For Your Consideration, a Non-Believer [Archive] - Global Affairs Forum, Politics, Law, Science, Health

ShinyTop

05-05-2003, 11:31 AM

For your consideration I give you the average non-believer. He was raised in a home with morals and standards. At least one of his parents attended church and took him every Sunday but probably did not make it a sin if he did not attend. He took part in all the Sunday school lessons and even was confirmed. He may even have taken part in the services as an alter boy. Many even taught Sunday school or acted as counselors to the young people of the church.

Somewhere along the way he began to question what he heard in church. The questions were not answered to his satisfaction. Answers like, “People who question are non-believers, so their questions will not be answered” did not satisfy him. He has been encouraged all his life to trust in education, to trust in reasoning, now he is told there is no reason, only faith. He questions contradictions in the book of his faith and is told he must believe. Believe in contradictions? He is told he must just accept.

All the while he accepts the rules of society, the rules influenced at least in part by the religions of the day. He accepts the rules as necessary and good to allow the interactions of people; the rules are what allow the smooth functioning of society.

He is not amoral, he has standards and honor. He was taught and believes that when he swears an oath he is committing himself.

He is not a crusader; he is not bothered that others believe in their god. But he awakes one day and finds that some clown has objected to the phrase “under god” in the Pledge of Allegiance. He thinks a mountain is being made of a mole hill but since the Constitution restricts government’s endorsement of religion he is confident the issue will be decided, the words will be out, and life will go on. But wait, religious people all over the country are up in arms. They insist nothing is wrong with that phrase being included in the Pledge. He hears things like “just don’t say it” or even worse, “why do you care, you have no beliefs anyway?” He has always said the words. He learned the Pledge while he still attended church, before his beliefs solidified. He never gave it much thought. Never gave much thought to the belief in God being trumpeted from government buildings.

But now he has to give more thought to the issue. He is still not going to ask that buildings be defaced to remove references to god, but he does see that not paying attention to his rights in only allowing zealots to erode his rights. His governor has stated that all new state buildings will have references to god. Well meaning people are demanding the right to make him listen to their prayers at school and government functions. Functions his tax dollars pay for. Well meaning people think he has no right to not believe. Well meaning people think they should be allowed to force his children to believe as they do. Even he is allowing his children to believe as they wish, what gives anybody the right to decide for him or them?

And the thing is, he has nothing against religion. And he does not understand why religious people cannot let him be. He does not care that they attend church. He does not care that they pray. He does not even overly get upset about laws made to reflect the dominant religion, laws like no liquor sales on Sunday. He has asked many times how not proclaiming their belief in architecture of government buildings, in the Pledge of Allegiance to their country, in government meetings takes away from their religion. He receives no answers except insulting comments assuming no honor because he had no religion. He has belonged to that religion and remembers learning it taught respect for all people and is sad that is not practiced anymore. He is sad and angry that he has to defend his rights while he is not meaning, has no desire to restrict anybody’s rights to believe what they want. The assaults on his right to believe as he wishes, the insults and put downs for not believing are beginning to make a crusader out of him and that saddens him. Because he would much rather live and let live, but that belief has led to a loss of his rights and he is afraid if he does not speak up it may become too late.

Coriolis

05-05-2003, 02:01 PM

You've described my own upbringing and thought processes, unintentionally of course, more accurately and concisely than I could myself.

Dynamite post, Shiny.

PS: Oh, and I believe this highly worthy of a POM nomination.

RRedline

05-05-2003, 02:50 PM

Awesome post Shiny. I also nominate this for PoM.

mikeky

05-05-2003, 03:39 PM

For your consideration, I give you the average believer. He was raised in a home with morals and standards. At least one of his parents attended church and took him every Sunday, but it was not an unpardonable sin to miss. He took part in church activities, read the Bible and other materials, ultimately accepted the teachings, and became a part of the church. Along the way, he examined questions that arose, studied, and tried to answer those questions to his own satisfaction, resolving seeming contradictions, but knowing that in some cases there was no answer, faith was indeed a requirement.

He also accepts the rules of society and realizes that one's religion cannot be forced onto another; after all, his religion is based on choice and the resulting consequences of those choices.

There are many others like him, and sometimes he and they agree on ways to express their faith through ordinary activities in addition to their normal church worship time. One of those, an afterthought really, was to include the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Those two words allowed those believers to publicly acknowledge their faith in their Creator and express how they strived to live in their country: united under God. Those that did not believe in God certainly were not required to speak the words "under God", so the addition did not seem to be a big deal. However, one day it became an issue, and one person, although indeed backed by many more, indicated that not only did they not want to say the words "under God", they didn't want anyone to say them. To the believer, this seemed a bit extreme; he wondered why the need to deprive those that wanted to say the words, given the already individual option not to.

