'Jesus Not Allowed': Anti-Faith Sentiment Sweeps US

page: 10
20
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I take it you never took a law class?


From the law resource site you yourself linked:


The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. The wording in the free-exercise clauses of state constitutions that religious “


This post was part of a special Halloween Homage to Orson Wells.
Jumping out from behind the server and shouting BOO!
pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected” by the Free Exercise Clause. The clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that “free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.” The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons. In the terms of economic theory, the Free Exercise Clause promotes a free religious market by precluding taxation of religious activities by minority sects.


Here.
edit on 1-10-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by LeSigh
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The government ISN'T promoting religion here. A student referenced her own beliefs. Huge difference. And students BY LAW are allowed to express their religious beliefs in public schools. They can pray, read their holy books, and talk to others about their beliefs so long as they aren't disrupting classes or bullying others.



It's a graduation ceremony...sponsored by the government. How on earth is that not the school allowing the promotion of a certain religion


Because the girl was speaking about her own personal beliefs. The girl was not a paid member of the faculty of the school/government.


But she did it at a PUBLICLY funded event


I wonder how you would feel if she praised Allah during that speech



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by LeSigh
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The government ISN'T promoting religion here. A student referenced her own beliefs. Huge difference. And students BY LAW are allowed to express their religious beliefs in public schools. They can pray, read their holy books, and talk to others about their beliefs so long as they aren't disrupting classes or bullying others.



It's a graduation ceremony...sponsored by the government. How on earth is that not the school allowing the promotion of a certain religion


Because the girl was speaking about her own personal beliefs. The girl was not a paid member of the faculty of the school/government.


But she did it at a PUBLICLY funded event


I wonder how you would feel if she praised Allah during that speech


It happened at my high school back in 94. Twelve Valedictorians- one was a good Muslim friend of mine. She thanked Allah. Nobody batted an eye.
edit on 1-10-2012 by LeSigh because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by LeSigh
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The government ISN'T promoting religion here. A student referenced her own beliefs. Huge difference. And students BY LAW are allowed to express their religious beliefs in public schools. They can pray, read their holy books, and talk to others about their beliefs so long as they aren't disrupting classes or bullying others.



It's a graduation ceremony...sponsored by the government. How on earth is that not the school allowing the promotion of a certain religion


Maybe the government should just write her speech for her. That way, it will reflect the official position of The State on everything. Don't want the sheep to get out of the pen and think and or speak independently.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable.”
- George Washington
edit on 1-10-2012 by davjan4 because: (no reason given)


“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”
- George Washington
edit on 1-10-2012 by davjan4 because: spelling



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by LeSigh
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The government ISN'T promoting religion here. A student referenced her own beliefs. Huge difference. And students BY LAW are allowed to express their religious beliefs in public schools. They can pray, read their holy books, and talk to others about their beliefs so long as they aren't disrupting classes or bullying others.



It's a graduation ceremony...sponsored by the government. How on earth is that not the school allowing the promotion of a certain religion


Because the girl was speaking about her own personal beliefs. The girl was not a paid member of the faculty of the school/government.


But she did it at a PUBLICLY funded event


I wonder how you would feel if she praised Allah during that speech


A Muslim has the same free exercise clause rights as do Christians. And the nature of the event is irrelevant if the girl was acting on her own volition, that's a free exercise matter. Unless you have information the school was pushing her to say those things against her will, or that she was an employee of the state.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheGreatDivider

Originally posted by pajoly
If you are some thoughtful and aware kid growing up, you see two groups: one has near blood lust and are perpetually angry and hateful, the other is made up of people accepting of others and willing to live and let live. Which one would you want to align yourself with?


Let me guess...
The first group are Athiests and the second group are Christians. At least from my point of view that's how it is.


Seriously, you would define it like that with all of the hate that Westboro, Focus on the Family, and numerous other so called "Christian" hate groups spew, seriously? There are some people in the world that seriously need to put their heads in the book, and see what their "Saviour" actually said in the book.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I know I already posted, but the topic has evolved somewhat and I feel the need to put my two cents in again.

I completely understand where those advocating the silencing of religious speech in public settings are coming from. And I respect their opinions and the feelings that give rise to them. I also understand the argument that publicly funded schools or other venues should not allow religious speech because it could be construed as a tacit endorsement of a religion or religious beliefs hosted in said venue.

However, I must respectfully and amicably disagree with that conclusion. On the ethical level, I disagree with it because it is intuitively oppressive in my mind to bar an individual from expressing their personal beliefs. I also do not agree that them doing so is forcing their faith on others. No one can be forcibly converted to a religion (barring instances of illegal acts, which are illegal and should be dealt with accordingly anyway.) And one's personal discomfort at hearing one express their personal religious beliefs should not in my view trump the First Amendment rights or free exercise clause rights.

