>
> > but it seems the most avid proponents of keeping
> church and state separate are actually seeking freedom
> *from* religion, rather than freedom *of* religion.
>
> As someone who defines herself as agnostic/atheist, I feel
> that freedom from and freedom of are synonymous in this
> case. My religious choice is to have no religion.
>
> Can you explain this point more? Your phrasing makes me
> think your position is that freedom from religion is bad. . .
>
> Luisa

By the phrases, he meant:
Freedom of religion--No requirements regarding what I believe, and no requirement that I support opposing beliefs
Freedom from religion--Requiring that religion be hidden from public view

For example, in the U.S., it's still mostly legal to believe what you want and say so. In Israel and India, you can believe what you want, but you'd better weigh the risks before saying so if it could be construed as attempting to convert someone. Even in Canada, you can believe what you want, but it's illegal to say so if it's derogatory toward select groups.

As an agnostic/atheist, you're no doubt very glad for "freedom of", since it's still very much a minority faith. No one is going to force you to recant or to financially support a church. A consistent "freedom from", on the other hand, would basically tell you not to flaunt your beliefs, *or else* . Almost always, "freedom from" is inconsistent and only aimed at the enemy of whoever is in power, which essentially makes it identical to enforcing a state religion.

There's nothing wrong with your interpretation of "freedom of" and "freedom from", but it often leads to unfortunate and heated arguments when two groups use different interpretations of the same words without realizing it.