Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-19-2019 1:12 PM
28 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,045 Year: 12,081/19,786 Month: 1,862/2,641 Week: 371/708 Day: 65/81 Hour: 8/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Author Topic:   Atheism and freedom of speech
Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 46 of 108 (341807)
08-20-2006 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Hyroglyphx
08-20-2006 3:13 PM


Re: Why not?
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.

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.

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.

Its okay to have religious stuff up, so long as your willing to put a bunch of other religious stuff up of different religions.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-20-2006 3:13 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-20-2006 11:09 PM Discreet Label has responded

    
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2311 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 47 of 108 (341811)
08-20-2006 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Hyroglyphx
08-20-2006 3:13 PM


Re: Why not?
All it means is that the government will not enter into your personal religious beliefs.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-20-2006 3:13 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-20-2006 11:15 PM obvious Child has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5718
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


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 responded

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

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5718
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


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 yet responded

    
Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 50 of 108 (341835)
08-20-2006 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Hyroglyphx
08-20-2006 11:09 PM


Re: Why not?
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, might someone want to start there?

As applied the first ammendment in practice is now, that recent series of religious symbols put up in public offices are under scrutiny.

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.

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.

Its when the government is attempting to institute policies under a banner of Christianity that I agree is wrong. Nonetheless, its almost as if a Congressmen or the President can't have their own personal beliefs while apart of the government. That is not what the 1st Amendment is about.

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'

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.'

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.

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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-20-2006 11:09 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-22-2006 10:59 AM Discreet Label has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 108 (341836)
08-20-2006 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Hyroglyphx
08-20-2006 11:09 PM


Re: Why not?
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?

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?

Nonetheless, its almost as if a Congressmen or the President can't have their own personal beliefs while apart of the government.

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.

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?

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 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.'

They come runnin' when you put up Christmas trees, too.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-20-2006 11:09 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by kuresu, posted 08-21-2006 12:00 AM crashfrog has responded
 Message 53 by anglagard, posted 08-21-2006 12:30 AM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 83 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-22-2006 12:52 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 709 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 52 of 108 (341838)
08-21-2006 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by crashfrog
08-20-2006 11:30 PM


Re: Why not?
In fact, you can't be a politician in America if you're an atheist.

shit.

and double shit.

when did the religous right make that a law?
(or did you perhaps mean "can" :)).


All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2006 11:30 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2006 1:15 AM kuresu has not yet responded
 Message 62 by ramoss, posted 08-21-2006 8:31 AM kuresu has not yet responded
 Message 67 by ohnhai, posted 08-21-2006 11:16 AM kuresu has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2199
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 53 of 108 (341841)
08-21-2006 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by crashfrog
08-20-2006 11:30 PM


Re: Why not?
quote:
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?

Back in the 80s when I was in the US Army, they did allow me to have Panthiest on my dogtags for religious preference, however my roommate at the time was not allowed to have Satanist on his dogtags. This is despite his sincere belief system based upon the writings of LaVey.

Apparently, at least then, those who represent the US government enforce the {presumed} stricture that some religious preferences are acceptable while others are not. Unfortunately, I have the suspicion that too many in the US believe there are only two religions, Judaism and Christianity (as in we have both kinds of music, country and western - apologies to Blues Brothers).

Edited by anglagard, : presumed


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by MangyTiger, posted 08-21-2006 5:38 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 108 (341843)
08-21-2006 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by kuresu
08-21-2006 12:00 AM


Re: Why not?
shit.

Can you name a single one?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by kuresu, posted 08-21-2006 12:00 AM kuresu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 08-21-2006 2:50 AM crashfrog has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 173 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 55 of 108 (341846)
08-21-2006 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
08-21-2006 1:15 AM


Re: Why not?
george w. bush. :D
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2006 1:15 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2006 9:00 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 56 of 108 (341866)
08-21-2006 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Hyroglyphx
08-19-2006 10:34 PM


Re: Why not?
NJ writes:

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.

This tends to be more true with the Middle Classes. This group is pretty proud of their intellectualism and do seek to undermine their friends sometimes in coversation.

I guess some of us do see it as a game; it's fun to see the look on your pals' face when he commits a gaff.

The more 'salt of the earth' character has no need for such subterfuge and will either make you laugh with an anecdote (the South) or puch your face and steal your car (the North) :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2006 10:34 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by CK, posted 08-21-2006 8:08 AM Larni has responded

    
CK
Member (Idle past 2323 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 57 of 108 (341868)
08-21-2006 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Larni
08-21-2006 7:56 AM


Re: Why not?
quote:
This tends to be more true with the Middle Classes. This group is pretty proud of their intellectualism and do seek to undermine their friends sometimes in coversation.

of course! it's wonderful fun - I'd argue over anything - even subjects I have no interest in at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Larni, posted 08-21-2006 7:56 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Larni, posted 08-21-2006 8:24 AM CK has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 58 of 108 (341869)
08-21-2006 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Hyroglyphx
08-20-2006 11:33 AM


Re: Why not?
NJ writes:

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.

Anyone asking that kind of question in my circle of friends would watch the person they were talking to slide away (as CK did above).

The thing is, you ask yourself, "what on earth did he/she say that for?" and look for that slightly glazed look in their eyes. Replace tooth paste with belief in a god and it becomes inapproriate in a social setting. It's just not done.

At my house warming I discovered that two of my girlfriends' friends where xians. Even when I brought the subject up (I was a little drunk and spoiling for a fight) they declined to enter into a discussion.

Private and personal you see.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-20-2006 11:33 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 59 of 108 (341872)
08-21-2006 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by MangyTiger
08-20-2006 9:23 PM


Re: Why not?
MangyTiger writes:

Given that for a century or two being the 'wrong' faith could get you executed you can understand why a reluctance to talk about it could develop.

Good point. But my friend who lives in Ireland sometimes gets asked if he is a 'Proddy'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by MangyTiger, posted 08-20-2006 9:23 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 60 of 108 (341873)
08-21-2006 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Hyroglyphx
08-20-2006 11:09 PM


Re: Why not?
quote:
When I enter secular universities I feel their symbology all over the place.

Er, can you explain what you mean, perhaps give some examples?

I can't imagine what "secular symbology" would be, let alone something rather oppressive that you need to "suck up".

Team mascots?

Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-20-2006 11:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
5678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019