Did you know? Freedom From Religion is a zealot thing.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

And should be referred to within quotes. Agh.

[vixengrl]

1. I did not know that. I've always considered religion "participatory",

as in a thing one could choose to do, or not. Meaning "no" is also a choice, and that religious choice should also have a check box for "None of the above."

[rrneck]

2. The real question

is why do we need freedom from it?

[vixengrl]

3. It's a good question--things like "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance

don't seem that noxious, any more than sitting through a moment of silence or even most prayers--one can simply abstain. One isn't included, but one isn't offended--because one has chosen not to be, out of politeness. It's being a good minority--isn't it? Not excluded in so many words. Just not included. Second. Or no one. (I don't like it, personally. Having religion brought up as if all buy in grinds it in my face a little--it's just a personal feeling, but it's mine.)

But what about when supernaturalism is substituted for good policy in the political sphere in terms of birth control or education? At that point, the dictates of a given religion are stepping upon my rights, and I might want freedom from that. I don't feel comfortable being told that I am killing imaginary soul-children if I am on the pill, or that I am dooming countless innocent children to apostasy and hell if I let on that perhaps humankind decended from an ancestor in common with apes. I can respect religious speech and practice in others, but I do not agree that I have to participate in such if I don't agree. And I think I should speak out if I think such beliefs are generally injurious to my fellow humans.

[onager]

4. Well, at least in One Nation Under Jesus, here's one reason...

"The day this country ceases to be free for irreligion, it will cease to be free for religion. Except for that sect which can win political power." - Justice Robert Jackson, dissenting opinion in Zorach v. Clauson, 1952