In addition, issues with government sponsored events arose. Prayers had been used for many years as a way for believers at these events to ask for guidance and support from God for the activities, actions, etc., that they were about to undertake. With God's guidance and support considered by many to be an integral part of their faith, these prayers seemed wholely appropriate to the believers. But while those present were not required to say a prayer, bow their head, or participate in any way other than to remain silent, some decided that they did not want to hear these prayers. When they prevailed, the believer wondered how the right of the few not to hear the prayer so easily trumped the right of those who wanted to pray?

Finally, the Ten Commandments and other inspiring scriptures sometimes were put on display in public locations. These provided comfort to believers and served as a reminder to them that their God was involved in all facets of life. However, rather than ignore these symbols, some non-believers decided that they did not want to ever view the symbols, that ignoring these was not an option, only removal. As the symbols were removed, the believer found it difficult to understand the benefit of getting rid of items that generally reinforced accepted rules (no killing please) of society or provided historically inspiring quotations.

But the average believer also accepts that it isn't the average non-believer or the average believer which has resulted in a rift over these issues, but the extremes on each side. Those extremist who would force all heads to bow try to seize the reins from their God, who reserved that later role for himself. Those extremist who would remove all traces of God from society claim "rule by the majority, protection for the minority" entitles not only protection from persecution but protection from un-comfortableness. And so the battle between the extremes rages, with the average caught in the middle wondering where has common sense gone?

ethics

05-05-2003, 04:03 PM

Thread full of PoM. ;)

Techie2000

05-05-2003, 04:40 PM

Shiny, may I request that you remove yourself from my brain. As interesting as my thoughts may be, there is no need to steal them (although you do a much better job of putting them into written form than I could ever do)...:haha:

Excellent Post Shiny!

ShinyTop

05-05-2003, 04:50 PM

Excellent post of another POV, Mikeky. I think it necessary to point out that many locations require the pledge be said every day. As currently written that is infringment on the rights of non-believers. They can break the law by not saying that but why would belief in God be required of patriots? Can a non-believer be a patriot?

Techie2000

05-05-2003, 04:52 PM

I'm a non-believer and I consider myself very patriotic...

mikeky

05-05-2003, 05:10 PM

Absolutely a non-believer can be a patriot. I attribute the requirement to say the Pledge with the words "under God" to be extremist.

Neo

05-05-2003, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by ShinyTop
All the while he accepts the rules of society, the rules influenced at least in part by the religions of the day. He accepts the rules as necessary and good to allow the interactions of people; the rules are what allow the smooth functioning of society.

He is not a crusader; he is not bothered that others believe in their god.

And the thing is, he has nothing against religion.

And he does not understand why religious people cannot let him be.

He does not care that they attend church. He does not care that they pray. He is sad and angry that he has to defend his rights while he is not meaning, has no desire to restrict anybody’s rights to believe what they want. The assaults on his right to believe as he wishes, the insults and put downs for not believing are beginning to make a crusader out of him and that saddens him.

If only the "he" that you speak of was of the high moral fiber and sincerity level that you are. But alas many are not.

The quotes I used above are used for the concept or ideas they convey and my response is in no way directed to you individually, but just the very important issues you’ve raised in what most likely will be May's POM--and if so it will be well deserved.

The "he" I refer to in my reply is the ambiguous "he" and is not you! I believe you to be a person of impeccable integrity.

If we substitute the "he" of your example with a "he" who is a religious person than we could take your words and I believe accurately and genuinely alter them to read from the religious person's perspective:

The rules he accepts that "allow the smooth functioning of society" include religious rules. One does not have to believe in God, Judaism, Islam, or Christianity to "believe" in the Ten Commandments. That is just one of many examples!

He is not a crusader; he is not bothered that others do not believe in God although he wishes for them the peace he gets from his belief. Nevertheless, he has nothing against the non-religious or the secular institutions except those that attack his right to believe and practice his religion. He does not understand why the non-religious people cannot let him be in his beliefs and practices.

He does not care that the non-religious or for that matter even some of the religious do not attend church although he may be saddened that they do not realize the positive experience he obtains from attending church.

He is sad and angry that he has to defend his feelings, beliefs, and most importantly his religious, freedom of speech, and freedom of association rights while simultaneously he has no desire to restrict anyone else’s right to believe, or not believe, anything to do with religion or anything else.

