Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Freedom of Religion by stampystampy Freedom of Religion by stampystampy
Freedom of Religion is also Freedom FROM Religion
Add a Comment:
 
:iconvonrabenherz:
VonRabenherz Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Indeed it is. I don't need anyone's religion shoved in my face.
Reply
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Jun 26, 2014  Student Writer
What is freedom from religion?
Reply
:iconpaulthored:
Paulthored Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2016
A Fundamentalist Atheist/Anti-religious group, that goes around funding, founding, and continuing legal action(aka: Lawsuits) against perceived overly "religious" activities.

Basically, anything to do with public displays of Religion(primarily Christianity, but also Islam or anything else that they think is not 'non-religious' enough) that they can get away with calling as a violation of separation of church and state.

Though they also fund things like billboard messages, news site's, planned parenthood(pro-life is apparently religious), and Anti-religious publications.

You've probably already have heard about them on the news... They're the ones like to complain about Christmas trees/lights and Nativity scenes being present in any space owned by local governing bodies.

Hopefully this helps you. ✌😉
---

Personally, I've basically been considering them as one of the 1st Atheist "Churches".
Reply
:iconrollertrack3:
RollerTrack3 Featured By Owner Jul 8, 2014
Not having Religion imposed on you through politics and peer pressure.
Reply
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2014  Student Writer
I get the feeling we define "forced on" differently.
Reply
:iconvonrabenherz:
VonRabenherz Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Likely. Especially since he said "imposed on".
Reply
:iconrandompasserbyer:
randompasserbyer Featured By Owner Jun 18, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
But that means that Catholics have a right to turn people away if they're requesting abortions.
Reply
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Jun 14, 2014  Student Writer
How do you figure?
Reply
:iconronaldthezombie:
RonaldTheZombie Featured By Owner May 12, 2014
IMHO, religion is not the problem. We are the problem because of how we treat it. How we use it.
Reply
:iconazchowdhury:
azchowdhury Featured By Owner May 23, 2013
Title: Islam for Muslim and Non-Muslim. Learn more about Prophet Jesus (PBUH)

Assalamowalikum,

Dear All,

Click the following link now!

www.truereligion.co.nr

Allah Hafiz
Reply
:icondreamsphereinc:
DreamsphereINC Featured By Owner Aug 22, 2013  Student General Artist
:iconhowaboutnobearplz:
Reply
:iconrandompasserbyer:
randompasserbyer Featured By Owner Jun 18, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
lol Right.
Reply
:iconscottythescot:
ScottytheScot Featured By Owner May 20, 2013
If you mean you have the right to not believe in a god, you're right. If you mean that people don't have a right to believe in God, you're damn wrong. Of course I mean this respectfully.
Reply
:icontasorius2:
Tasorius2 Featured By Owner Oct 25, 2012
Indeed ^^
Reply
:iconhillbillyfur:
hillbillyfur Featured By Owner May 30, 2012
I like it
Reply
:iconkik805:
kik805 Featured By Owner Mar 11, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
If there is freedom of religion, how come I'm ridiculed for being Agnostic Pagan?
Reply
:iconeeveeon22:
eeveeon22 Featured By Owner Mar 21, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Because there is also freedom of speech.
Reply
:iconsonic1234567891:
Sonic1234567891 Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
religion is a structured system of beliefs, rituals, and (often) ethics. it is human nature to create religion.
Reply
:iconntn2:
Ntn2 Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2012
Eh...
Reply
:iconsonic1234567891:
Sonic1234567891 Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
La religión es un sistema estructurado de creencias, rituales, y la ética (a menudo). es la naturaleza humana para crear la religión.

Traducido por Google
Reply
:iconntn2:
Ntn2 Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2012
Ok.
Reply
:icondarkartistkaiser:
DarkArtistKaiser Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Freedom From Religion needs to be interpreted more.

