Freedom from and freedom of religion

The Feb. 9 letter of Nicole Glasgow and the March 9 letter of Elton Heimisoth raise the interesting question of whether we have the right of freedom of religion in the U.S. or the right of freedom from religion. Ms. Glasgow argues that if we have freedom of religion, that also means that we have freedom from religion and that those who have no religion should be able to run for and be elected to public office. Mr. Heimisoth, on the other hand, argues that candidates for office should be free to express their religious views and should not be disenfranchised because of their religion, and he asks whether we must be irreligious to qualify for office and must we all be free from religion? This requires some clarification. The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exerciese thereof. The free exercise clause deals with an individual's choice and means that each of us as individuals has the freedom to practice any religion we choose or none at all. This is what is referred to as freedom of religion. The anti-establishment clause deals with government imposition and means that no governmental body shall impose upon us any religion whatsoever, including that practiced by a majority of us. We are to be from any such imposition, and this is what is referred to as freedom from religion. So in the U.S. we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion: We are free to practice any religion we wish or none at all, and we are to be free from the imposition of any religion upon us against our will. Most importantly, we should be grateful that our freedom of and from religion are individual rights guaranteed to us under our Constitution, and when we are dealing with such individually protected rights, the concept of majority rule does not apply.

Theodore M. Utchen

Wheaton