Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism and freedom of speech
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 108 (341425)
08-19-2006 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by CK
08-19-2006 12:31 PM


Why not?
here's the thing - it never never comes up. In the UK religion is a very private thing. It's your business and whatever you believe, good for you but keep it to yourself. I'd never bring up religious matter when with friends and family.
How does anyone ever conclude within themselves whether or not God exists if it never comes up in discussion? Why is it such a private matter? Why is it the dirty little secret that we are theists are atheists? I've never understood this. Now, I can understand the good advice of, when in a setting where you are entertaining many guests, the cardinal rule is, don't bring up politics and don't bring up religion. But within your own family or your circle of friends, this seems odd to me.
In certain areas it goes further than that, I always see American politicians talk about their faith in the lord. In the uk to openly talk about your faith in such a way is seen as a dangerous character flaw.
That pretty much sums up the entire disposition of modern-day Europe, not just the UK.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by CK, posted 08-19-2006 12:31 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by kuresu, posted 08-19-2006 7:15 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 25 by CK, posted 08-20-2006 6:40 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 108 (341513)
08-19-2006 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by kuresu
08-19-2006 7:15 PM


Re: Why not?
why do you need social group discussion to come to your beliefs about God?
Nobody needs to as I already shared. What I said was, I think its odd to not, at some point, have the discussion come up amongst a good circle of friends or within a family.
after all, if it is up to the individual person to decide whether or not God exists, shouldn't he be left to come to that conclusion on his own?
Yes, but why share every aspect of one's life except this one thing?
you've got no one telling you what is or isn't, just yourself and your own exploration.
Someone is always going to tell us how we should live. Its whether we think they are full of manure that is up to us.
or is religion(faith, if yu don't like organized religion) so weak here in the US that it needs this social confirmation?
What mean by social confirmation?

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by kuresu, posted 08-19-2006 7:15 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 10:15 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 18 by subbie, posted 08-19-2006 10:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 22 by kuresu, posted 08-19-2006 11:11 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 108 (341570)
08-19-2006 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by nator
08-19-2006 10:15 PM


Re: Why not?
The British tend to be far more private (and much less arrogant) as a culture than us in the US.
I agree with them being more private, but I don't know about less arrogant. They're constantly engaged in verbal jousting. Especially when they talk amongst themselves, they're always trying to subtly outwit their friend (i.e. opponent) in even normal conversations.
Any Brits feels free to answer how that developed within the culture. I've asked quite a few of them and they state that they do do that, but they aren't sure why. Its just part of the culture.
One thing I noticed when I lived there is that people were far, far less liable to give their opinion about something to another unless they were specifically asked.
I would agree with that. Certainly there are extenuating circumstances, but all in all, i would say that's accurate.
Also, in general it was, unlike here in the US, considered perfectly OK to admit to not knowing anything about a subject. It was socially acceptable and even encouraged to be tentative and self-depricating about the level of one's knowledge on a subkect even if it was extensive.
I haven't noticed that. I've noticed the opposite in most cases. Then again I've only met maybe 30 to 40 Brits in a lifetime (not including those online. That doesn't count in my opinion). The one's I've encountered were doing that verbal jousting, trying to outwit the other person as if it were some kind of game.
Which is interesting, considering British folks seem to me to be much better read on a wide variety of subjects than Americans.
That's because they probably are per capita.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 10:15 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 10:46 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 56 by Larni, posted 08-21-2006 7:56 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 108 (341577)
08-19-2006 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by subbie
08-19-2006 10:33 PM


Re: Why not?
On the one hand you argue:
[Atheists argue about religion] because there is something in them that is mindful of their Creator and the mere fact that they give Him such 'undue' attention should speak very loudly to you that they do in fact care and that they are in fact effected by the notion of God.
In this thread, on the other hand, you say:
I think its odd to not, at some point, have the discussion come up amongst a good circle of friends or within a family.
It sounds to me like you obsess about the whole deal a lot more than I do, than most atheists that I know do.
Sounds like I rattled something loose in your psyche. Sounds like maybe you're obsessed with me. Sorry, but that does seem weird to me. Talking to perfect strangers or even an acquantence about religion seems taboo...? Sure. That's understandable to me. But never speaking about religiosity with close friends or family, at some point, is bizarre to me. Perhaps some of them are craving that dialogue, as there are many Brits who are active participants on this forum. They don't seem to be too shy in telling me how wrong I am on here. They obviously have strong feelings on the subject. So why hide your feelings, eh?

