Decoding/debabbling.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Freedom of religion" does not mean "freedom from religion".

(Just thinking out loud, I think. (Therefore, etc.))

[charlou]

"Freedom of religion" does not mean "freedom from religion".

Unfortunately not.

[MrFungus420]

But, without having freedom from, religion is enforced, which means there is no freedom of.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But, without having freedom from, religion is enforced, which means there is no freedom of.

That was really my point. The religious demand "freedom of religion", but that doesn't include the freedom to have no religion, you have to have A religion or else in their paradigm.

[Animavore]

But, without having freedom from, religion is enforced, which means there is no freedom of.

That was really my point. The religious demand "freedom of religion", but that doesn't include the freedom to have no religion, you have to have A religion or else in their paradigm.

Well then we shall have to shift that paradigm.

[Pappa]

But, without having freedom from, religion is enforced, which means there is no freedom of.

That was really my point. The religious demand "freedom of religion", but that doesn't include the freedom to have no religion, you have to have A religion or else in their paradigm.

Actually, if you were to be a pedant about it, of can also mean from (in the sense of Robin of Loxley). So you could argue that freedom of religion can have both meanings.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But, without having freedom from, religion is enforced, which means there is no freedom of.

That was really my point. The religious demand "freedom of religion", but that doesn't include the freedom to have no religion, you have to have A religion or else in their paradigm.

Actually, if you were to be a pedant about it, of can also mean from (in the sense of Robin of Loxley). So you could argue that freedom of religion can have both meanings.

"Freedom of religion" doesn't mean "to be free of religion".

[Pappa]

But, without having freedom from, religion is enforced, which means there is no freedom of.

That was really my point. The religious demand "freedom of religion", but that doesn't include the freedom to have no religion, you have to have A religion or else in their paradigm.

Actually, if you were to be a pedant about it, of can also mean from (in the sense of Robin of Loxley). So you could argue that freedom of religion can have both meanings.

"Freedom of religion" doesn't mean "to be free of religion".

But you could argue successfully that it could mean that (on linguistic grounds). A really good barrister could.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But you could argue successfully that it could mean that (on linguistic grounds). A really good barrister could.

"Straining at gnats and swallowing camels is the province of barristers."

[CP]

But, without having freedom from, religion is enforced, which means there is no freedom of.

That was really my point. The religious demand "freedom of religion", but that doesn't include the freedom to have no religion, you have to have A religion or else in their paradigm.

Actually, if you were to be a pedant about it, of can also mean from (in the sense of Robin of Loxley). So you could argue that freedom of religion can have both meanings.

"Freedom of religion" doesn't mean "to be free of religion".

But you could argue successfully that it could mean that (on linguistic grounds). A really good barrister could.

No you couldn't -- the meaning of "from" in the two sentences is different. Of course, one could argue that it means that religion should be liberated and demand that everyone let theirs go...