name is a limitation of one's religious freedom. And it's clear which God is being referred to. The Christian God.

This is the modern evangelical narrative, where they pretend that they are the majority and that a privileged elite is squashing their rights. Hence the term "moral majority." That's a total myth. The separation of church and state is good for the church and good for the state. And it is essential for the well-being of the people.

So you want to make a parallel to religion? Okay, let's consider:

1. Can religious books be sold at stores if the stores so choose? Of course.
2. Can one read the Bible or pray in public? Of course.
3. Does the FFRF want people who are Christians to be prosecuted? Certainly not.

So your comparison collapses.

You have missed the point entirely. There can be no "freedom from" anything that does not remove freedoms. The Communists employed "freedom from" and the result was no faith allowed. The current move towards "freedom from hate speech" curbs speech for the sake of the sensibilities of a few or even one. Of course the exacerbating problem is hate is always a matter of opinion and just about never objective.

 

[T. E. Smith]

You have missed the point entirely. There can be no "freedom from" anything that does not remove freedoms. The Communists employed "freedom from" and the result was no faith allowed. The current move towards "freedom from hate speech" curbs speech for the sake of the sensibilities of a few or even one. Of course the exacerbating problem is hate is always a matter of opinion and just about never objective.

Religious people don't have the freedom to impose their beliefs on others via the public school system and the law. You are correct on that point. It is essential that the government not endorse and preach any particular religion; joining church and state corrupts both the church and the state.

 

[T. E. Smith]

You have missed the point entirely. There can be no "freedom from" anything that does not remove freedoms. The Communists employed "freedom from" and the result was no faith allowed. The current move towards "freedom from hate speech" curbs speech for the sake of the sensibilities of a few or even one. Of course the exacerbating problem is hate is always a matter of opinion and just about never objective.

Also: Do I have the freedom to ridicule people and insult them across the forums? No, I don't. My free speech is limited in that area. Why is it limited? Well, people should have the freedom to be on a public forum without being relentlessly insulted. Agreed?

I should have the freedom to go into the public schools and not have the biologist preach creationism to me. I should have the freedom to be able to go into public office without a religious test being required. And so on.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Religious people don't have the freedom to impose their beliefs on others via the public school system and the law. You are correct on that point. It is essential that the government not endorse and preach any particular religion; joining church and state corrupts both the church and the state.

I didn’t say that. But atheists have no right to impose their atheism on others via the public schools.

 

[T. E. Smith]

I didn’t say that. But atheists have no right to impose their atheism on others via the public schools.

They do not impose their atheism on others via the public schools. The teacher is forbidden from saying, "There is no God", or something similar, in the public schools.

Unless you can cite specific examples that are permitted to be imposed. (There are none.) And don't cite evolution. Evolution is not an atheistic theory. Darwin himself said,

I see no reason why a man cannot be both an ardent theist and an evolutionist.

He himself repudiated the term "atheist" and called himself an agnostic.

Church-state separation is good for everyone, not just for atheists.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Also: Do I have the freedom to ridicule people and insult them across the forums? No, I don't. My free speech is limited in that area. Why is it limited? Well, people should have the freedom to be on a public forum without being relentlessly insulted. Agreed?

You can pick examples we all find unacceptable or we can pick an example only one finds unacceptable. Perhaps a man finds the term “freckle faced” insulting. In freedom from hate speech, no person would be able to use that term. Some find the police asking a witness if the suspect was a man or woman “hate” speech or what race they were bigotry. A witness is not allowed to the police the decor skin color of the suspect (although those differences don’t exist.) Have we lost or gained freedoms?

I should have the freedom to go into the public schools and not have the biologist preach creationism to me. I should have the freedom to be able to go into public office without a religious test being required. And so on.

And I should be able to into a public school and hear the current scientific problems with evolution. Good luck with that one.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

They do not impose their atheism on others via the public schools. The teacher is forbidden from saying, "There is no God", or something similar, in the public schools.

There is more than one way to forbid ideas.

Unless you can cite specific examples that are permitted to be imposed. (There are none.) And don't cite evolution. Evolution is not an atheistic theory. Darwin himself said,

Dawkins and others say it is.

He himself repudiated the term "atheist" and called himself an agnostic.

All agnostics become atheists with time. A failure to decide IS a decision.

Church-state separation is good for everyone, not just for atheists.

No, the moral decline in schools and the youth came in after prayer and God were outlawed. It was bad. Most other western nations recognize religion as a subject children need to be informed about. Only Americans officially prefer ignorance on that subject.