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by subbie, posted 08-19-2006 10:33 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by CK, posted 08-20-2006 6:51 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 108 (341620)
08-20-2006 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by nator
08-19-2006 10:46 PM


Re: Why not?
I don't get how that is arrogant, though. I think you have it; it's a game.
Maybe it is friendly. But moreover, I don't think its a matter of nationality that makes someone arrogant. Rather, certain people portray a more brahs tone and others are more subdued. I mean, on some level, we all think our assumptions are the correct ones. I guess its how we get that point across that makes us either arrogant, humble, or somewhere in between.
quote:
"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!" - Ned Flanders
This is a great quote, btw. I remember that episode.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 10:46 PM nator has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 108 (341640)
08-20-2006 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by kuresu
08-19-2006 11:11 PM


Re: Why not?
social confirmation--the group concluding that God does (not) exist. in your case, leave the not out. and further, it means that the only way to conclude God's existence is by relying on the support of the group and it's decision. in that, you'll only accept his existence when the group concludes he exists because you are afraid to do the same without their backup. hope that makes more sense.
That logic doesn't encompass me, though there are lemmings the world over. Some people are born into a church setting and others born into an atheistic setting. I was born in a fairly agnostic setting, not leaning one way or another. My parents say that they are Christians, but they don't really care or seem to understand. Its purely a traditional thing that has no real value in their lives. They live as though they are pagans and always have, so long as I've known them. They never talked about God with me, just about practical, everyday matters. Incidentally, they only speak to me now about God because I've professed a belief in God. But even the dialogue seems canned. I wrote a book about my experience and about my beliefs and they haven't even read it. It was pretty rude if you ask me because they knew how much time I had invested in it.
what I meant with the whole--no one telling us . . . is that no one should tell us. that doesn't mean that someone won't try to tell us what to think (except, apparently, in britain, where everyone does stay out of your religious life).
A true believer in Yeshua wouldn't sit idly by, afraid to stir the pot. Belief in Yeshua is an automatic invitation to opposition. I guess Jesus said it best when He said, "If the world hates you, know that it hated Me first." Its just the way the cookie crumbles.
p.s. I always found that faith in the US tends to be weak in most people. evidenced by needing science to confirm their views. evidenced by needing others to confirm their views. very few people, in my experience, have directly claimed that God exists becuase he just does. most want proof. ah, the empiricist in the american life.
I believed in God's existence prior to anything else that was taught to me. Perhaps I'm a rare breed. It seems that its the opposition that wants proof, and though no creationist, christian, or ID'ist could provide outright empirical proof of that existence, we can direct them through the one avenue they feel would best support the notion -- be that science, philosophy, theology, etc.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by kuresu, posted 08-19-2006 11:11 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 108 (341720)
08-20-2006 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by CK
08-20-2006 6:51 AM


Re: Why not?
I wouldn't count on that - we (as a race) like to argue that's not quite the same thing. I come here because it's a useful way to kill time and the debates get quite fierce. I can honestly say I don't give religion much thought away from here.
Yes, I noticed the whole argue thing and it seems to be over anything.
If I really had strong feelings about it - I guess I'd seek out a group of similar people, why am I going to embarrass my friends by subjecting them to rants about religion and quizzing them about what their beliefs are?
Because its not a source of embarrassment. What's a worse thing to ask when the subject comes up? Are they even remotely similar in distaste?
1. Hey, is that a fashion statement or an actual belief in God? I only ask because I noticed that crucifix around your neck.
2. Hey, do you have genital herpes? I only ask because I see some cold sores around your mouth?
Its like Jesus said, "If you're ashamed of Me before men, I'll be ashamed of you before My Father."

