It's Debatable: Freedom 'of' or 'from' religion

[TexasTowelie]

This week, Arnold Loewy and Donald May (aka Mr. Conservative) debate Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. Donald has been a candidate for Congress and writes an independent blog on lubbockonline.com and Arnold is the George Killiam Professor of Law at Texas Tech University School of Law.

Donald: RFRA protects
liberty from radical minority

Liberal activists are now strongly renouncing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that was signed into law in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.

The federal RFRA was enacted to protect the religious liberties of the people from the power of the politicians and the coercion of a radical minority. The 1993 RFRA bill had strong bipartisan support and passed the House unanimously and the Senate 97-3. It was the 1993 RFRA that directed our Supreme Court to protect Hobby Lobby and others from the Obamacare mandates to purchase birth control and abortion coverage in their health care policies.

The Indiana RFRA was essentially a copy of the federal 1993 RFRA, with 31 other states previously passing almost identical religious liberty protections. The left attacked the Indiana RFRA because it needed a target. The left has become intolerant of the religious liberties of the American people, which allow people to legally, personally and politically oppose same-sex marriages and unrestricted abortions on the basis of their moral beliefs. It became the intent of liberal activists that the tolerance of diverse opposing religious beliefs was to be terminated in Indiana.

While the marriage of a natural male to a natural female has been historically foundational in all current major religions, the battle to legitimize and legalize same-sex marriages has become an intense culture war with Christians as the prime target. The left can no longer tolerate any opposition to same-sex marriages and seeks to make criminals of Christians and all others who oppose them.

Continued at http://lubbockonline.com/editorials/2015-05-03/its-debatable-freedom-or-religion

[font color=green]Please take time to read the comments.[/font]

[Goblinmonger]

1. No. Those aren't mutually exclusive.

We, as citizens, have the (limited by the SCOTUS) freedom of religion. As citizens, we are to be free from religion as it comes from our government. Private citizens can tell me about their religion and I can listen, ignore, or tell them to fuck off. Or I can argue with them.

[pinto]

3. Agree. Freedom of personal religion, freedom from state-sponsored religion. (nt)

Both are constitutional in my understanding.

[delrem]

2. Some might think corporations are people,

so when these people people die and "go to heaven" they might expect a McDonald's restaurant serving a "happy meal", because McDonald's is a "person" just like they are.

No doubt such people think that corporations can and do have "religious beliefs".

[meow2u3]

4. It's really freedom from IMPOSED religion

The theocratic right wants to impose their religious views on those of us who don't share their beliefs, something the First Amendment protects us against--at least in theory.

The First Amendment, in other words, protects freedom of and from religion: freedom of religion on a personal level and freedom from religion imposed by the government (or corporations, which might as well BE the government).

[E_Pluribus_Unitarian]

5. And maybe freedom "within" religion as well.

From a Unitarian Universalist perspective, liberation and variety should be key ingredients even in considering matters of ultimacy. That's a part of what we're trying to share with one another, and the larger world.