Hi Token,

First of all, let me say that I do not understand your position vis-a-vis the posts you are quoting. We may be on the same team or the opposite one. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


Having said that, lets look at the difference between freedom from and freedom of, religion.

I think that the most fundamental of the two, because it doesn't impinge on the other, is freedom "FROM" religion. I don't seee at all, why anybody should need to comply with moral restrictions based solely on the beliefs of a "so-called" revealed doctrine.

Let me also explain the way I think we can differentiate between the two. One makes a behaviour a victim-less crime, the other is a crime with victim(s). Lets look at a few instances, and observe firstly, that if you bring religion into the motive for a piece of legislation you will run into the problem of which denomination beliefs should be, not accomodated by, but imposed on, others.

A good first example is alcohol consumption and sale. Some, even Christian denominations, find it unacceptable, or at the very least, morally wrong. Others do not. Which one should be the standard and should legislation reflect? None, in my mind as there are no victims! Families suffering from a close one being an alcoholic could be a different issue and may have to do with dereliction of civic duty etc... like not paying maintemance etc..

Another example would be prostitution. Why the hell would it be illegal? There are no victims. In the case where there is a pimp coercing or exploiting the prostitute, there there is a crime of coercion by force, which is a different issue, already legislated for.

A third example would be, drugs use. Against, no victims! The user is not complaining about unfair commercial practices of the dealer. The dealer does not complain about the user demanding drugs. If drug use drives you to crime, you have the usual legislation as a recourse against theft etc... No reason to prevent anyone doing something in the privacy of their home, by consenting adults, not hassling anyone else.

Anyway, there are more examples, but those are sufficient to see where the the problem/difference is between victimless crimes, and "legitimate", legislation, dogmatic and sectarian imposition of moral guidelines, and the famous "freedom" for which I understand most USA citizens stand.


As was very well put by Bigdaddydvo, as they say in the army: "stay in your lane". If you want to believe and subject yourself to restrictions, by all means do, but don't make me do it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]