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by CK, posted 08-20-2006 6:51 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by CK, posted 08-20-2006 11:04 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 30 by Michael, posted 08-20-2006 11:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 108 (341727)
08-20-2006 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by CK
08-20-2006 11:04 AM


Re: Why not?
The embarrassment comes because culturally it's one of the subjects that we don't bring up in polite conversation - that, sex and what people earn. It's none of our business. You just have to accept that socially things are different here.
Don't get me wrong, its taboo to speak about religion in a polite conversation in America as well, its just not as pronounced, I would say, than in England. I'm saying, perhaps it shouldn't be a source of embarrassment. How did it ever get that way to begin with? That's really what I'm getting at. But, you don't know that because you weren't alive when it started happening.
But again what's it got to do with me?, it's none of my business.
Asking somebody what brand of toothpaste they use could probably be construed as none of anyone else's buisness either, but I wouldn't imagine it being a source of embarrassment.
However in some respects, if you ask someone that's consider better than telling people about your beliefs unsolicited, that's likely to get you labeled as a kook. If I was at a party and someone started talking about how they were a christian/Mulsim/Jew and expounding on their belief in a creator - I'd smile politely and then slowly slide away
LOL! I'd probably do the same. There is a time and a place for eveerything. I'd be concerned if someone walked in to a room and randomly started talking about their religious convition. But I've noticed that in very close settings, particularly when gratuitous amounts alcohol is present, the whole God/no Go thing comes up. I've lived all over the US and that seemed to be a topic that would come up after every other topic had been exhausted. Mind you, this is in a close setting, not at a party or in the pub.
Anyway, I was just giving my take on it. Does this mean C.S. Lewis was considered a kook?

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by CK, posted 08-20-2006 11:04 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by CK, posted 08-20-2006 11:38 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 58 by Larni, posted 08-21-2006 8:10 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 108 (341739)
08-20-2006 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by CK
08-20-2006 11:38 AM


Re: Why not?
Why? I think most of us prefer it like this - anyone can believe what they like and they leave the rest of us alone!
Then why wouldn't that rule apply everywhere, including online? Must we lose our cordialness simply because we don't really know one another? And then at the same time, according to your testimony, I know aspects about you more deeply than your best friends and family. I think that odd. But I don't think this affinity applies only to Great Brittain. This is whole counter-culture can be found many places and it seems to have began after the 1960's, as far as my understanding goes.
I'm not sure how it started but it's interesting when you consider we don't have separation of church and state like you guys do. (for example we have a requirement in schools, that there must be daily collective worship).
I think it is wrong to make people pray to something they don't believe in for several reasons. One, training a child to say some mindless prayer only ensures that he/she is going to resent it. They will recognize it as being plastic, as being fake, as being pointless because there is no stirring in their soul. At the same time, what is happening in America with the slow and methodical criminilization of things like prayer is equally egregious. Both unwittingly set up partitions that don't need to exist. That's my take on it.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by CK, posted 08-20-2006 11:38 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by ringo, posted 08-20-2006 1:25 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 108 (341757)
08-20-2006 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by ringo
08-20-2006 1:25 PM


