Freedom OF or FROM?
July 16th, 2009 at 10:27 pm by Kristi Leigh under News
I read on the AP this week that the nation’s largest group of atheists and agnostics, known as “The Freedom From Religion Foundation,” filed a lawsuit on Tuesday, “seeking to block an architect from engraving ‘In God We Trust’ and the Pledge of Allegiance at the Capitol Visitor Center in Washington.” Whether you agree or disagree with this action, I feel that it conjours up some fair questions about the case.
Just take the name of the group for example, “Freedom FROM Religion Foundation.” I assume the name is in reference to Amendment 1 of the Constitution. But, the exact wording of that amendment is “Freedom OF Religion.” Now, on the surface it might seem that “freedom OF religion” and “freedom FROM religion” mean the same thing, but do they really? Personally, I take “freedom OF religion” to mean that anyone has the right to practice whatever religion he or she chooses. And I would take “freedom FROM religion” to mean the government has to remove any and all references to any and all religions from view, so a person does not have to be influenced by any religion. What do you think? Is this just a matter of semantics? Or are there in fact, two different interpretations of that amendment?
Which brings me to another question. Is the interpretation or the authors of the amendment’s intent more important when enforcing the constitution? If we choose author’s intent, then I believe it would be important to consider the orginal wording of the constitution, “Freedom OF religion.” And we would go on to read, the rest of the amendment.
“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.”
Is engraving “In God We Trust” and the Pledge of Allegiance onto a government building making a law respecting an establishment of religion? Does it prohibit the free exercise of religion?
Now, if we are to choose interpretation of the constitution as being the more proper way to enforce the constitution, perhaps you could interpret freedom of religion to mean no exposure. In which case, having to see the mere mention of God inscribed on a wall, or written on our currency would infringe on that right.
But this still leaves some unanswered questions for me. What motivates someone who does not believe in a higher power to want to censor it’s existence? If an atheist or agnostic does not believe in God(s) or believes it cannot be known, then why isn’t it dismissed as a fairy tale? Ignored as some ignore the mention of Santa Claus, ghosts, or fairies? Most theistic religions teach to honor one another and obey the law. What’s threatening about that?
If you have an opinion on this subject or case, please weigh in. The sharing of ideas educates us all.
Tags: constitution, Kristi Leigh
First of all, Kristi, I enjoyed this article. Here is one of the questions that popped into my mind while reading. At what point do we stop interpreting the Constitution instead of finding the framers’ intent? I know that it is neccessary in some instances, but sometimes when the Constitution is left open for interpretation, the result is the furthest from the framers’ intent. The Freedom From Religion Foundation, by exercising their “freedom FROM religion” and blocking that architect from engraving “In God We Trust” on that building, have infringed upon others’ right to “freedom OF religion.” Rights interfering with other rights was not the intent of the framers.
It’s terribly sad that a minority in this country feels the need to force its wishes on the majority.
If it weren’t for GOD and His Divine intervention in allowing this great country to be established and to flourish, that minority would have no country in which to practice its non-beliefs.
By insisting ‘In God We Trust’ NOT appear on government/public buildings, agnostics and atheists recognize there is a God.
Maybe the vocal unbelievers need to go to the Supreme Court building in Washington DC where numerous ‘religious’ symbols decorate the walls and buildings.
Don’t see that minority protesting there – even though that is the very structure which many times UPHOLDS their rights as non-believing American Citizens.