On one hand, it means you can choose not to be religious. On the other hand, its a government backed law to say no to anyone's religion and thus enforce atheism. I will back the former, I will not back the latter.
Reply
:iconangie-the-hunter:
Angie-the-Hunter Featured By Owner Aug 31, 2011
Nice, says it all!
Reply
:iconbilgeboybob:
bilgeboybob Featured By Owner Jul 19, 2011
I think this is great, simple and to the point. Looking at the other comments, some people have missed the point. Freedom *from* religion does not mean banng other people from practicing religion. It's to do with having a personal freedom from religion.
Reply
:iconcrimpsonlilly:
crimpsonlilly Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2009
I think there are two distinct interpretations of "Freedom from religion" going on here. It could either mean that there is no specific government endorsed religion, or it could mean that religion is outlawed.

I agree that there should be no government endorsed religion, but i do not agree that religion should be outlawed.
Reply
:iconwerewolfofthewater:
WerewolfOfTheWater Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2009
Agreed, it's impossible to have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. If the law forces you to live by the rules of one religion, (as in not being free from it) then you can't really live by the rules of a different religion.
Reply
:iconistarian:
Istarian Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2009
Allowing something is not the same as banning something. Freedom of religion does not mean FROM, and if you think so go visit some communist country where no religion is allowed and get out of this one.
Reply
:iconistarian:
Istarian Featured By Owner Oct 28, 2009
Ok, I see where your coming from. However, my point of view is that having freedom of religion also means that one is free to seek the conversion of others. Especially when it is an imperative of their religion. From that angle, acceptance of "unbelief" or "heathens" can be viewed as a failure to do as your religion dictates. Taken from my own angle at least, Christians are very different, or should be from any of the other religions you mention; Not that we are good examples (frequently we aren't). While asking for tolerance is something I can understand, acceptance is like giving up for evangelists. We, humans, may all be the same, but the driving forces behind a given religion (meaning the tenets and written rules) differ immensely. Although I would be the first to agree that what is often called religion can frequently be found to be very biased interpretation and application thereof. Still, thank you for clarifying what you perceive the meaning of this to be.
Reply
:icongrahamstephani:
Grahamstephani Featured By Owner Oct 26, 2009
I think you might be reading it wrong. The way I interpret it is:
Freedom of Religion = the ability to choose to worship whatever deities or religion that you want to.
Freedom from Religion = the ability to choose to not be religious at all.
So by having them both on the stamp you're saying that it doesn't matter whether you're a Chrisitan, a Buddhist, a Satanist, a Wiccan, or an Atheist. We're all the same really and we should just learn to accept everyone.
But I could be totally wrong and it could be like you said. lol
Reply
:iconcrimpsonlilly:
crimpsonlilly Featured By Owner Sep 17, 2009
I disagree.

Freedom from religion means those who wish to be religious are not free to do so. Is this fair to them?

Freedom of religion is when people respect eachother enough to acknowledge and accept their differences, and still get along. You don't have to agree with someone to give them their space and their respect--and that is freedom of religion.
Reply
:iconzarhx:
zarhx Featured By Owner Dec 26, 2011
That's not what the stamp means.
Reply
:iconcaptainbaconman:
CaptainBaconMan Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2009  Hobbyist Writer
Coexist.

You are awesome.
Reply
:iconcrimpsonlilly:
crimpsonlilly Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2009
Thanks, :D
Reply
:iconmarsmar:
Marsmar Featured By Owner Apr 9, 2009
Yeah, Of and From it all.
Reply
:icondarklinglena:
DarklingLena Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2009
Very cool stamp! Simple and to the point.
Reply
:iconpousazpower:
PousazPower Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2008
Why doesn't anybody realize this?
The default mode for this country should be a lack of religion, not Christianity. When people say that putting up the Ten Commandments at a courthouse is "freedom of religion", it's just like banning pork because it's against Judaism and Islam!
Reply
:iconold-paleoclipper:
Old-PaleoClipper Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
Actually, the USA has a secular constitution. We were founded on no religion. But sadly so many christians have come into office, the usa is viewed as a christian nation.
Reply
:icondocdarock:
DocDaRock Featured By Owner Dec 5, 2011  Hobbyist Writer
My classes always show the constitution, and most early laws, as influenced by Christian thought, and that the country was founded as Christian. It wasn't until later that 'free religion' was written into law.
Reply
:iconold-paleoclipper:
Old-PaleoClipper Featured By Owner Dec 5, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
Er, no. Our founding fathers were diests- not believing in the christian god. In fact, some of them were atheists. ...

sorry for the long reply BUT:

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?