Re: Why not?
Did I miss the news again? I wasn't aware that prayer had been criminalized in the US.
As I already shared, I believe that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment demonstrated a tremendous insight of the Founding Fathers. I do believe that no nation should establish a national religion, I believe that all people should have the freedom to worship freely, and that this freedom should not impeded. However, there is a manipulation of what the Establishment Clause actually means. First of all, the terms: Separation, Church, or State, is essentially a mantra and not one of those words is found within the Amendment. This coined catch phrase comes to us by Thomas Jefferson in a personal letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut. The Baptists had heard a rumor that the US gov't was going to adopt a national religion that was not compatible with Baptist doctrine. Jefferson wrote to them assuring them that this was not the case. Because much of the exodus from England to America was to escape religious persecution, the last thing the fledgling nation wanted was a national religion. Jefferson was actually writing out of concern for all religions.
Now, this motto has come to mean something it never intended, which is the expulsion of ANY religion within public places. This is NOT what it means. It means that the US gov't should not show preferential treatment towards any specific religion. This does not mean that we must forget our Christian heritage, it does not mean that we cannot pray wherever we feel like, it does not mean that you can try to use this phrase against me. All it means is that the government will not enter into your personal religious beliefs.
What is happening is this slow inculcation of just the opposite. Now I'm apparently commiting a crime for mentioning God. I can metion God whenever, wherever, and however I want according to the Constitution. Somehow it has come to mean that I'm not allowed to speak about my faith in a public building. This is completely false.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ringo, posted 08-20-2006 1:25 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by nwr, posted 08-20-2006 3:23 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 42 by ringo, posted 08-20-2006 6:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 46 by Discreet Label, posted 08-20-2006 9:44 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 47 by obvious Child, posted 08-20-2006 10:11 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 108 (341760)
08-20-2006 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by nwr
08-20-2006 3:23 PM


Re: Why not?
Quite right. The religious right have been manipulating it, and have been shameless in their dishonesty over this.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Its pretty straight forward. The gubment will not establish for itself a national religion, sanctioned to be respected, nor will it intrude upon the rights of those who seek to worship. In other words, we won't give you a rebirth of Constantine's theocracy and we won't give you a rebirth of Stalin's irreligious Communism.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by nwr, posted 08-20-2006 3:23 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2006 4:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 108 (341831)
08-20-2006 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Discreet Label
08-20-2006 9:44 PM


Re: Why not?
I think this has not become a problem for quite sometime because the US used to be strictly a more christian nation. So no one was to concerned with the occasional christian pieces of symbology in government offices. It became an issue when it became very evident that non-christians became more and more numerous. Because when you have public buildings only having christian symbology present you have a very large problem.
Would anyone be willing to desecrate the burial site of fallen soldiers and their families wishes by removing thousands upon thousands of crosses and stars of David on military cemetaries? I mean, if were going to be thorough in removing all traces of religious symbols on federal land, might someone want to start there?
The problem then becomes, that the government may not out and out be endorising religion but, be defacto monopoly christian symbols hold it is seen to be endorsing christianity over any other religion.
That would also be an attempt to eradicate history. If a predominantly Muslim nation adopted similar notions of Democracy, would it be feasible or justifiable for them to remove any notion of their historical past or the significance its had on their culture? Certainly not. So the US should be unapologetic about its Christian heritage just as that Muslim nation would be unapologetic about theirs. Its when the government is attempting to institute policies under a banner of Christianity that I agree is wrong -- and this coming from a Christian. Nonetheless, its almost as if, in the eyes of those who fervently pursue such cases, that they somehow believe that a Congressmen or the President can't have their own personal beliefs while being a part of the government. That is not what the 1st Amendment is about.
Its okay to have religious stuff up, so long as your willing to put a bunch of other religious stuff up of different religions.
For the sake of fairness, I don't think any religious stuff, whether it seem festive or not should ever adorn any government building. But I notice that Christmas trees, which are rooted in paganism, seem to be okay. But the second you put up a Nativity scene the ACLU comes a' runnin.' Be thorough or don't worry about it all.
Of course then you might get into the sticky position of an athesist walking in and saying that the government is endorsing everything but a lack of religion, and such symbols put an undue pressure on the athesist to become a theist.
When I enter secular universities I feel their symbology all over the place. If I can suck it up, so can they. That has nothing to do with the 1st Am.
Good post, though. It was very fair to both sides of the coin.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Discreet Label, posted 08-20-2006 9:44 PM Discreet Label has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Discreet Label, posted 08-20-2006 11:22 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2006 11:30 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 60 by nator, posted 08-21-2006 8:23 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 108 (341834)
08-20-2006 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by obvious Child
08-20-2006 10:11 PM


