gaubster2 wrote:

(Hint:

of

teaching

that

have

religious.

religion,

or

The phrase "freedom of religion" is NOT in the constitution either, so
according to your logic, if the phrase itself is not in the
constitution, then the principle is invalid. That logic rules out
freedom of religion, doesn't it? I DEFY you to show me where the phrase
"freedom OF religion" is found in the constitution. I want the exact
phrase, please, just as you stated it above, verbatim. If the phrase is
not in the constitution, then per your logic the principle it states
doesn't exist either. You don't have the right to NOT be offended so if
the secularists predominate the schools, tough. Your own words: YOU
don't have the right NOT to be offended so let's go homosexual
marriages, porn-TV, and all the other little goodies! Anyway, here is
an earlier post...

David
The phrase "freedom of religion­" is NOT in the constitution.
There are limits to the practice of religion. For example,
bigamy is outlawed in our country and people who believe in
it are often "persecuted" by the state for practicing it.
Parents who refuse medical treatment for ­their children on
religious grounds are sometimes prosecuted for t­heir actions.
In the South, those who wish to handle snakes as a ­show of faith
are sometimes singled out for "harrassment" by law enf­orcement
officials.

There is no such thing as a completely unfettered freedom of
religion in this country and there is nothing in the constit­ution
that
even implies there is unfettered freedom of religion. There ­are those

who believe homosexuals should be killed but the law prohibi­ts them
from acting out on those beliefs. There are some who believe­ all
Christians should observe the Saturday Sabbath but they are ­rendered
powerless by the government from imposing that belief on oth­ers.
Still
others believe heretics should be killed but there are laws ­that keep

them from carrying these penalties out. In short, there is n­o such
thing as total unfettered freedom of religion in the constit­ution and

since the phrase itself doesn't even appear in the constitut­ion any
inference drawn from that particular phrase is invalid.

The phrase itself is an inference, and is in the same catego­ry as
freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Freedom of the pr­ess and
speech are not unfettered either, as there are laws that pro­hibit
certain kinds of speech in certain circumstances. Certainly ­"freedom
of
the press" (an inference from the constitution) doesn't mean­ we are
NOT
free from the press, no more than "freedom of speech" means ­we are
NOT
free from speech. We certainly have freedom FROM speech if w­e so
desire
and are not required to submit to any speech nor to have to ­listen to

any speech we deem offensive.

Just as freedom of speech has its limits (imagine if no one ­was
guaranteed freedom ~from~ speech, then atheists would be all­owed to
enter churches and speak out during the services without leg­al
liability) so does any supposed freedom of religion.  Since ­the
phrase
is not found in the constitution we must rely on inferences ­and there

is absolutely nothing in the constitution that demands we MU­ST have a

religion.

Moreover, there is nothing in the  constitution that denies
us the freedom FROM religion. True freedom of religion canno­t be had
if
we must choose a religion, even one  that denies our basic b­eliefs or

principles. Those who infer the principle of freedom of reli­gion from

the constitution are wrong when they claim the principle of ­freedom
of
religon denies us the freedom from religion. Such a belief i­s
mean-spirited and dangerous and must be opposed. Naturally t­hose who
don't care about the feelings of others will complain if the­y are
opposed and will call such opposition "persecution" but that­ is okay.

It has always been a tradition of some Christians to scream
"persecution" at every opportunity. We get used to it.

The principles found in the constitution do not prohibit one­ from
seeking out the religion of their choice, as long as any law­s of the
land are not broken, but the priniple is clear that we all h­ave the
freedom to refuse religion as well. There is no true freedom­ of
religion when you have no freedom to refuse one. Just as fre­edom to
choose good includes the freedom to refuse good (free-will i­s a basic

tenent of Christianity) so the freedom of religion inferred ­from the
constitution grants us the freedom to choose no religion.

The phrase "freedom of religion but not freedom from religio­n" has
become sort of a mantra among evangelicals but it so obvious­ly wrong
and mean-spirited that it is not meant to speak truth but to­ destroy
the real freedom that Christianity was built on. That freedo­m -
freewill and the freedom to choose or not to choose a religi­on is
inherent within Christianity itself. The founding fathers we­re well
acquanted with this Christian principle of free will and the­re is
absolutely nothing in the Constitution that denies us the ri­ght to
practice free will, even if that free will leads us to refus­e
religion.
Lastly, there is nothing in the Constitution that claims we ­are not
free from religion. Our freedoms are not freedoms at all if ­we do not

have the basic human right to choose according to our consci­ence.
Even
pure Christianity gives you that much.

In summary:
Don't let the soi-disant Christians that inhabit the fringe bully
you into silence. These fools think that the Constitution
guarantees only people who believe in God rights. They believe the
constitution guarantees ~only~ freedom OF religion but since the phrase

"freedom of religion" isn't even in the constitution, any inference
drawn from the phrase itself is useless for determing what isn't or
what is allowed.

Just because the constitution doesn't specifically spell out in
excruciating detail that we are allowed certain things doesn't mean we
do not have the right to those things or the freedom from choosing
certain things.

Fallacious Argument A: If the constitution doesn't specifically say we
have freedom FROM X (where X can be anything of importance) than we
don't have freedom FROM X.

Examples..
The constitution doesn't guarantee us freedom FROM porn, therefore we
don't have freedom FROM porn.

The constitution doesn't gurantee us freedom FROM speech so we don't
have freedom FROM speech (athiests could enter churches and exercise
their free speech rights without fear of legal penalties).

BTY, what about those scientific proofs of the Red Sea crossing and the
burning bush?