The assaults on his right to believe as he wishes, the insults and put downs for believing are beginning to make him a crusader out of him and that saddens him.

RRedline

05-05-2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Matrix
The assaults on his right to believe as he wishes, the insults and put downs for believing are beginning to make him a crusader out of him and that saddens him. With all due respect, I have never heard of anybody "assaulting" one's right to "believe" anything he or she wishes. Has somebody tried to shut down all the churches, mosques, etc.? Has somebody introduced legislation to ban praying in the home?

Here is how I see this issue. Many religious people want the right to pray/practice their beliefs anywhere and anytime they choose. It is not enough to pray in their homes, at their churches, sitting down at Burger King before they eat their meals...they want the right to do it anywhere and anytime, even if that means imposing it on those who do not wish it. I believe that my right to be free from religion in PUBLICLY FUNDED places or PUBLICLY FUNDED social gatherings should supersede anyone else's right to lead everyone - believer and non-believer alike - in a prayer or any other type of worship. Just as one's right to smoke cigarettes, and therefore subject others around them to something they do not want in their bodies, should not supersede one's right to clean, safe air, acts of worship or praise to a deity should not take precedence over one of the biggest freedoms that we are supposed to be able to enjoy in this great nation.

If and when anybody ever tries to take away our freedom to worship in private, or even in public places which are not funded by my tax dollars, I will rise and support those same religious people with whom I so often disagree.

jfcjrus

05-05-2003, 06:59 PM

Well said, Shiny.

I've never been able to understand why the 'religious' amoungst us cannot accept that I simply do not want $.01 of my tax dollars going to support (however indirect) someone's notion of what God is all about.
That is no business of government.

Seems pretty simple to me.
I won't inflict my religious beliefs (or lack of) upon you, and I expect the same courtesy from you.
I don't understand what's not fair about that.
I don't understand how some religious folks think that 'live and let live' philosophy is somehow undermining their beliefs.

Oh well, like I said, I don't get the gripe of the 'faithful'.
But, big deal, I don't get many things. ;)

Anyway, I thought it a good, thought provoking, post.
Thanks for taking the time to put it together.

Regards,

mikeky

05-05-2003, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by jfcjrus
...I've never been able to understand why the 'religious' amoungst us cannot accept that I simply do not want $.01 of my tax dollars going to support (however indirect) someone's notion of what God is all about.
That is no business of government.
Ah, but what about the many 'religious' that are willing to spend $0.01 of their tax dollars on a public statue with a religious theme. They should have no chance to, even if the majority agree?

Seems pretty simple to me.
I won't inflict my religious beliefs (or lack of) upon you, and I expect the same courtesy from you.
But if a person wants to pray before a government sponsored event, and many in the group also want to as well, they still cannot. Is that courtesy? Can those that don't want to pray simply ignore those that do, taking pity on their adherence to outdated rituals? Does hearing a prayer equate to inflicting religious beliefs? Maybe it does, but I'm skeptical, having heard non-Christian prayers before at public functions but not considering these evangelizing.

IamZed

05-05-2003, 07:59 PM

Only one difference between me and Shiny’s example. At my introduction to religion I decided the people presenting this idea to me were confused. I did not lose faith, and have no idea what that must feel like. Other than that difference, it was a post that covers me well.

Neo

05-05-2003, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by RRedline
With all due respect, I have never heard of anybody "assaulting" one's right to "believe" anything he or she wishes.

RRedline, I suspect that if you were a person who also happened to have strong religious beliefs you might be more aware of what I claim. Naturally, no matter what the subject, in this case it is religion, there are differences of opinions as to what are the rights in general and what specific things are covered by those rights.

By the way, for the benefit of all who may read this post, I am not assuming RRedline is a person without strong religious views. He has on numerous times in other threads eloquently and sincerely made that fact know.

Also, the fact that he is not a seriously religious person in no way either adds or distracts from him being the upright, kind, moral and decent person that he obviously is.

joseftu

05-05-2003, 09:37 PM

As a person with strong religious beliefs, but from a "minority" religion, I agree with Shiny and Rredline 100%.

The only "assaults on my right to believe as I wish, the insults and put downs for believing" which I've experienced have come from the religious majority.

As a Jew, the atheist/secular/humanist/agnostic position is one that I find completely non-threatening, welcoming and comfortable. It's the point of view that I believe is encoded in our Constitution, and which should be basis of public policy, activity, and environments.

Neo

05-05-2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by joseftu
The only "assaults on my right to believe as I wish, the insults and put downs for believing" which I've experienced have come from the religious majority.

