I do not understand the continuing war so-called Atheists are waging against people who believe in God. If you are an Atheist (which is impossible), then you should be as worried about people who believe God is real as you are over those who believe Pokémon are real. But aside from this intellectual dishonesty, there is no ‘right’ to freedom from religion. It is not in the Constitution, nor is it anywhere in our laws. However, there is a right to freedom of religion, and religion includes the right to practice our beliefs in our daily lives. So the true violation of ‘rights’ in these cases is on the part of the God haters. The true victims are those who believe in God who are then attacked by the God-haters. And the people who should start having to pay a price are the God-haters.
Now, if you happen to be one of those who think you have a ‘right’ to freedom from religion: please show that to me in the Constitution. Do not bring me this lie about a separation of Church and State, either – unless you can show me that in the Constitution. Neither exists. Both are policies that have been forced on believers by God-haters. Both are unconstitutional, and both represent a violation of the Constitution and Natural Law. Any time you violate the law or the spirit of the law to force your will on others who are doing you no harm, you are committing an act of force on those people. This makes you the wrong-doer and them the victim. Since no one can force you to believe in God, they can never be the one who uses force on you. But those who seek to use the law and government to force believers to hide their faith are using force against the legitimate rights of the believer(s). I say ‘legitimate’ because there is both a Constitutional and Natural Right to worship, and this right includes the right to live our daily lives according to those beliefs (so long as who do not harm others in the process). This means we all have a freedom of religion, but no one has a freedom from religion. Either way this issue is sliced, the God-haters are the ones who are in the wrong – both under man’s law, and God’s Natural Law.
Now, to those who object to my use of the term God-hater: I am just using your practice against you so you can – hopefully – understand the error of your ways. There can be no such thing as true Atheism. That would require ‘proof’ that God does not exist, but you can no more prove God does not exist than a believer can prove He does. However, the two positions are not equal. Those of us who believe can point to overwhelming indirect evidence that God exists. Those who say there is no God have no such indirect evidence. All they can do is ignore and/or reject it. This is a willful decision. To ignore indirect evidence is a choice and, whether the non-believer understands this or not – choosing to ignore this indirect evidence is –itself – indirect evidence that God exists.
You see, if you truly believe there is no God, then why do people who believe in God bother you? Are Atheists waging legal war on people who believe in Pokemon? Or Comicon addicts? Or any of a number of people who believe in truly fictional things and conduct their lives as though they were real? If there is, I have yet to see a single news story about it. Nor have I seen news stories about a war being waged against Islam, or Hindus, or Witches, Satanists, etc. But I have seen a concerted and sustained war against the Judeo/Christian faith – just as the Bible said would happen from the time Christ ascended until the time He will return. This is clear and powerful – though indirect – evidence that God is not only real, but those who oppose Him are doing so because they hate Him. There really is no other motivation in human psychology that can or would explain the amount of effort put into opposing something that – supposedly – does not exist.
ADDENDUM
This should not be necessary, but it would appear it is. So, to make sure I am making myself as clearly understood as I know how:
When I say you do not have a ‘right’ to something, I am not saying that the letter of the law does not say you do. I am saying that the letter of such law is illegitimate because it is in violation of Natural Rights and Natural Law.
The most basic principle here is, if I am not causing you physical or real harm (i.e. something that causes damage to real property), then you have NO ‘right’ to force your will on me. That would be a violation of my Natural Right to my own free will.
I also have a Natural Right to conscience, which our founders expressed as our right to freedom of religion.
If someone then comes and uses the force of government to force me to silence my faith, or do something in violation to my faith, then that person is the one who has violated my Natural Rights and the principles of Natural Law.
Now, if lawless people manage to gain a position of power and then declare that there is some new-found separation of Church and State and that there is a freedom from religion without Amending the Constitution through the proscribed process, then that person has violated the law , Natural Law and the Natural Rights of every citizen in that society. In essence, this person or persons has declared ‘might-makes-right’ over the rule and process of law. This then means that the letter of the law may say one thing, but it is lawless in its existence. It would be like claiming that Up is down because you say so and forcing people to accept up is down because you have the gun (i.e. force of government).
This process goes further. Part of the 1st Amendment includes my right to be a bigot. If I want to hold a prejudice against someone because of their race, religion or anything else, I have that right. So long as I do not cause physical harm or damage to real property, I have the right to be a bigot.
I also have a right to own property. Inclusive in that right is the right to use my property as I see fit. Again, so long as I do not use it to cause physical harm or damage real property, I can use my property any way I want — even to the extent of bringing my prejudices into that use.
