On a yahoo news group for atheists about a month ago; some person that stated he/she is a christian started posting complaints about atheists trying to limit the rights of religious people. He or she uses examples such as the incident with the "under god" pledge ruling earlier this year (June 2002) where the 9th circuit court district in California said that the pledge of alligance was unconstitutional in response to a complaint from an atheist family that didn't want their child saying the pledge because of the words "under god" in it. This person stated that what atheist need to understand is that the constitution of the USA say that people have the freedom of religion; not freedom from religion; so they can do whatever they want.
Now I agree that the US amendment (thanks to the four famous presidents that created and signed the declaration of independence. Mainly Thomas Jefferson of course) does say that people have freedom of religion. However, if christians or other religious people are going to use this as a liable argument for defending their religious beliefs then they need to try something else. In my close examination of the "Freedom of Religion" argument, there are a few problems that I see that make this argument fall short of credibility.
It is true that christians and other religious people have freedom of religion. They can practice it anytime it is convenient to them. However, there is a time and a place for everything (see my "Christians Bitching about Limited Religion" page for more info in this part). Just because for instance, the government will not allow a group of christians to put up a monument of the 10 commandments on the yard of a public office building, does not mean that people are trying to violate a person's rights to freedom of religion. They probably will not let anyone put a monument of the 10 commandments up because it is not the time or the place for it. Also, those that do not agree with a thing like that will be offended. If christians want to do something like the 10 commandment monument on public buildings thing, then we have to allow people that do not agree with them to put their stuff on public buildings too. Fair is fair. If the pagans want to put a monument of magic spells for their goddess, if satanists want to put the 9 satanic sins on public school walls, if hindus want to put a statue of Krishna in a public park, or if an atheist want to put anti-religious slogans on public buildings, they can do that as well.
The second thing that is wrong about the "Freedom of Religion" argument is those christians that use this argument make it seem like that not being in a religion is a crime. I have heard stories on the news were many people that are atheist or in some other religious beliefs that christians do not agree with have been harassed and arrested by police officers (some of them are christians as well). For instance, back in 1998 a 21 year old women was arrested at a tater day festival in Kentucky because some group of christians were offended by her marilyn manson t-shirt that have the phrase "I am the God of Fuck" on it and she stated that she was an atheist. At first she lost the court battle at a local court and was charge for harassement for the manson shirt. She aslo had to pay a fine. However, later on in the middle of 1999, a federal court over turned the ruling of the local court and she won the court battle. Eventually, the courts will be on the victims side and not the police as they must protect the victims 1st amendment rights. Even though there is a law that say christians are entitled to their religious beliefs, there is no law saying that people have to be in a religion. Also, there is no law saying that not being in a religion is a crime. That means atheist and other non-religious people have the right to not be in a religion (and express themselves) just as much as christians have the right to be in one.
The Third thing that I want to point out about the flaw in the "freedom of religion" argument is those christians that use this argument believe that the 1st amendment only applies to them and no one else. For instance, there was a story on the American Atheist webpage that speaks about a catholic church trying to censor a Chicago newspaper article over a cartoon that made some jokes about their religious beliefs in particular (and there are some pretty damn funny jokes by the way). Now granted that the catholic church have the right to be offended by whatever the jokes in the cartoons says. However, the chicago newspaper company isn't violating any laws by making jokes about their religion. They can do that. It is there 1st amendment right. I don't see why those at the chicago newspaper company have to keep their mouths shut just because the catholic people are offended. Some people are offended by the catholic religious ideas. However, if someone tries to censor the catholic's religious beliefs, I'll bet they'll go up in arms about it and start bitching about having freedom of religion and such (I know it's nothing new). The 1st amendment of the USA apply to everyone (those that live and are legal citizens in the USA that is), not just one particular person or group. The world does not revolve around any one person or group's religious belief. If someone does not agree with your beliefs (without hard and factual evidence), then they do not agree. It is just that simple. They are free to find something that do agree with them (again, based on hard and factual evidence hopefully).
I understand that not all christians makes a big deal out of stuff from those that do not agree with them. There are some atheist that go around and violate the rights of christians and other religious people. This explanation of mine goes to them too. However, I have seen more christians that violate atheists rights than the other way around (especially since christianity is the dominate religion here in the US)
The United States of America is a free country (more or less), and I do not have a problem with the religious expressing themselves (if they want to be slaves to some magical being that doesn't exist and make themselves look like nutcases, then that is their business). However, why is it that some christians or other religious people want others that do not agree with them to not express themselves? Why must atheists and other non-religious people have to halt their lives and bite their tongues just to please the religious and not get into trouble with the law? Really folks, this is not a christian nation.
