Where does one person's freedom of religion begin and another's freedom from religion end?

An interesting question that I think has no valid answer. On one hand a person should have the freedom to practice their religion the way they choose, however doing so means that their religion can encroach on someone elses and does frequently. So who's wrong and who's right?

Well, both sides say they are, but that doesn't make it so. I don't think this question can be answered, at least not without bias. Another Perspective In order to practice your own freedom of religion one need not encroach on anyone's rights to do the same.

Religion should be freely experienced within each person's personal sphere: their home, their church and their church community. The concept is simple: If your religion seeks to force others, non-members, to follow its doctrines then it has reached the limits of its freedom. The rights of others to be free from your religion do not ever end.

That is why we must be vigilant in protecting our secular government in the United States and why it is constantly being bombarded with assaults from certain organized religions.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.