Re: Why not?
If only that was true. Several small religions, largely native American and Caribbean have religious rituals that involve controlled substances. Many are deined under federal law from practicing these rituals. The government banned important aspects of their religion. Religious freedoms are only free if they do not violate social norms. Only recently has peyote been made legal to use for some of these religions. So that's at least 50+ years of government denial of free religious practice.
Imagine if someone that practiced ancient Mesopotamian rituals engaged in the sacrifice of children to Molech. Where is the demarcation between worship and criminal conduct? See, on the one hand the Fed Gov has the responsibility of protecting the rights of religious freedom for those who practice Santeria by law, but they also, by law, have to protect animals from cruelty. Its kind of a catch-22. Both are laws. Whic one sets precendence? I know what you are saying and for the most part I agree, but what should happen if groups 'claiming' to need drugs for their rituals are actually engaged in racketeering and solicit those drugs for profit? I mean, we have to look at it on a case by case basis, I suppose.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by obvious Child, posted 08-20-2006 10:11 PM obvious Child has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 108 (342351)
08-22-2006 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Discreet Label
08-20-2006 11:22 PM


Re: Why not?
Although your arguement about burial sites is interesting, i think ultimately the plot is given over for whatever religious decoration the person prefers, as it becomes their plot, only on federal grounds.
Perhaps. I'm not familiar on that aspect. It was something that was brought to my attention in an email.
What eradication of history? Most recent questions of religious expression has only been symbols put up in the last 2 decades or so. Anything put up beyond then has been hands off by the supreme court. Most past symbols aren't touched, its usually the newer ones that are under question.
No, there are special interest groups and individual claims from people like Michael Newdow who want to force the Federal Reserve to remove all words on currency containing or alluding to anything that could be construed as Judeo-Christian. There are some courthouses that have Mosaic effigies carrying the Commandements, old courthouses, that these groups would like to see removed. The plain fact of the matter is that Moses plays a central figure in the formation of American law as we trace its historical significance. To deny its historical significance would be like saying the Magna Carta had nothing to do with the US Constitution.
The hands off policy in regards to religion via politicians has been traditionally part of American politics. Faith tends to be regarded as a very private and personal set of feelings. But when the religious conservatives start to regain majority as in the 1820's, 60's 1920's and now, some politicians have used it as a measure to gain more support during those time frames. Usuaully its been used to demonize their opponent for his lack of 'faith'
I'm not sure what that means...? This last election came down to morals. That was very much evident in the voter polls. The majority of Americans didn't want somebody who doesn't 'wear their faith on their sleeve,' they wanted somebody with some real convictions as opposed to someone who will pander to who ever is in front of them at that particular moment. America was sick of appeasers, kiss asses, and compromisers who's foreign policies caved in to the demands of those who were bound and determined to kill us. Everybody was surprised to see 'morals,' of all things, to be the most important factor in the last election.
Nativity scenes are all right so long as there are other religious kinds holidiays expressed at similiar times. And while christmas used to be a 'pagan holiday'. In america its not even a pagan holiday anymore its a commercialized interest, anything really religious about christmas has been relegated to the family. Christmas has more become an excuse to through a party and to celebrate good cheer vs any form of religious observance.
I'm not big on Christmas other than an excuse to spend time with family. One, that's not even remotely close to the time Jesus was born, it was borne out of paganism, and its just another holiday to generate revenue. If you notice, every month there is a holiday in order to generate revenue, as if we don't spend enough money needlessly to begin with.
I'd be a little more careful about those points, a number of secular universities follow the traditional western european view of what a univeristy is. And the western european universities tend to be built around some form of church or something (traditional model). For example in california San Jose State University has a Mission on its grounds, and i don't think CSU system is in anyway religious.
Rght, and how far has drifted from that state? Oxford and Harvard are prime examples of that.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Discreet Label, posted 08-20-2006 11:22 PM Discreet Label has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Discreet Label, posted 08-22-2006 11:20 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 81 by Wounded King, posted 08-22-2006 11:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 108 (342392)
08-22-2006 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by crashfrog
08-20-2006 11:30 PM