I am sorry that you have experienced those things. But obviously you agree with me then that the type of assaults I've mentioned do happen. Regretably you've been a victim.

joseftu

05-05-2003, 09:46 PM

Yes, those assaults do happen. But in my experience it's the taking down of public crosses, the abolition of school and other public prayer, the general secularization (or de-religiousization--a worse word, but a more accurate description), which helps to prevent these assaults.

Ugly

05-05-2003, 09:56 PM

Is there any way to end the annoying practice of prostelytizing home invaders and public spiritual debaters?

Neo

05-05-2003, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Ugly
Is there any way to end the annoying practice of prostelytizing home invaders and public spiritual debaters?

If you mean those jerks who knock on you door I suggest any of the following:

Sick the dog on them.
Turn the sprinkler on them.
Beat them up.

Aria

05-05-2003, 11:06 PM

Joseftu, as part an even more minor religion (might as well just call it spiritual left field), I definitely agree with what you, shiny and the others are saying.

When God is mentioned in the Pledge, whose definition of "god" is being used? There are so many different definitions of the creator/creatrix that the word "god" can't necessarily cover them all. Religious does not mean just Christian. There are so many faiths in this country that it would just be better to leave them all out of our government instead of just catering to one, regardless of whether they're a majority or not.

As for the door to door spiritual invaders, I keep a copy of Anton LaVey's writings around just to freak them out. ;)

mikeky

05-05-2003, 11:54 PM

So then the consensus is that un-comfortableness is enough to warrant exclusion of a practice, even if the majority favors it. Is this not very similar to the concept of political correctness derided by many?

ShinyTop

05-06-2003, 12:17 AM

Favors it or needs it? Why should a dime be spent supporting any religion. Why are the Ten Commandments needed in a judicial center? I think Aria made a very good case for keeping all religion out of government. That is the only way to be fair to all. But then, that is not what the majority "favors", is it?

EMIG

05-06-2003, 01:54 AM

I felt Aria made an excellent case for leaving the words "under God" in the pledge.

I find it curious that Joseftu feels the only way to be safe from religious persecution is to systematically destroy all public display of the symbols of other religions.

Fiona

05-06-2003, 02:22 AM

You all right so eloquently. Awesome post Shinyone, :thumbsup: and Mike too :) and joseftu and Aria... the list continues. I wish I could express myself so well. I sit here in near tears at the emotions that have been brought to the surface. I personally do not discriminate against anyone here for their choice of religion or non religion. I do not discriminate against MOST on earth for their religious beliefs. I of course get ticked off at the extremists, those who disturb my Saturday mornings, and I am often just perplexed by some people's ideas of right and wrong.
After reading all of this, I was reminded of how hurt I often feel when I'm discriminated against BECAUSE I have a religion or a faith. I think perhaps many do not realize just how offensive their words can be. The thing that comes to mind is when someone poses a religious question for religious people and those who insist we are wrong in our perceptions come and crap on the thread. A little thing? Not to me.
That's all, I'm done. Excellent posts!

joseftu

05-06-2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by EMIG
I felt Aria made an excellent case for leaving the words "under God" in the pledge.

I find it curious that Joseftu feels the only way to be safe from religious persecution is to systematically destroy all public display of the symbols of other religions.
"Systematically destroy?"
I'm not the Taliban ;).
We don't have to destroy anything. Just gently and respectfully move them to their appropriate places.
Would you like to have a great big statue of Ganesh or Shiva on top of the highest hill in your town? Even if the top of that hill was city property? Wouldn't it make you feel that the city government was saying, in effect, "This is a Hindu town."
Wouldn't it seem more appropriate to put that statue inside (or outside, but on the property of) a Hindu temple?

Shouldn't the same go for crosses, stars of david (not a holy symbol, but you see the point), etc?

It's not the only way to be free of religious persecution, certainly wouldn't be a magic bullet, but I think it would help.

Steve

05-06-2003, 12:04 PM

A society grows as a body politic by confronting, challenging and, ultimately, incorporating that which is different to its individual members.

Understanding, co-existence, and cooperation grow and thrive on diversity.

If we are to deny the fact of religion in our society by marginalizing its appearance in public venues, then what shall be next? Perhaps some of those books in the libraries that mention God should be removed? How about the ones that portray the factual treatment of certain minorities in an unfavorable fashion? Certain music, too, is offensive to many. Surely, if "GOD" cannot be written on the walls of a public building, then we should prohibt the playing of songs with offensive swearing in public places? Or perhaps ban such swearing altogether?

