The Ideal Constitution

Freedom of Religion

Although we nowadays tend to believe that it is obvious that everybody is free to believe what they want, this never has been the case in the past.
And still nowadays there are lots of countries where just one religion (mostly Islam) or no religion (former USSR and China) is allowed.

Freedom of religion versus Freedom of expression

A big issue with "Freedom of Religion" is, that it is superfluous with "Freedom of Expression", actually a particular part of it.
By creating this superfluous article within the constitution, citizens who are religious, unfairly claim rights above people who aren't, e.g. blasphemy is in all cases "Freedom of Expression"

References

Home

Freedom of Religion
Islam
Freedom of Expression
Blasphemy
Quran
Born Muslim
Sharia
Apostacy
Freedom of Education
(unless its only goal is to insult a particular religious individual), and a true opinion of a non-religious person can be interpreted as an insult by a religious person.
But - on the other hand - when a Holy Book condemns unbelievers to burn in eternity or incites believers to behead unbelievers, this is in the least very insulting - rather threatening - to unbelievers.
There are constitutions in which blasphemy has its doubtful article.
In lots of countries blasphemy shall be punished with the death penalty.

Religion promotion

Most Western, tolerant countries subsidize the promotion of religions, e.g. the building of Holy Houses and providing free television airtime.
But unreligious people are not provided with any free television airtime to promote their ideas from famous philosophers.
It is unfair to apply tax funds for the promotion of religion because it does not serve any general purpose, and is especially unfair to unbelievers.

Religion is suppressing

Although some religions have salving and exalted attributes, freedom is not one of them, on the contrary.
The child of a Muslim father is a Muslim till death, and so on, and so on. Even secular states acknowledge that. The baby is obliged to get a Muslim first name, even secular states acknowledge that.
When the Muslim child has grown up, it is not free to unbelieve or to believe something else. Apostacy is a treacherous act that will be punished by the death penalty.
A Muslim has to live according to the Islamic law (Sharia). 70% of Muslims rather abide to the Sharia instead to the State Law. The Sharia imposes lots of constraints on women.

Lots of religious people urge to impose their beliefs on unbelievers:

Freedom of Education

(see also independent chapter). This so-called "Freedom" is the unfairly opportunity of religious parents to indoctrinate their children with religious dogmas, instead of the freedom and right that each child should have on access to an education in progressing science and sincere history, and teaching in all religions in stead of one. In fact it is a submission of the government to religious fanatism, where innocent children are being sacrificed and will be brainwashed for the rest of their lives without remedy.

Abolishment of constitution article 'Freedom of Religion'

Of course anybody may believe what they want, but this constitutional right is already completely contained in the constitutional right Freedom of Expression. By creating this superfluous constitutional right, all kinds of unintended (or not?) privileges emerge for believers where other believers or unbelievers are disadavantaged, or even minorities as children and women are disadvantaged. All members of humankind are equal. If you agree that this is more important than religious prejudice, then all children should be given the right to get equally acquainted with science, philosophy and all religions (in stead of only one). Women should be given the right on an equal chance on education, an equal chance on a career and an equal chance on planning her own life.
By giving religion a constitutional right to force children and women in their dogma's, a great injustice has been granted.

E-mail: info@idealconstitution.com