Re: Why not?
No. Quite the opposite - we need to expand the number of allowable religious symbols in such instances. Currently the military doesn't allow pagan or wiccan religious symbols on grave markers, and that represents unconstitutional discrimination against religious minorities, don't you agree?
I don't think there should be graveyards at all, as it seems like a terrible waste of land. But that's just my personal opinon. If someone wanted a pentagram on their headstone it wouldn't bother me. You also have to take into consideration that Wicca was invented in the 1950's as a spinoff to Druidism and only in the last 10 years has gained any kind of popularity. Very recently the miltary has recognized Wicca as a religion, so I'm not sure how that plays out on gravestones.
I don't for a minute think that's true, or that there's any kind of pressure on politicians to suborn their personal religious beliefs. In fact, you can't be a politician in America if you're an atheist.
All Christian presidents, (after Jimmy Carter, of course), are pretty much flamed for their religious affinities and charged with making moral decision based on that faith, as if that were weird to do. As for atheism in politics, its everywhere. Its just that Americans are interested in Presidents with morals and continue to vote them in. As for those that did not get elected in, people see through thin disguises where they tout religious beliefs only when it serves to benefit them. I shall not name, names.
But I do have a problem when a pol steps up to the podium and says "look, we're going to pass a law banning such-and-such because dammit, that's what God wants us to do." I have a big problem with that - and I suspect you would too, especially if his god was a different god than yours. I mean, democracy is about compromise - but how can you expect someone to compromise on God's will?
Democracy is not at all about compromise, its about the majority rule. Its about being fair. That doesn't mean we have to give up our time-honored beliefs because the President-elect doesn't happen to follow our particular flavor of belief. The problem is that the US doesn't have a true Democracy. "We the People" no longer applies. And I find it ironic that both Democrats and Republicans have lost sight of this. I also don't like how the Supreme Court, a small body, makes decisions that the American public, per the Constitution should be voting on. I would prefer that we go back to a Libertarian rule where it really means that the People have the choice to govern our own laws. We should be able to vote directly for our Presidents, governors, and Senators, instead of polarizing the nation by forcing to side with one of two political entities. We ashould also be allowed to vote on matters most important to us, such as but not limited to, abortion, euthanasia, war-or-no-war, fetal stem cell research, gay marriage, etc, etc. Wouldn't you rather have a say in that instead of letting our decisions come from a body of activist judges seeking to further their own personal agenda? Both conservatives and liberals are faced with this nonsense. And what has happened is actually unconstitutional. The more I peruse the document, the more I see how we've fallen into a state of degradation from the intent of the Founding Fathers. This is a bi-partisan effort here that could benefit both sides.
It's fine for all politicians to believe whatever they want. They're private citizens, too, and they have the same right to religious belief as I do. But they also have a public obligation, they hold a public office, and their religious convictions should be allowed to inflect their public actions only in so far as those actions can be supported by a compelling secular purpose.
But don't you see how that's a non-sequitur? You are making it so that anyone that has a religious belief cannot inject opinion from that belief, which is central to how they arrive at their conclusions in the first place. Its now at the point where only secularism should be considered, which is a religion unto itself.
They come runnin' when you put up Christmas trees, too.
I guess they go running all around until they get the Socialist state they've always desired. When the founder himself tells us that Communism is the goal, I have to wonder how that could be misinterpreted. Any group that seeks to represnt NAMbLA has lost its scruples.
It's not quite an equal thing, though. The Nativity is a specifically Christian religious emblem. You're right that Christmas trees originate in a pagan tradition, but "pagan" isn't a specific religion - it's a catch-all description of a number of loosely connected heritage spiritual practices.
Neither is the Nativity explicit to only Christianity. Muslims identify with similar ideations.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2006 11:30 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Discreet Label, posted 08-22-2006 4:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 92 by nator, posted 08-23-2006 12:23 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024