Whenever two or more people come together, there will always be something that will offend one of them, but not the other. That the offense occurs because of some deeply held conviction is irrelevant, no matter how lofty or pure the conviction may be.

What is relevant is the effort each party makes to understand the other. It is relevant that our society attempt to reconcile the apparently irreconcilable. It is relevant that we not move too fast, nor too brashly, in our attempts to achieve that reconciliation.

The heritage of centuries of religion's impact on our culture and society has far-reaching implications, much farther than the perceived slight of words in a motto, or the display of a plaque on a building.

We must take care not to destroy that heritage in the short space of a generation or two, because we have as little understanding of the consequences of doing so as we have of the current debate.

In my mind, the current debate is not really one of beliefs or viewpoints or opinions or disagreements; it is, rather, a debate over the pace of change.

Aria

05-06-2003, 12:16 PM

Robert Harris

05-06-2003, 01:52 PM

Oh Aria, he was just giving it a religeous spin. When you are wrong on the merits you try to win on spin. :)

ShinyTop

05-06-2003, 05:56 PM

I agree diversity is what makes our society so great Steve. And I am happy you agree. So you would agree to each faith having its week as the official faith of the government, right? That would be a lot easier to explain to my children than we are a nation of religious freedom, but we must listen to only one major religion since they are the majority, no, son, really we have religious freedom, we just don't show it by our government. I don't know what is so hard to understand.

Freedom of religion should include freedom to influence or not our own children. We should not have to explain that a nation of religious freedom still allows one religion to proclaim itself, that only one religion is allowed. Or do you suggest you would have no objection to Hindu prayers, or Muslim invocations?

How long do you think we should give. Is not two centuries enough for the religious heritage to have been honored? Should we also raise statues of slaves in the south since they gave so much to the southern heritage. Should all statues of women be barefoot and pregnant even thought it bears no resemblance to constitution or the ideal of our nation?

The national heritage argument is pretty much a transparent attempt to justify continued glorification of one belief over all others.

joseftu

05-06-2003, 06:19 PM

Shiny, I like your proposal of one week for each religion to be the official national faith.
But to make it really fair, we'd have to give, say, 200 years to each. It seems like Christianity is going to have quite a wait before it gets another turn. ;)

Or to be really fair, maybe we can just say that we have no official religion, that the public sphere should be secular...oh, wait, isn't that sort of what we're already supposed to have? :)

jfcjrus

05-06-2003, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by stevent
Oh, boo hoo, how'd you live so long with such thin skin?

And where did I force my beliefs on anyone? One example, please, where I made someone conform to my beliefs?

Ah, the silence is deafening.......
Very true, you've never (to my knowledge) forced your beliefs on anyone.

But, statements such as...
... then what shall be next? Perhaps some of those books in the libraries that mention God should be removed? How about the ones that portray the factual treatment of certain minorities in an unfavorable fashion? Certain music, too, is offensive to many. Surely, if "GOD" cannot be written on the walls of a public building, then we should prohibt the playing of songs with offensive swearing in public places? Or perhaps ban such swearing altogether?
...certainly attempt to vector the debate utilizing unreasonable conclusions, and distort the issue.

No, I, for one, have never heard anyone here advocate banning religious books from librarys, or forbidding music with a religious connontation.
But, I think to invoke those senarios is a bit disengenuious.
To the contrary, I believe that the more books and other info available, the better for folks to be able to research and form their own opinions.

I think that all some folks are asking is that the government, and government monies (tax dollars) stay the heck away from the appearance of supporting ANY religion.
That's simply not the job of our government in the USA.
It's job is to insure us citizens the freedom to persue our quest regarding the various religious dogma and arrive at whatever conclusion we want.
PERIOD.

I have no problem with the tenants of anyone's religious beliefs if they don't usurp mine, or expect me to pay for promoting theirs.

To me, simple.
But, as I've mentioned, there's a lot I don't understand.
Just my thoughts.

Regards,

Steve

05-06-2003, 06:24 PM

I, personally, would have huge problem with each religion getting its own week to be the "official" religion....but only because there are more than 52 religions and denominations :)

Seriously, I have no trouble with any other religion. You won't find me riding Aria's ass about being a Wiccan, nor any bothering anyone else about their religious choices. Me, personally. I fully recognize I'm probably in the minority of religious people, just as you are in the minory of areligious people.