For someone — even the government — to then come along and tell me I cannot discriminate against the people I have a prejudice against is a clear violation of my Natural Rights and Natural Law. I have not harmed those person’s bodies, nor have I caused them real damage. They can go elsewhere for the services they seek if I do not want to serve them. But to tell me I must serve them is to force your will on mine (which is tyranny), to force my labor (which is slavery) and to confiscate control of my property in the process (which is theft).
Any law that tries to legitimize such violations of my Natural Rights and Natural Law is illegitimate and lawless in its own existence. It is a declaration of might-makes-right, and those pushing and supporting such laws are lawless, themselves. They are no different in spirit and nature from any other tyrant in history — except they do not have the decency to admit they want to rule over others.
THE ROAD TO CONCORD 
Hello, I’ll try to keep this semi brief.
“There is no ‘Right’ to Freedom FROM Religion,” You stated in the titel. Here you are wrong.
In the same way there is Freedom OF Religion, There is Freedom From Religion. For to say that it is not, Is to imply that the goverment can demand and dictate what belief or faith It’s people should have.
The goverment is upholding the right of all it’s citizens to believe what they want. And this, fortunately for many people, missfortunately for you, as you seem to be quite against this right for these other people, Is one of the most important pillars of a civilized society.
As for the term atheist, they argue that the so called, “burden of proof,” lies not with the ones questioning the claim, but on the ones proposing it.
As for if both the sides are equal, most people believe they not to be, indiscriminantely of what sides they believe in. They argue that the probability is low enough for them to believe that there is no supreme god or ruler.
Looking forwards to a reply! 🙂
Well, my reply is that I am not the one who is wrong — you are. Freedom ‘from’ something implies that you have a right to FORCE other people to NOT speak, or to behave in a manner YOU dictate. If you claim you have such a right, then you are claiming a right to own the other person’s life. Now, if you are going to claim that right, then — by extension — you are claiming a right to rule the entire world.
Next, by telling people they cannot live their faith, the government IS dictating a religion — secular humanism. This is a religion, and to force it on the entire population is a clear violation of both he letter and the spirit of the 1st Amendment.
If the government wants to uphold the right of all people, then it should allow them to exercise their rights EQUALLY. That doe snot mean you get to force a store owner to serve you; it means you get the right to go somewhere else. Just because a person runs a business, there is no NATURAL LAW or NATURAL RIGHT that dictates they MUST serve you. Again, that is telling people what they have to do with their life and the govt. does not have that authority any more than you or I have the authority to force the other to act in accordance with our will.
As for Atheists: to propose there is no God places the same burden of proof on them as the believer — only more so. There is indirect evidence to support a Creator, but zero evidence to argue against His existence. This is why the Atheist has never and will never successfully deal with the problem of the “unmoved mover” (i.e. first cause). And when we look at the probabilities, then the existence of a Creator becomes a NECESSITY, not a question. It’s just that the non-believer does not like the simple math here, so they keep trying to change the formula to fit their desired outcome (which is bad methodology, but they don’t seem to care about that).
1) “But to tell me I must serve them is to force your will on mine (which is tyranny), to force my labor (which is slavery) and to confiscate control of my property in the process (which is theft).”
Bingo. I love how you reduced this to the core concepts here – tyranny, slavery, theft. Reminds me of a scene from the movie “They Live”, where the hero puts on sunglasses that let him see reality, and in one scene a woman of the parasitic class living among us says “We have one who can see!” When you can reduce complex-seeming mumbo jumbo into these basic concepts, it becomes clear there is no such thing as authority over others, only equal rights. You my friend clearly have the gift of (in)sight.
2) “I do not understand the continuing war so-called Atheists are waging against people who believe in God”
They are upset that there are Laws in place, Laws made by the Creator. It bothers them deeply that there is such a thing as Morality, or the Law of Behavioral consequences. When you do harm, there are consequences. It bothers them that they cannot do *anything* they want. It bothers them that they are constrained by the Laws of God. It bothers them that they are not God, but instead limited in their capacities to being only able to play the game within the framework He put in place. It bothers them there are finite and limited in their ability, while He is almighty. They are offended to know they cannot do anything they want, but are instead constrained by Morality.
They know these limits, and have done much to try and work around them, creating false religions like money and authority or through hierarchies (a chain-of-obedience) to try and convince others to perform actions that violate Natural Law on their behalf. They know that the mindless souls who commit acts of violence against the rights of another for a paycheck or because they are just ‘following orders’ will reap the ‘karmic repercussions’ of their actions. They hope to avoid these repercussions by convincing others to take immoral actions of violence.
Which is why evil can only flourish when people are willing to violate the Rights of others and defy the will of God.
You can’t hear it, but I am applauding you, my friend 🙂
Well said — and rightly said, too.