Freedom not

TO MRFF:
Freedom NOT from Religion. Freedom OF Religion.
Why don’t you guys just get a job!
(name withheld)

For the same reason, (name withheld), that you have neglected to get a brain. Had you obtained one you would have read the many Supreme Court rulings pertaining to the constitutional Separation of Church and State that guarantees freedom from coercive or intrusive religious practice.
I have included several for your edification.
Getting your head out of the Bible and into some Civics textbooks may prevent you from making another stupid observation.
Rick Baker
Regional Coordinator
MRFF
Church and State: How the Court Decides

The Constitutional guarantee for separation of church and state is provided for in the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment:”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”
Over many years and many cases mainly involving religion in public schools, the Supreme Court has developed three “tests” to be applied to religious practices for determining their constitutionality under the Establishment Clause.

The Lemon Test
Based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, the Court will rule a practice unconstitutional if:
1.It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any non-religious purpose.
2. The practice either promotes or inhibits religion.
3. Or the practice excessively (in the Court’s opinion) involves government with a religion.
The Coercion Test
Based on the 1992 case of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 the religious practice is examined to see to what extent, if any, pressure is applied to force or coerce individuals to participate.
The Court has defined that “Unconstitutional coercion occurs when: (1) the government directs (2) a formal religious exercise (3) in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors.”
A religious body may not interfere with or attempt to disrupt the practice of other religions.
A religious body is subject to civil law and may not practice acts which are deemed illegal under law.
The Endorsement Test
Finally, drawing from the 1989 case of Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, the practice is examined to see if it unconstitutionally endorses religion by conveying “a message that religion is ‘favored,’ ‘preferred,’ or ‘promoted’ over other beliefs.”
Source: FindLaw’s Constitutional Law Center
“Wherein ‘core religious viewpoints’ are contrary to or abrogate other Constitutional protections, ‘ the free exercise clause’ and or freedom of ‘expressive association’ as well as its rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion may be curtailed.”
“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other…” [Matthew 6:24] This means man cannot effectively serve a religious and a secular government simultaneously. One must be subordinated to the other. In America secular government prevails under the constitution while at the same time preserving religious freedom of worship.
Conversely, where religious governments prevail, the freedoms guaranteed under the American secular system do not apply.