Be that as it may. How long would I give? The comparison to slavery isn't accurate, imho. Slavery, in the form we regard it, only existed for about two centuries. There was not enough time for it to truly become an embedded facet of our culture. As a "young" institution, it was fairly easy to overthrow. The vestiges of religion in public life will, and are, proving to be much harder to expunge.

So, I don't know how much time to give the process. If I did, you can bet I'd share it with the rest of the country. But we're not talking about persecution, in the traditional sense. No violence is being done, no lives destroyed. Absent imminent danger and need, I would exercise caution. We need time, as a nation, to replace those vestiges of religious institutions that remain in our public life with something different. A vacuum is different, granted, but comes with its own set of problems, usually worse.

My position is that a national dialog needs to occur regarding so important an issue and that, as usual, the courts are an inappropriate venue for creating social policy.

Steve

05-06-2003, 06:27 PM

jfcjrus, public tax dollars have, and do, purchase numerous books for public libraries, that are chock-full of references to God, and other religions. Why, even "The Scarlet Letter" may be found in public high school libraries!

Just pointing out the obvious...

Fiona

05-06-2003, 06:39 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong and I'll probably be securing my first class ticket to hell for trying to argue the other side...but. this seems simple to me. I've never had a problem with it. there are certain areas where it gets a bit Grey! I am a christian of strong faith. I am not disturbed my under God in the pledge of allegiance for example. It upset me to think of removing it. YET- I can see why perhaps it should be removed. On the one hand you have those who say this country was founded on these beliefs... if you don't like it get out. I say that sometimes myself. I don't entirely mean it. You have those that say NO religion should be in government. Also not quite right.

To me it can be simple, for the most part. FREEDOM of religion is the key. Each individual should have the freedom to practice and express his religion. To have GOD books in the public library is completely right. Just as you can find the book of Morman and the Koran (sp?)
However to Force acknowledgment of one specific God/religion in what should be a democratic, political, (and capitalist) system... ummm
I understand the arguments. I am often the one arguing. It just doesnt seem right.
I wouldnt want someone lets say Extreme Catholic telling me It's against the law to eat meat on Friday. PAH!
and it's against OUR religion to acknowledge another God... it is also against theirs.
and then there are the many who do not believe in any god or are agnostic. They should not be forced. (even by subtle brainwashing)
From OUR religion, the word is offered to everyman so that he may choose.

jfcjrus

05-06-2003, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by stevent
jfcjrus, public tax dollars have, and do, purchase numerous books for public libraries, that are chock-full of references to God, and other religions. Why, even "The Scarlet Letter" may be found in public high school libraries!

Just pointing out the obvious...
Yes sir, obvious point noted.

But, I didn't note anyone having a problem with our government paying to make any literary reference material available to it's citizens, to allow them to educate themselves in achieving an informed decision.
And yes, I would consider "The Scarlet Letter" literary reference material.
So, I don't think what our tax dollars pay for in our public reference centers (libraries) is what we're really discussing here.

But, I've probably missed the point.
Regards,

Steve

05-06-2003, 06:48 PM

Oh, it would be so wrong if, say, only books on Christianity were allowed in the library! But do religions not currently represented have a right to be? I would say, "yes". Then, where do the cash-strapped libraries find the money for the additional materials?

Yes, grey areas abound!

Steve

05-06-2003, 06:52 PM

You didn't note anyone having a problem because they haven't spoken up yet. The (il-)logical conclusion and end-point of strict interpretation of the Amendment is that public tax funds not be allowed to purchase anything that contains even the mildest reference or acknowledgement of God, or gods, or deities, or whatever.

That is clearly impractical and, I hope it's clear, undesirable for, as you point out, one of the greatest institutions of this country, the free public library, will be eviscerated.

ShinyTop

05-06-2003, 07:22 PM

The suggestion that book buying will be the next target is misdirection. And maybe a touch of wishing to associate those wanting freedom of religion with those wanting to burn books. Nobody is attacking our religious history or heritage.

The judge who memorialized the Ten Commandments claimed to be honoring religious heritage. He also was on record as saying he would rule by the Bible rather than the law. I think his motives were pretty clear.

The governor of Florida stated he wanted God referenced on all public buildings. Heritage? I don't think so. And was it coincidence that this was after 9/11. We claim to not be starting a religious war but our officials are either doing just that or posturing for the voters. Either way it is a misuse of public money. I am not proposing defacing buildings. But can we not start from here without the references. Can we not remove it from our money? People collect money all the time. The heritage will be honored.

You see, the religious in our society want us to be a society of the good and compassionate. They think posting the word god everywhere helps achieve that. I, on the other hand, judge the worth of our government by its actions. I suspect the current administration would like to draw focus away from actions and focus on words.