On a legal and pragmatic level, I disagree with it because the public funds (barring instances where they actually are, in which case my opinion would differ somewhat) are not pocketed by the individual speaking, but rather by the individual or collective owners and operators (or stewards) of the venue or property where the speech was exercised. Unless we are going to say that every form of speech (that is not inciting violence or triggering a dangerous situation) in a publicly funded venue is going to be strictly controlled by said owners/operators/stewards, which also strikes me as intuitively oppressive and antithetical to liberty, I cannot agree that this constitutes a state-sanctioned endorsement of a religion. Especially since it has not been shown that adherents of other faiths (to use the valedictorian speech example) could not have made similar expressions of their faith had they been the chosen speakers.

On a personal level... when I was in Middle School, our social studies class touched on many different faiths. If we had classmates who were adherents of those faiths, we were given the option to question them about their beliefs. It was an exercise in religious tolerance and communication. It did no one there harm to my knowledge, and broadened our young minds in my view. This was a public school. Because anyone was allowed to speak, and because no preferential treatment was given to any faith, the school was not endorsing a religion or religion in general. They were simply educating us to their existence. Was this unconstitutional or a violation of any students' rights? I do not believe so. And no one in the class, nor any of my friends' parents, felt that it was at the time.

I do not feel that hearing the word God, Allah, Christ, Buddha, karma, Goddess, or any other religious terminology violates my freedoms or liberties. On the contrary, I feel that forcibly barring others from doing so bars their liberties, and severely threatens my own. People being religious - again, barring specific acts of violence, incitement to violence, or the constitution of danger to self or public - does not harm me. Much less if I don't believe in anything they're saying. A government suppressing their right to be religious might very well harm me in due time, however. This is why I will forever defend and support people's right to adhere to and espouse their religious beliefs, whether I agree with them or not.

I likewise support the rights of those who do not care for religion or religious exercise near them to express their views about it. I support their right to say that religion is "hogwash," that it is "make believe," that it is responsible for many of the world's ills in their view, etc. etc. whether I agree with that entirely or not. And regardless of how uncomfortable those statements might make those who are religious.

Though, with all of that having been said, and while everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion or beliefs and the right to express them, I would - on the basis of my own - strongly encourage people to embrace a higher degree of tolerance (both toward the religious and toward the anti-religious or simply atheistic... which I do not consider as automatically synonymous necessarily,) and a greater sense of human fellowship, if at all feasible for each individual. Those are my beliefs. So take them or reject them as you will.

Peace.
edit on 10/1/2012 by AceWombat04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Oh well, Jesus shouldn't be in the schools only in church and in your PRIVATE life.

Would you like it if someone gave a Hail Satan speech and you had to listen to it? I think not.

Taking religion out of public places makes all things neutral - NOT discrimination.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
Oh well, Jesus shouldn't be in the schools only in church and in your PRIVATE life.

Would you like it if someone gave a Hail Satan speech and you had to listen to it? I think not.

Taking religion out of public places makes all things neutral - NOT discrimination.


It discriminates against the religious person's right to freely exercise their religion. It's a right protected to the people.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Religion will fall in the new age
this is the last pope, the next one will be more like an administrator not a pope

some belief will linger for a few hundred years



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Well it's ten pages in, but I'm gonna make a couple of comments.

The "Anti-Faith Sentiment", yes there is truly such a thing. Having faith in any religion is considered by many people in the U.S. as being "off". If you say "bless you" outside of the context of a sneeze, you are given funny looks or a nervous smile and are considered not "normal".

Maybe many people want to believe their own fantasies, whatever they maybe, and resent any idea that conflicts with that. I can have faith in myself, in my experiences and abilities, but try to convince other people (like the boss for instance) to have that same faith, it can be really hard. That type of faith is almost acceptable, but try to have faith in a belief even barely outside the current popular beliefs and many people will have the attitude that you're a bit off, not normal, possibly even mentally unstable and dangerous.

Of course the stronger you communicate your faith, the stronger the reaction from the general population.