In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

—The First Amendment To The U.S. Constitution

What about the Declaration of Independence?

We are not governed by the Declaration. Its purpose was to "dissolve the political bands," not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based on the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all.

The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.
What about the Pilgrims and Puritans?

The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom. Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were "Pilgrims" seeking religious freedom. The secular United States of America was formed more than a century and a half later. If tradition requires us to return to the views of a few early settlers, why not adopt the polytheistic and natural beliefs of the Native Americans, the true founders of the continent at least 12,000 years earlier?

Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the "wrong" faith. The framers of our Constitution in 1787 wanted no part of religious intolerance and bloodshed, wisely establishing the first government in history to separate church and state.
Do the words "separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution?

The phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.
What does "separation of church and state" mean?

Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase to the Danbury Baptists, said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.

The Supreme Court has forged a three-part "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.

A law must have a secular purpose.
It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.

The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle supported not only by minorities, such as Jews, Moslems, and unbelievers, but applauded by most Protestant churches that recognize that it has allowed religion to flourish in this nation. It keeps the majority from pressuring the minority.
What about majority rule?

America is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion.

Not only is it unAmerican for the government to promote religion, it is rude. Whenever a public official uses the office to advance religion, someone is offended. The wisest policy is one of neutrality.
Isn't removing religion from public places hostile to religion?

No one is deprived of worship in America. Tax-exempt churches and temples abound. The state has no say about private religious beliefs and practices, unless they endanger health or life. Our government represents all of the people, supported by dollars from a plurality of religious and non-religious taxpayers.

Some countries, such as the U.S.S.R., expressed hostility to religion. Others, such as Iran ("one nation under God"), have welded church and state. America wisely has taken the middle course--neither for nor against religion. Neutrality offends no one, and protects everyone.
The First Amendment deals with "Congress." Can't states make their own religious policies?

Under the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868), the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states. No governor, mayor, sheriff, public school employee, or other public official may violate the human rights embodied in the Constitution. The government at all levels must respect the separation of church and state. Most state constitutions, in fact, contain language that is even stricter than the First Amendment, prohibiting the state from setting up a ministry, using tax dollars to promote religion, or interfering with freedom of conscience.
What about "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust?"

The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.
Isn't American law based on the Ten Commandments?

Not at all! The first four Commandments are religious edicts having nothing to do with law or ethical behavior. Only three (homicide, theft, and perjury) are relevant to current American law, and have existed in cultures long before Moses. If Americans honored the commandment against "coveting," free enterprise would collapse! The Supreme Court has ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is unconstitutional.

Our secular laws, based on the human principle of "justice for all," provide protection against crimes, and our civil government enforces them through a secular criminal justice system.
Why be concerned about the separation of church and state?

Ignoring history, law, and fairness, many fanatics are working vigorously to turn America into a Christian nation. Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state.

America has never been a Christian nation. We are a free nation. Anne Gaylor, president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, points out: "There can be no religious freedom without the freedom to dissent."
Reply
:icondocdarock:
DocDaRock Featured By Owner Dec 5, 2011  Hobbyist Writer
I'm not saying you're wrong, and what you say is both intelligent and true. I'm merely saying that the history classes of the schools I've been too and the Constitution I've read in school has always made America out to be a country whose principles are rooted in Christian ideas and thoughts, and that for a long while America was a Christian nation. "Free religion" has always been an important piece of the Constitution, it originally was interpreted as meaning freedom to express any monotheistic religion (Protestant, Roman Catholic, etc", and it wasn't until later that it was clarified to mean freedom of all religions.
I'd rather not get into an argument on this. As I said, this is merely what I've been shown and taught throughout school. I apologize if I wasn't clear on that before.
Reply
:iconold-paleoclipper:
Old-PaleoClipper Featured By Owner Dec 5, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
It's fine. :)

It just bugs the crap out of me to hear that schools are teaching something that isn't correct.
Reply
:icondromornis:
dromornis Featured By Owner Jun 12, 2008
Excellent! I oughta buy a subscription so I can actually use some of these.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
January 18, 2008
Image Size
4.7 KB
Resolution
99×56
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
4,142
Favourites
284 (who?)
Comments
43
Downloads
61
×