alt.education

On Apr 3, 12:40 pm, "Jeff Strickland" wrote:
> "thomas p." wrote in message
>
> news:47f4edbb$0$2085$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jeff Strickland" skrev i en meddelelse
> >news:BIUIj.6187$A87.458@trnddc06...
>
> >> "Peter Franks" wrote in message
> >>news:krUIj.52917$yk5.4002@newsfe18.lga...
> >>> buckeye wrote:
> >>>> Freedom of religion or freedom from religion?
> >>>> ...
>
> >>> Freedom OF religion.
>
> >> Agreed, it's freedom OF religion.
>
> > It is not possible to have freedom of religion without freedom from
> > religion.
>
> That is absolutely not true.
>
> It is certainly possible that freedom OF religion exposes you to religion
> you may otherwise prefer to not be exposed to, but you are not protected
> from the exposure to religion, you are only protected from the practice of
> religion should you prefer to not practice it, and the practice of an
> imposed religion should you prefer to practice religion. Your protection is
> to choose the religion you wish to practice, and to ignore all others. You
> are not protected from exposure to religions you wish to ignore.
>
> There is religion all around me, and I ignore all of them except the one I
> like. That is freedom OF religion. You are free to ignore all of them as
> well.

I take freedom from religion to mean my right to ignore all religions--
that I am not required to believe or disbelieve in any gods, period.

> Freedom FROM religion supposes you have a right to not be exposed to
> that which you reject.

This is silly. Nobody can grant freedom from exposure. Ask any flu
virus.