"Freedom from religion"--why not?

I was reading over the comments to--well, actually, the reader poll regarding the D.C. Council vs. the Catholic Church from The Washington Post, which I was looking at because I was responding to the poll, as linked to by P.Z. Myers, because, well, yes, I actually do try and help crash every dumb poll P.Z. Myers directs me to with idiosyncratic redundancy--thanks for asking!

(BORING ASIDE: Although I do it largely from my belief that all Internet-based polls are naturally "fail" because web-traffic is essentially "Erisian". That is to say, "traffic" is a double-edged sword--and any site might just get "haters" who want to troll or whatever based upon Our Lady Discord's whims. They might "scientificishly" --NEW WORD! It means "kind of looks like science but isn't!"-- gauge where their readers stand if they polled by, I dunno, phone calls to subscribers of their paper. But the internet belongs to pirates, ninjas, and Anonymous. And um, very popular science bloggers, apparently.)

Anyway, one of the commenters went on about "it's freedom of religion, not from religion" while implying liberals were dumb and "militant atheists" were trying to deny the Catholic Church "freedom of speech". It was like a perfect storm of concepts I really question, so I decided to blog about it while I was still irked. Oh, and you'll probably see the post I mean if you feel like looking. But the argument is so old, you've probably seen it before, anyway.

(Second BORING ASIDE--I'm totally irksome at present. I've been that way for awhile, now. I'd say that Mercury was retrograde or some such nonsense if I was a New Ager, but I'm not. I can't even say that my throat chakra is out of whack. Reasonably-speaking, I've actually been sleeping poorly because of a cold with a nasty cough. This has put me in a bit of a mood. And anyway, Mercury won't be retrograde again until the end of December.)

First off, it isn't a "puerile obsession" when any group is concerned that a religious organization is interfering with an issue of public policy respecting human rights. The point of the separation of church and state is that the influence of any one religion upon government policy runs the risk of denying equality under the law to those people not of that church. That would be the point of the "no establishment clause" of the First Amendment. The point of this clause is not just to be protective of religious minorities, but to allow a freedom of conscience, in that the government does not violate the sanctity of any pulpit by way of governement entanglements--this is where the dangling of taxpayer money to support faith-based charities was a singularly bad idea in the first place. It was bound to lead to this sort of thing.

What this means is, if the Catholic Charities in question renounce government cash, it should be all right for them to go back to discriminating. Their voice remains heard, however--regardless, because nothing about the law actually prevents them from bitching sorely about how much they really don't think people should form consensual amative attachment to persons of the same sex. And those people especially shouldn't think these attachments earn them any rights with respect to, um....getting a service from a corporation that they are willing to even pay something for--it's very, erm, jesuitical. But their freedom of speech isn't so much imperiled as their acting upon it. The actual bid is--do they want to put their money where their mouth is?

(BORING ASIDE the THIRD: Does anyone really want to put money where their mouth is, knowing how much money is circulated about? That is a lot of hands! Many, many possible germs! It can't be healthy.)

Anyway, the point is, religion shouldn't dictate any onus upon government policy--or else, a possible Islamic government could take away your right to eat bacon, and as everyone who has had bacon knows, it is really tasty, and makes cheeseburgers that much better. Also, it is crispy. And you can link to John Scalzi's blog, and yet tell me that bacon isn't versatile--I say, "Nay! 'Tis." Although that, too, is a matter of conscience. That being the case, religious laws aren't compulsory, and really, any religion shouldn't be compulsory--just because most people in the US are Protestant shouldn't mean anything to, well, all the Catholics, for instance. Or Christianity couldn't be imposed on, well, Jewish people. And that would mean none of the above could be imposed on, well, me! So I get freedom from religion by default.


(Oh, and if this post seemed especially glib, it was meant to be, because people who actually think the difference of a preposition in this particular instance changes the historical or practical intent of the First Amendment are not really worthy of seriousness in the first place. Also, confusing the disapprobation of a given organization's speech with the silencing of it suggests a persecution complex. In other words, "Oh stop sticking your head in the mouth of a dead lion, you modem-martyr!")