How well has our religious heritage taken care of the mentally ill? How well did our religious heritage influence our Congress to take a break without extending jobless benefits? How much influence did our religious heritage influence our congress in insuring all citizens can receive basic health care? Is the religious heritage taking care of our seniors when they cannot buy medicine? And yet the members of our government want to invoke religious heritage and they pray at every convening.

If the current compassion level of our government is an example of religious heritage I say it is time to ignore that heritage. Maybe then we can have government that takes care its citizens that have fallen through the cracks. Isn't it amazing that the retirement and medical plans of Congress do not fall through the cracks? I would not shout religious heritage too loudly if I were you. It ain't pretty.

Fiona

05-06-2003, 07:28 PM

If you keep postin like that Shiny I'll never get a PoM rofl
:thumbsup:

Steve

05-06-2003, 07:33 PM

I don't associate areligious people with book-burners.

Any claims of "compassion" in government being influenced by religion, or not, are yours. I never made any such comments. I find it odd that you would comment:

"How well has our religious heritage taken care of the mentally ill? How well did our religious heritage influence our Congress to take a break without extending jobless benefits? How much influence did our religious heritage influence our congress in insuring all citizens can receive basic health care? Is the religious heritage taking care of our seniors when they cannot buy medicine? And yet the members of our government want to invoke religious heritage and they pray at every convening."

None of those things are "religions" responsibility; they are properly the purview of government and if government is failing at them, I don't understand why it is the fault of religion?

I do ask you to answer the question directly, though:

Is it the logical endpoint that government be prohibited from any endeavor, purchase, or activity which involves religion, even if only mentioned in print?

Fiona

05-06-2003, 07:48 PM

I would say no. It's not that it cant support. Just cant force. (IMVHO)

cdw

05-06-2003, 08:19 PM

Hmmm. I'm lost in these dicussions. I was raised, I guess like Shiny, although I believe that I was taken to church so that as I grew up I could make up my own mind. It was an extension of school, so to speak. I made up my mind once I began to see that those who were so revered were really just regular old people making an awful lot of mistakes and not adhering to what they were preaching. I have my own thoughts on a "higher power" and it has very little to do with the organized religion.
That said, I don't care if under god is in the pledge. I don't care if it's not in the pledge, although it wouldn't flow as nicely from my lips. I would miss public Christmas trees and Christmas lights. But, I don't mind seeing other symbols of someone's faith either.
To me, the religions are well meaning... not harmful in any way.
Even those "idiots" (nice, guys), that come to the door. I learned the word "no" many moons ago and I've found these people that come to the door accept it quite nicely. I don't find religion an infringement on my rights or that of my children. I don't find it cumbersome that some funds may go to pay for religious symbols, as I find, in all fairness, that my tax dollars go to non-religious things that are worse. When I do find myself in a situation that religion is a large part of the event, a funeral or an outing, I respectfully am either quiet, or, I participate to give comfort to those that need it at the moment.
I don't have to have my own way and can empathize.
So, I guess I would be considered confused... but to me, what's the big deal. Get on with your life.
And, leave my dollar bills alone. It will cost too much to change them, there would be debates left and right about what they should be, and quite frankly, to me, that's a waste of my tax dollars. :-)

Domh

05-06-2003, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by stevent
Is it the logical endpoint that government be prohibited from any endeavor, purchase, or activity which involves religion, even if only mentioned in print?

Yes.

True democratic representative governance cannot be attained while a governing body is in any way influenced by religous doctrine.

As that cannot and will not ever happen, it follows that true and pure democractic representative governance is something that cannot be attained.

If one who governs and represents is influenced by, for example, Christian faith and morals, they cannot faithfully represent a constituent who despises those morals.

Oh well.

:(

cdw

05-06-2003, 08:31 PM

We claim to not be starting a religious war but our officials are either doing just that or posturing for the voters.

Oh, for heavens sakes, shiny. Of COURSE it's posturing. That's what politicians do. It's in their blood. A religious war? Come on, honey.

As for Jeb, call him up and ask him what the hell he's smoking, then vote down the referendum. It's not reasonable to add something about god to all the buildings. It's rediculous and a waste of money, not just because it has something to do with religion. I would object if he were going to spend lots of money putting his own name on the building.... this isn't the time to be spending money on frivilous things.

Hey, whatever... I can see this can get heated. Religion always seems to bring out the best in people. :)

ShinyTop

05-06-2003, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by stevent
I don't associate areligious people with book-burners.

