I reread Haplo's post, and I would like to address one idea that hinges on which way you look at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo
Too many people love to try to say this is a freedom FROM religion - which it is not - it is the freedom OF religion. If your religion is that you want to worship the almighty spaghetti monster - you can. But freedom OF religion - and the FREE EXERCISE thereof means that there cannot be a prohibition of religion in government - or else your limiting that free exercise. That does not mean that government can establish a religion - aka force you to conform to one - but it also should not limit anyone's ability to practice theirs as they see fit provided it does not infringe on another persons rights...
|
I have heard the phrase "Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion" used before, and I think you mean it a different way than I do. When I hear that line I fear people wanting to enforce religion on all. You seem to fear that "freedom from religion" means removing religion entirely. I think it depends on who is saying it.
Same with "Separation of Church and State". That phrase means that the government doesn't interfere with religions, and religions don't interfere with the government. Nothing more, nothing less. And that's exactly what the founders wanted, so yes it is directly implied in the First Amendment. What part of that do you disagree with?
So the question really comes down to what the speaker means when he uses that phrase.