Seems these days, probably due to the influence of modern science and technology, that having faith in God or Jesus is considered lame at best and crazy or dangerous at worse.
edit on 1-10-2012 by MichiganSwampBuck because: For Clairity



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by bigrex
Amen, religion sets up a framework for morality, atheism offers no such code. All it offers is contempt and disdain for those who practice a faith. Does atheism offer a framework for moral action? No, it does not appear to claim to do so. If all atheism has to offer is invective for religion, then it offers nothing better than we already have. Why should we abandon a moral framework that teaches "gentleness, meekness, brotherly kindness, and love unfeigned" in favor of one that teaches smugness? Science has it's usefulness, that is surely the case, but as far as offering us morality and determining whether there is a God, it is an incomplete way of knowing the world.


You are a liar and a bigot, so you clearly have no code of morality to speak of. To claim atheists have no moral code is complete hogwash. I am offended that you would claim that atheists have no moral code. And if you think religions have a monopoly on moral code, then have I ever got a great real estate investment for you in Vatican City. People have developed moral codes in order to get along in groups. Religions have just co-opted or codified pre-existing laws. Even chimps of a sense of morality. Do they have a religion?

If you were right in your wrong-headed supposition, all crime would be committed by atheists and no crimes would be committed by religious folk. How do you explain all the child raping Catholic priests? How do you explain all the Christian US Presidents who evidently never heard of the Commandment, Thou shall not kill? Timothy McVeigh was a Christian and blew up a building that included a pre-school day-care center.

You're kind of ignorant, religious bigotry is one of the big problems we have. Your self-righteous arrogance is nauseating. Again, how dare you say atheists have no moral code, you hateful, ignorant person. A pox upon you and your kind.


In your first sentence you have judged me sir and you know but little about me. You are displaying that vindictiveness for all religion that I just warned about. I repeat, religion is not the cause of the societal ills you find, which most certainly do exist. The cancer of the soul already existed in the human heart, true some may use religion for their own impure purposes, but to ignore the many decent people who are religious is absurd.

I did not claim there are no atheists who comprehend ethics and morality, but from whence does their morality spring? Who teaches it to them? Is there a school of atheism that offers classes on morality? Not that I know of, show me one organization of purely atheists that are gathered for the moral good of mankind. Personally, I know of no such organization or any widespread gatherings of the sort.

Despite the shortcomings of humans, they do gather to try to improve themselves and their society. Such organizations my include charities, food banks, homes for the elderly, hospitals, and yes, religious institutions. People are not perfect, that is why religion is not perfect. Churches are primarily composed of those who are imperfect beings. They are not a monastery for the perfect, but rather a hospital for the spiritually sick and afflicted.

You have failed to tell me what framework atheism offers as far as a moral code. "A pox upon my kind". Well, sir I couldn't have said it any better myself. You do not seem to be displaying forgiveness or kindness, forgive me but I don't think I want what you are peddling. Good day sir.
edit on 1-10-2012 by bigrex because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by bigrex
 


I know your post wasn't directed at me, but in the interest of ideological harmony (if such is possible... I believe it is!) I thought I'd respond.

Some atheists would argue that one moral framework that is largely atheistic would be humanism. I consider myself a humanist (although I am agnostic, personally.) However, I do not agree with many humanists with whom I have conversed that religion is inherently detrimental. When I bring up freedom of religion and tolerance, I am told that I am using the "language of the enemy." An interesting turn of phrase.

In any event, I prefer to look at humanism as does one of my favorite writers and directors, Joss Whedon (most recently, the acclaimed co-writer and director of the massively succesful film, The Avengers.) This is a huge bit of paraphrasing from memory, but the point is retained regardless. At a humanist convention he once said (there's a video SOMEWHERE on YouTube of this, but damned if I can locate it, or I wouldn't be badly paraphrasing):

"Faith is not the enemy. Religious people believe in something for which there may be no proof, but is based upon thousands of years of tradition and doctrine. We (humanists) believe that human beings can live together in peace with respect for human rights tolerance and respect, just because it's the right thing to do and of benefit to our species... something for which we have thousands of years of evidence to the contrary. If that isn't faith, nothing is. Faith is not the enemy."

It was something along those lines, but it was specifically addressing faith and religion not being the enemy, and how those of religion should not be perceived as the adversary of humanism solely on the basis religious belief. Another time, and this one is verbatim, when asked if he has anything against religious believers, he stated simply, "Nothing, unless you have something against me."

That's the kind of tolerance I would like people to have toward one another. Unless the name is changed to "only some humans-ism," to reflect the bias that exists in the absence of tolerance. Naturally, being the hippy at heart I am, I would prefer everyone love one another, and not just tolerate. But tolerance is at least better than nothing in my opinion, and asking seemingly diametrically opposed ideological adherents to legitimately love one another seems, sadly, like a tall order in 2012..