Any claims of "compassion" in government being influenced by religion, or not, are yours. I never made any such comments. I find it odd that you would comment:

"How well has our religious heritage taken care of the mentally ill? How well did our religious heritage influence our Congress to take a break without extending jobless benefits? How much influence did our religious heritage influence our congress in insuring all citizens can receive basic health care? Is the religious heritage taking care of our seniors when they cannot buy medicine? And yet the members of our government want to invoke religious heritage and they pray at every convening."

None of those things are "religions" responsibility; they are properly the purview of government and if government is failing at them, I don't understand why it is the fault of religion?

I do ask you to answer the question directly, though:

Is it the logical endpoint that government be prohibited from any endeavor, purchase, or activity which involves religion, even if only mentioned in print?

The reason I asked about the impact of religious heritage on our government is that you want to wean us gradually from it. We must take care not to destroy that heritage in the short space of a generation or two, because we have as little understanding of the consequences of doing so as we have of the current debate.

Since I am only arguing that religion be removed from government that is the only heritage germane to the conversation.

I am not going to answer yes or no to a question that begs for much more of an answer. Buying headstones is honoring the person who died in the service of his country. Buying one with a cross or six pointed star is not imposing religion on anybody. Allowing public money to buy literature that includes references to god or even explains religions is also not imposing religion if, as I have already said, it is not excluding other religions. I want to study more and I certainly hope my children have a thirst for more information that may include references to god.

I am not advocating removing religion from anywhere but government. Believe me, I am old enough to know what I am advocating.

RRedline

05-07-2003, 10:15 AM

Steve

05-07-2003, 10:29 AM

"I am not advocating removing religion from anywhere but government. Believe me, I am old enough to know what I am advocating."

Then you should also be old enough to understand the futility of your advocacy. That judge you keep bringing up was just one of the few too stupid to keep his opinions private. For every one such as him, I can guarantee there are dozens of others who know to keep their mouths shut and do what they feel is right, according to the law and, when new legal ground is being broken, according to the moral codes of their particular religious upbringing.

Similarly, it's pure folly to believe for one second that 605 elected representatives leave their religious beliefs checked at the door every time Congress is in session. Few of them tout to the public how they apply their religion to consideration of various bills, but you can most certainly bet that they do.

In every facet of public life are elected officials who hold religious convictions. Some of them stupidly apply those convictions in a public fashion guaranteed to create opposition, not to mention the fact that they shouldn't have, in the first place.

But it is the rare individual who can distance themselves enough from their religious beliefs to prevent those beliefs from influencing their decisions.

The best you can hope for is removing blatant or noticeable displays of religion within government; it is impossible to fully remove it, until such time as the computers rule over us all, and God knows what beliefs they'll hold ;)

ShinyTop

05-07-2003, 11:33 AM

I know judges and law makers are influenced in their decisions by their religion. I know that our country's overall morals are based on judeo-christian ethics. And if they allow their religion to take a front seat over their oath to support their constitution they are a really good example of why religion should be erased from the government. From my understanding a good Christian should not take an oath they know they will not uphold.

But I am not one much for folly. Your point it will never be removed from people is true. So I guess bad attitudes about women and slavery should be allowed to be openly expressed since we will never erase these thoughts from minds. Similarly we can do away with laws since it is folly to think we will ever do away with crime. Of course I am carrying an argument to its extreme. Just wanted to show it can be done from both sides.

The fact is the basic unit of our society is the family. The family determines its religion and is endowed with that right. The five year old that attends school does not understand what you and I might about religious heritage. The teenager who does not attend the prayrer meetings is not as understanding when not chosen for a team or a club or to be a cheer leader. Nobody should be forced to acknowledge a deity in order to be a patriot and pledge allegience. Government is a heavy and blunt tool and should not be used to determine or teach religion.

Steve

05-07-2003, 11:43 AM

I'm not sure why you're arguing with, anymore. I don't disagree with a thing you've said, there.

One last comment, ShinyTop, one that may shed some light on the vocal opposition you perceive: You are honorable and reasonable and only want what is right. You are in the very, very small minority, my friend!

I urge you to visit some athiest websites or discussion groups and follow some of the threads. You'll get a good idea of why people of religion resist every attempt to restrict the exercise of religion, anywhere, whether they're right or wrong to resist it, or not.

It's indicative of the comment I made in your "weakness or strength" thread, it's a matter of polarization. It's a complex subject, requiring discussion, debate, and consensus, such as you and I engage in. But the extremes on either side of the issue have turned it into anti-religion/pro-religion. and that's wrong.