On 09-25-05, JITENDER SAAN said to RICHARD HELM:

-> Somehow some people believe that "freedom of religion"
means free from
-> religion.  There are no protections from being exposed to religion unless
-> you totally enclose yourself in a box with no contact outside.  The
-> government is actually prohibited from making laws that do what Chirnside,
-> Haglund and sauer want.


JS>Well putting the US constitution to one side I do think that freedom of
JS>religion is bit lacking if there is no freedom from religion.


There `is' freedom from religion. When a person pushing some religion or other
calls you up on your telephone, if you do not want to hear it, you just hang
up and there is no penalty.


If a person pushing religion walks up to you on the street and tries to engage
you in a religious discussion, all you have to do is walk away without saying
anything at all if you want to and there is no penalty.


If a group of people are going to start a religious program or begin praying,
you do not have to take part if you choose not to and there is no penalty.


This isn't like some countries where they `force' religion on people by making
women cover themselves from head to foot in hot, heavy robes, just to cater to
some religious-fruitcake society's idea of religious morality.


People are free to eat pork here if they so choose, or eat cow-beef, or use
cows milk, etc.


JS>One does
JS>not ask for an atmosphere totally lacking in all contact with religion
JS>but merely private space individually and equal regard for all,
JS>including atheists, socially.


There is plenty of that sort of freedom here.


The problems come in when those who do *not* want to have anything to do with
it, also don't want anybody `else' to either.


I've never *forced my religious beliefs* on anyone. I've never even discussed
my religious beliefs with anyone, especially here in Fido.





---
*Durango b301 #PE* Exceptis excipiendis - excepting what is to be excepted