Do you support freedom from religion?

[°Leprechaun]

Yes, I do.

If you think that being nonreligious (atheist, agnostic, none, etc) is all right with you (for others if not for yourself) and don't think that you should try to change a person's irreligion then vote "yes", otherwise vote "no". Vote "other" if you can't vote "yes" or "no" for any reason, or if you think the question is ambiguous or unclear, or if you see a better way of looking at it.
If you vote "other" perhaps you should clarify as to why.

The point is that even if you support a person's legal right to lack of religion, but don't support it morally or ethically (etc) then you might vote "no" or "other".

If you think that the poll questions and answers could be expressed better, let me know that as well.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Of course I do, I'm an atheist myself.

[°Leprechaun]

Yes, but I don't think trying to convert people should be banned, that falls under freedom of speech.

True, but it can be annoying.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Yes (sane)

[dead0man]

The vast majority here are agnostic/atheist or soft Christians, neither group would vote no.  We have a couple of "hard" Christians, a handful of soft Jews, a couple of hard ones and a couple of Muslims.  Minus the soft Jews, all your no votes are going to come from them.  They also know they are in a tiny minority, so they might not be proud of their anti-freedom vote.  On the other hand, some of them like to be rebels, and may in fact appear proud to hate liberty.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I voted no simply because the way the phrase "freedom from religion" is typically used is to express in some way the idea that religion is bad.  As far as I'm concerned, the phrase "freedom of religion" includes freedom to be an atheist and if that sticks in your craw, use the phrase "freedom of conscience" instead.

[DC Al Fine]

The vast majority here are agnostic/atheist or soft Christians, neither group would vote no.  We have a couple of "hard" Christians, a handful of soft Jews, a couple of hard ones and a couple of Muslims.  Minus the soft Jews, all your no votes are going to come from them.  They also know they are in a tiny minority, so they might not be proud of their anti-freedom vote.  On the other hand, some of them like to be rebels, and may in fact appear proud to hate liberty.

The poll is freedom from not freedom of religion.

If you swap 'hard' Christian for 'hard' atheist/agnostic I agree with your analysis though.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

We had a state dedicated to this. It collapsed in 1991.

[°Leprechaun]

I voted no simply because the way the phrase "freedom from religion" is typically used is to express in some way the idea that religion is bad.  As far as I'm concerned, the phrase "freedom of religion" includes freedom to be an atheist and if that sticks in your craw, use the phrase "freedom of conscience" instead.

I wouldn't say religion is bad, but certainly in some cases it is. The way I look at "freedom from religion" is that it is not necessary for me. One can be a good person without it. The question is can I have a moral and ethical code without calling it "religion"?

Also, as far free speech goes, if religious people have free speech so should atheists and other "nones".
People should be just as free to express why irreligion is good as others are to express why they are religious. Of course, if an atheist knocks on your door, it would be for "no particular reason" as the joke goes. I like Buddhism by the way, because it is not centered around a belief in God, an afterlife, or hellfire and damnation. Some Buddhists have metaphysical beliefs, but they are not required for this particular path. In that sense Buddhism is more of a way of life than a "religion".

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Yes because it's their choice.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Freedom of religion, yes, but freedom from religion is pretty meaningless because its impact on culture and everyday thought is simply inescapable, whether we wish to accept that or not.

(it's kind of like when some on the left say we shouldn't "legislate morality," even though that's pretty much the point of having a government)

[catographer]

I think this is a poorly worded question. It should really be "Do you support freedom of religion, including freedom to not be of a religion?" Also, it's a bizarre question to ask; I figure almost everyone on a forum about American politics would support the 1st amendment's protection of freedom of religion/conscience. If you don't why are you on this forum?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Depends on what you mean by "freedom from religion."

[Torie]

I voted no simply because the way the phrase "freedom from religion" is typically used is to express in some way the idea that religion is bad.  As far as I'm concerned, the phrase "freedom of religion" includes freedom to be an atheist and if that sticks in your craw, use the phrase "freedom of conscience" instead.

Yeah, I view the phrase freedom from religion as a bash on religion, akin to the phrase freedom from fear being a bash on fear. Religion in general does not concern or frighten me, and I find it hubristic to bash it. In general, I basically ignore religion, unless curious about something. And nothing bores me more, than all those arcane doctrinal differences between various sects.

[°Leprechaun]

How about freedom to be "irreligious", specifically anyone who is not religious, which would include "spiritual but not religious"?

[Grassroots]

1st amendment.
Yes, you can be any religion you want.

[The Puppeteer]

Yes because most people don't believe as I do and I certainly have no interest in being forced follow religious beliefs that aren't mine just as I'm quite sure you wouldn't want to be forced to follow my religious beliefs or anyone else's.

[Cokeland Saxton]

Yes. Very much so.

[TDAS04]

I support freedom of religion, and that includes the freedom not to practice religion.  If by “freedom from religion” you mean the right of the non-religious to not be harassed or discriminated against, then sure, I support that as well.