Fox News host Rachel Campos-Duffy asserted on Sunday that Americans did not have Constitutional rights preventing religion from being imposed upon them. During a Fox News Sunday discussion about recent baptisms of students at Auburn University, co-host Pete Hegseth reported that the Freedom From...

Fox News host Rachel Campos-Duffy asserted on Sunday that Americans did not have Constitutional rights preventing religion from being imposed upon them.

During a Fox News Sunday discussion about recent baptisms of students at Auburn University, co-host Pete Hegseth reported that the Freedom From Religion group was behind a lawsuit against the university.

“It’s not in the constitution!” Campos-Duffy interrupted.

“As Rachel points out, it’s freedom of religion, not freedom from religion,” Hegseth agreed. “So they’re an anti-faith, anti-Christian group.”

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says “that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise,” according to the White House website.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-Z8-4XgFos

  • correcthorsedickbatterystaple
    8•9 months ago

    Congress shall make no law

    i think a lot of people misunderstand positive vs negative rights. the US Constitution doesn’t grant rights. the Declaration of Independence declared all are endowed with rights by a creator. that is the origin of our rights - inalienable. the Constitution doesn’t grant anything. it establishes the structure of a federal government, and the amendments to that guarantee what already exists in the Declaration. it limits power of an authority over a person.

    a very divisive example is arms. the Constitution doesn’t grant americans the right to keep and bear arms. it limits the government from prohibiting such.

    of course…this is the intent not necessarily the reality

    edit:
    also the lack of critical thinking of this argument is so astounding i didn’t even notice it at first…no freedom from religion…which…one? which version of that one…? the constitution - which compels nothing but the government - can…compel americans to all be…uh - jehovah’s witnesses? mormons? sunni? bahai?

    • @Fraylor@lemm.ee
      2•9 months ago

      The way they likely interpret it is you get one of two choices

      Evangelism

      Clearly a CSAM creating predator.

      If you’re not one, you must be the other.

    • SokathHisEyesOpenEnglish
      1•9 months ago

      Fundamentalist evangelicals of course. Pssh.

      It’s crazy how many Americans don’t understand the concept of inalienable rights. Their minds can’t process that they have rights by nature, and they think all of their rights are granted by the government. I’ve gotten into huge arguments with people about this because they just can’t fathom that there doesn’t need to be a compelling reason for something to be legal, on the contrary, there needs to be a compelling reason for something to be made illegal. We all have natural freedoms, the government doesn’t give us those, they can only take them away.