Peace.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


I am an atheist and I do not consider religion to be the enemy, I personally see religion as a disease, and unfortunately it is very contagious and not easy to cure.

I have to admit that I am sick of turning on the news and seeing images of fighting, destruction and murder all in the name of religion. I am extremely certain that without religion the world would be unimaginably better and mankind would be decades if not centuries more advanced than we are now.

It makes me sad that even though it is so obvious that there is no god there are still millions of people who are prepared to kill in the name of religion.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   
I had a very profound dream the other night that I walked in late to a funeral and it seemed to be someone who was very very important(I never did find out who it was). The church was huge and it was filled to the brim with people.

I walked in and found a seat and listened to the priest talk....something wasn't right. As he came to the end I expected to hear "In Gods name, Amen".

I didn't hear it so I stood up and shouted "In Gods name, Amen!" All of a sudden someone grabbed me and started pulling me away...I yelled "what's going on?!!" and hear "You can't say God here".

Woke up and felt scared :-(



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Wakingup
 


I don't mind people saying 'god', I don't mind them saying 'tooth fairy' or 'santa' either but I believe only children and the delusional think they exist.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by GafferUK1981
 


I respect and understand your feelings, and I of course oppose and lament violence in the name of religious belief (as I do all violence, war, and political machinations that endorse or give rise to such.) But I do not oppose or lament the existence of religious belief itself, personally. I feel the reality is far more fluid, complex, and less black and white than some assert.

Religion is and long has been used as justification for conflict. But there are other justifications for conflict and fanatical behavior in the world, as well. Religion has also been used to do some charitable good (religious institutions are why I didn't starve to death on the street as a child.) But there can be and is great charity without religion, as well (and yes, I might have benefited from that too if I had encountered it.) As in all human endeavors, creations, and systems, there are destructive tendencies and actions, and what I consider humanistic tendencies and actions. I have encountered religious individuals who advocate the literal deaths of nonbelievers, and religious individuals who would not so much as raise their voice in anger against a fly. The destructive acts are what should be prevented, opposed, and suppressed in my opinion. Even in this very topic, we have religious individuals opposing violence, judgment, and conflict.

So, given that I do not paint religious belief with a single, broad brush, I cannot advocate the elimination of religion as a general principle or view it, as you put it, as a cancer in and of itself. Nor can I advocate the suppression of freedom of religious belief (or religious speech,) in the absence of those destructive acts (which are not present universally among those of religious faith,) solely based upon the premise that they believe something perceived among atheists as simply untrue or imaginary. Particularly when I adhere to my own non-religious but nonetheless unproven faith as well: that humanity can transcend its differences and coexist peacefully and with compassion toward one another.

But as I said, I understand why you feel that way and appreciate your opinion. Peace.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The Constitution states, Freedom OF Religion. Not freedom FROM religion.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
It's funny how people are so up in arms about religious equality and separation of church & state. I don't see why, in a religiously free country, any religion should get acknowledgement or priority over another. Whether Christians admit it or not, they have had their religion promoted and shoved down people's throats for centuries. They call it religious "hostility", because people are finally speaking out, but in reality, that's not even close. They are just angry that their religion is dying. Atheists aren't attacking religion and going into church services and speaking out. They aren't setting up protests in front of churches, or physically harming religious folk. All they want is religion to be a private thing and not affect the lives of people who don't practice it. I know they're out there, but I haven't ever seen a single billboard advertising atheism. All I see is religious jargon everywhere I look. Everyone wants to sell you their religion. In a scientific based society, religion has no place in politics/public. Reality does.

Personal beliefs are personal beliefs and people shouldn't be persecuted for them, the problem is the religious have been persecuting atheists since religion was invented. That's the only reason they seem hostile. They used to be tortured and executed for having their own beliefs. How's THAT for hostility? I don't see atheists doing the same to Christians, so not allowing them to practice religion in public is a TINY request that's not even close to making up for the whole dark ages fiasco and the millions killed in religion's name.

So the question I have for the believers, is why do you feel the need to express your religion publicly? I never understood why it matters so much. If you believe it's true, and your life is based on your faith, with prayer and thanking god, who cares what others think? You believe you are doing the right thing, so to each his own. Talking about god publicly only divides people. The believers hear it and feel like they're in the popular cool club, while the rest feel alienated.

How would the religious folk feel if atheism was the popular school of thought? Every time an athlete would make a game winning play or an actor wins an award, they thanked evolution or the universe or not god? Wouldn't it annoy you if atheism had people recite prayers and rituals about how there's no god and you just had to deal with it? Just put yourself in the other person's shoes and it all makes sense.
edit on 2-10-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join