I just had coffee with a former colleague who had read my comments on First Amendment rights and she brought up the establishment clause. This is of course the language which reads that the US government cannot create and enforce a national religion. Her observation was that this is often re-phrased as "freedom of religion" which is only half the story.
Technically of course the "freedom of" bit is contained in a separate clause, but that's not the issue. The previous clause, in preventing a national religion, really means "freedom from" and this is the sticky bit. The First Amendment here gives us two rights - the right to freedom of religion, ie to practise any religion we want. and the right to freedom from religion, ie the right to practise none and even to be able to avoid it.
This of course conflicts with the free speech clause - on balance, is my right not to hear about religion equal to / greater than / less than your right to celebrate or even to promote your religion. Thus the need for judicial review.
My former colleague's point is that freedom from is rarely heard in public discourse, which may of course be due to declared atheists and agnostics numbering only 10% or so of the population. In contrast, we do hear often about freedom of. Again, I am glad we have judges for this.
Schools here have a role and by schools I mean English teachers. The distinction between freedom of and freedom from is critical. If I am free of something, it refers to me and means I can do whatever it is. If I am free from something, it refers to someone else and means that whatever that restriction is, it does not apply to me.
The freedom of to chooose clothing means I can look out the window and then opt for shorts or slacks or a skirt. Freedom from clothing choice means I do not have the responsibilty of decision, for example because I have to wear a uniform.
Alternatively, if I am free of interference I can run across the plains with not a fence in sight. Freedom of interference means someone opens and closes the gates in said fences as needed.
Freedom of is analagous to freedom to, and Kant called this distinction between of/to and from "positive and negative liberty". This it provides a useful philosophical discussion, as well as a language lesson. My freedom to swear comes up against your freedom from (hearing) foul language. My right of freedom to throw trash in the river removes your right to freedom from polluted water downstream.
All of which takes me back again to rights and responsibilities. I do suspect that as a society we too often focus on the former without turning that coin over. A responsibility is not the loss of a right. My right to freedom of religion carries with it the responsibility to ensure your right to freedom from it.
**Please leave your comments and queries below.**
Futher reading
The problem with (and for) first amendmenters
No comments :
Post a Comment