You can not have freedom of religion if you do not have freedom from religion.

I don't think our founding fathers were thinking about atheism when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Many of them were Deist which I view as just one step away from atheism. But the idea of freedom of religion is the freedom of each to decide religious matters for themselves, which would just naturally include the right to decide against all religions or gods.

If by "freedom from religion" you mean that we have the right to not be affected in any way by believers/religion--then, no. If by "freedom from religion" you mean that our government should be secular and separated from ALL religion, and we have the right to live our lives without religion and without negative repercussions from the government , and without someone trying to force their beliefs onto us--then, yes.

If we're going back to the Pilgrims, if I recall correctly, that was freedom from religious persecution. I have to assert that the only way to achieve that is with the separation of church and state. Both freedom of and from religion follow, as the government cannot mandate any belief or worship or practice.

It's not my country, but freedom of religion means freedom to believe in none at all if you so choose, otherwise it isn't freedom it's a pool of restricted choices.

That certainly is being tested by herr tRUMP these days. His administration is taking taxpayer money away from the public school system and forking it over to Betsy Devos and her unregulated religious schools. Making"Merry Christmas"official as the national greeting is pacifying his Evangelist base for his 33% approval rating. The recent rulings in Arkansas and Kentucky sanctifying the Bible in Public Schools are definitely not division of church and state.

You can find numerous quotes from the founders on this matter. They are unambiguous.

To me, the constitutional promise of freedom of religion (meaning freedom to believe as one chooses in reference to religion) MUST include freedom FROM religion if it is to be carried out to its fullest extent. Many of the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution were not deeply religious men, but deists and atheists.

The founding fathers were for the most part Deist. They believed in a Divine Creator who then left the world alone for the most part. Thomas Jefferson's hobby was the creation of his own bible where he cut and pasted the sayings of Jesus into empty bound books. He left out all the miracles. The most important thing to the founders though was that the state could not sponsor any specific church through taxation, which is the way the colonies originally functioned.

An interesting perspective. Many of the founding fathers were concerned with religious over reach, often for different reasons I thinnk may peoel today take the above view, but I have nto read enough of the founders intentions to be sure what they intended one way or the other.

I do believe that you can only have true religious freedom if you have the right to a freedom from religion if one so chooses.

We should think of the constitution as an evolving contract. What applied in the 1800's doesn't necessarily apply to us today. Many of the founding fathers were deists. While enlightened for that time, it is not the same as today's atheism. My interpretation of the 1st Amendment would include "Freedom from religion" as long as it is a reasonable request which doesn't affect the freedom of those who wish to practice religion. I have no interest in a government which prevents people from practicing their religion as that government will surely also prevent freedom of thought.

Our country? Erm...

it was founded on the backs of slaves by foreign people and murder of the natives with religion thrown in for good measure.

Do you believe in Allah/ How about Zeus or any of the thousands of gods (religion is plural and all encompassing)? How about the god of the Catholics or any of the other sects within the 'Christian' (whatever that is) faith? How about Pastafarians or Satanism?

Freedom of religion means one's right to believe anything they want and that also means NOT believing. There is absolutely no law that says one must have a religious belief and, in fact, the Constitution has only 2 references to religion and they are prohibitory.

The purpose of the settlements that become colonies were started as economic ventures. Even the vaunted "Pilgrims" were financed by wealthy backers in England for the purpose of a return on investment. However, they failed to thrive to the point where they were financially successful. It is also notable that there were slaves in the Americas before any Pilgrims arrived. So in short, our country was founded on exploiting the resources and screwing the indigenous people out of their land.

That is the exact point. Freedom of versus freedom from are two hugely different things.

I think we focus on the wrong word. Instead of "of" we should focus on the word "freedom". If one says one has freedom to believe (of) in Santa Claus does that mean one is not free to not believe in Santa Claus? Freedom is freedom and the Freedom of religion means freedom about religion.

The religious are always making that into an issue that is simply not there. It is their way of either trying to distract others and/or they are saying they cannot grasp simple concepts.

we don't have freedom of religion. we live in a christain based country and anyone who issnt whether you are atheist or of another religion is discriminated against. sad but true

I could never Figure Out those "Fumbling First Fathers".

Nice insight of distinction. Yes, I would agree with that. Atheism was almost unheard of so the Enlightenment was still Deity-oriented. Our Founders were largely Deists who grew out of our Puritan beginnings. Read Hawthorn, if you haven't, for expansion of that thought. Pilgrims had some effect but mostly one of political organization. The Mayflower Compact was largely adopted from Magna Carta. Religiously they weren't as strict as Puritans and didn't interact with them, much. They had just escaped religious outrages so largely ignored the subject in favor of setting up shop.

Yes. It wasn’t all that different in Europe.

No. People can believe whatever they want and practice whatever they want, up to the point that it impacts the rights of others, that's where their "freedom of" ends and everyone else's "freedom from" begins.

W.r.t freedom from, I suppose the closest we get in the Constitution is the "no religious test" clause. Article VI, paragraph 3.

Looking from the outside I would agree with that. In Oz it is quite similar in effect though. When our Parliament meets all the politicians pray, some call themselves 'reciters" as they are atheists, but still observe the tradition. I joined the "Secular Party" which seeks to encourage freedom from religion, remove tax exemptions from religious bodies and prevent religious indoctrination in schools. You would think our constitution was plain enough, but sadly our population is too religious as yet. Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e., the federal parliament) from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.