4 ms·

Not at all. You have freedom of religion but not freedom from religion. It’s ok whatever god you worship, but only as long as you worship one.

quantified 2y ago
Is the Prince of Darkness considered a god in this context?
- dotcoma 2y ago
  What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster ?
wkat4242 2y ago
I assume you're joking but just in case you're not.. Really? I thought atheism was a perfectly fine option under "freedom of religion" too. I guess it's ingrained in some parts of society. I would for example not be happy to swear on the bible. But in Holland we have this alternative thing for atheists where we have to swear to the king or something. I don't recognise our monarchy either but whatever :) it feels more acceptable because everyone can see that that's just a made up concept (I view a constitutional monarchy as a glorification of previous dictatorship)
- dotcoma 2y ago
  If you are asking me, no, I am not joking. Did the US ever have an atheist president? There you go. I, too, would rather swear on the monarchy (or on the republic) than on the Bible, but I am not sure they have that option in the US.
- drewcoo 2y ago
  There's no atheism allowed in 12 step programs . . .
dragonwriter 2y ago
Under the Constitution, you have both freedom of religiois exercise and freedom from religious establishment, as well as a freedom from religious tests for public office. The last two preclude institutionalization of religion with state mandate, even something as broad as the generic theism you suggest.
- dotcoma 2y ago
  > freedom from religious tests for public office. I don’t think this is true everywhere in the US. Add: link https://www.alternet.org/2014/12/7-states-where-atheists-cant-legally-run-office https://www.alternet.org/2014/12/7-states-where-atheists-can...
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > I don’t think this is true everywhere in the US. It’s not clear that the religious test clause per se does, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendments religion clauses (the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses) include the same protection and equivalent protections to those in the First Amendment are applied against the states by the 14th Amendment. See, Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), cited in your own article. So, yes, the Constitutionally-protected right exists eveywhere in the US. That article just notes the laws are on the books, despite being Constitutionally unenforceable. (Maryland's was the one specifically struck down in Torcaso.)
    - dotcoma 2y ago
      They may be unenforceable, but please let me know when Tennessee gets an atheist governor.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Completely irrelevant. Lack of a legal religion test does not mean that people can't choose candidates or make policy on the basis of religion. This is just like how protection from political discrimination doesn't prevent people from voting on candidates based on their party affiliation. It just means that states can't have a no democrat/republican criteria for office.

quantified 2y ago

Is the Prince of Darkness considered a god in this context?

dotcoma 2y ago
What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster ?

wkat4242 2y ago

I assume you're joking but just in case you're not.. Really? I thought atheism was a perfectly fine option under "freedom of religion" too. I guess it's ingrained in some parts of society. I would for example not be happy to swear on the bible. But in Holland we have this alternative thing for atheists where we have to swear to the king or something. I don't recognise our monarchy either but whatever :) it feels more acceptable because everyone can see that that's just a made up concept (I view a constitutional monarchy as a glorification of previous dictatorship)

dotcoma 2y ago
If you are asking me, no, I am not joking. Did the US ever have an atheist president? There you go. I, too, would rather swear on the monarchy (or on the republic) than on the Bible, but I am not sure they have that option in the US.
drewcoo 2y ago
There's no atheism allowed in 12 step programs . . .

dragonwriter 2y ago

Under the Constitution, you have both freedom of religiois exercise and freedom from religious establishment, as well as a freedom from religious tests for public office. The last two preclude institutionalization of religion with state mandate, even something as broad as the generic theism you suggest.

dotcoma 2y ago
> freedom from religious tests for public office. I don’t think this is true everywhere in the US. Add: link https://www.alternet.org/2014/12/7-states-where-atheists-cant-legally-run-office https://www.alternet.org/2014/12/7-states-where-atheists-can...
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > I don’t think this is true everywhere in the US. It’s not clear that the religious test clause per se does, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendments religion clauses (the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses) include the same protection and equivalent protections to those in the First Amendment are applied against the states by the 14th Amendment. See, Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), cited in your own article. So, yes, the Constitutionally-protected right exists eveywhere in the US. That article just notes the laws are on the books, despite being Constitutionally unenforceable. (Maryland's was the one specifically struck down in Torcaso.)
  - dotcoma 2y ago
    They may be unenforceable, but please let me know when Tennessee gets an atheist governor.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Completely irrelevant. Lack of a legal religion test does not mean that people can't choose candidates or make policy on the basis of religion. This is just like how protection from political discrimination doesn't prevent people from voting on candidates based on their party affiliation. It just means that states can't have a no democrat/republican criteria for office.