IN 1786, a decade after the American Colonists declared their intent to be an independent nation, Virginia adopted the Statute for Religious Freedom.
According to the Virginia History and Government Textbook Commission, “Virginia was the first sovereign commonwealth, state, or nation in all the world to proclaim by law entire freedom of religious belief or unbelief.”
The Virginia statute referred to above can be found here and includes the following passage:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Because the adoption of this statute was irrevocable, the Virginia Constitution includes this religious freedom statute in Section 16, Article I – Bill of Rights:
That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please.
I have often said that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. I believe this passage backs me up. It is one thing to use the power of persuasion (where I’m from, we call that “testifying”) to attempt to convince people to convert to your way of thinking; it is quite another thing to codify into law religious beliefs. Jehovah’s Witnesses have the right to knock on my door on Sunday morning and I have the right to not answer. Baptists may say that dancing is immoral but there should not be a law against dancing.
We should always defend the rights of individuals and groups to express their religious beliefs; such freedom of speech is a guarantee under our Constitution. But any attempt to impose those beliefs on us via codification should be met with the a similar stringent defense.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
“All men shall be free to profess, and by arguement maintain, their opinions of the matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise deminish, enlarge or affect thier civil capacities.” Has anyone from the ACLU seen this line?
Um – yeah
Sykomother is probably confused by the distinction between the freedom to profess opinions of religion, and the entitlement to have one’s opinions of religion professed with the imprimature of a public institution.
It’s understandable – many people are confused by this, due to the deliberate misinformation campaign waged by those who want religious freedoms only for themselves, but not others.
There have been cases in which, for example, a school official who is not knowledgable of the law, has overreacted to religious expression by a student, and that just adds to the confusion. Students have every right to pray in school, but a school has no right to require all students to pray. Not to worry, the ACLU is well aware of the difference. That’s their job.
I ditto David’s comment. We should be asking, “Have Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell seen this one?”
I guess the real questions is who has seen it and acted appropriately?