Religion and governtment

[KempoGuy06]

I'm not sure about that. I think a lot of parents would object if during this time some prayed to a Christian God, some prayed to the Jewish version, others to the Islamic, some did some Wiccan rituals, others some scientology ones, and a few passed on the opportunity saying that there is no God and just for fun, some dressed up as pirates and prayed to the flying spaghetti monster.




I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under Allah, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under Yahweh, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under Waheguru indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.


Anything seem wrong with that? "god" may be a generic term, but "God" is pretty much a Christian way of referring to there god

flying spaghetti monster. thats just funny. LOL!!!

I see what you mean. I meant it as god in general not the Christian God. That is a good point though

 

[KempoGuy06]

There is no prohibition against a student saying a prayer in school.

I thought there was. I though the Supreme Court ruled that prayers were to be taken out of public schools. Am I wrong or have I miss read something? Please someone set me straight

B

 

[rustyself]

some people DO understand other religions... and still fear them.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/WWMD.htm
its so funny, to me at least, how liberals will defend islam to the death, but slander christians in the same breath.

 

[Blindside]

flying spaghetti monster. thats just funny. LOL!!!

If you are not familiar with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster you should start here:
http://www.venganza.org/

Followers are known as Pastafarians.

 

[Andrew Green]

some people DO understand other religions... and still fear them.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/WWMD.htm
its so funny, to me at least, how liberals will defend islam to the death, but slander christians in the same breath.

I think you'll find that most Atheists put both in about the same place. What gets defended is not the religion, but the freedom to choose Islam over Christianity, and the freedom to not be persecuted for that belief.

This site of yours amounts to basically hate speech, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you, but the Christian bible contains some pretty nasty things too.

 

[tellner]

Big topic here. Weve seen big debates in the last couple of years over seperating the two.

What we've seen since the Reagan years has been an attempt to fuse the two together to satisfy the theocratic half of the Republican base. Seriously. The Big Guy in the Sky isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or the Articles of Confederation. If you look at the debates that the authors of those documents had it's absolutely clear that they didn't want religion of any sort to be part of the governance of the country. The discussion cited the evils that had come from Europe's experience with State religions. The only two times it's mentioned at all in the Constitution are in Article VI and Ammendment I. In both cases it is in the negative "No religious test shall ever be used..." and "No law respecting and establishment of religion."

What we've seen lately has been a very upfront attempt first by the Reagan and now by the second Bush Administrations to cement their political power through religion. The Office of Faith Based Initiatives, the religious takeover of the Air Force Academy and the new laws which allow military chaplains to proselytize and even allow private religious groups official time, facilities and money to try and convert new military recruits to evangelical Protestantism and so on are only the most obvious. While we've had outbreaks of Know Nothingism in the past this represents a radical departure from the entire history of the United States.

Why? Why seperate two ideas that America was founded for?

Eh? Separate two ideas? The whole point of the Wall of Separation was that the Church doesn't use its special status to create a theocracy. The State doesn't use its to support a particular sect or apply its coercive power to the establishment of state religions. The idea of religious freedom is that you and I are free to believe whatever hare-brained thing we want as long as we don't try to force anyone else to do the same thing. If you mix the rhetorical power of the Church and the coercive power of the State you don't have religious freedom any more.

Why are people fighting to remove "under God" for the Pledge of Alligance (sp?)?

Good Lord, do you even bother to crack a history book? Ever? Use Google?

The Pledge of Allegiance was created in 1892 by a Socialist school teacher. It originally contained the words "with equality, liberty and justice for all". He was forced to remove equality because school superintendent didn't like the idea that it would include women and *shudder* Negroes.

In 1923/4 the original wording "my Flag and the Republic" was changed to "the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic" after pressure from the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution. We note that just a few years later rich Republicans including Prescott Bush planned to use the American Legion as the military arm of a coup against Franklin Roosevelt so that the policies of Hitler and Mussolini could replace democracy as the guiding principles of the Republic. It's all absolutely documented, not even a glimmer of doubt or ambiguity.

The words "Under G-d" were added in 1954. The *spit* Knights of Columbus prevailed on Eisenhower to stuff them in. The idea was to remind Americans that G-d Almighty was behind them unlike the Communists.

Why arent kids aloud to say prayers at a public school?

Children are allowed to say prayers in school. That is absolutely protected. They always have been. What makes the Religious Right cry in its beer about how oppressed it is is that we no longer allow the State to enforce State-sponsored official prayers. And they're not allowed to use kids as cutouts to sneak their coerced prayers back in. The Fundies aren't angry because their rights are violated. They are angry because they are no longer allowed to violate the rights of others. It really is that simple.

Take it off the money as well.

Why not? It wasn't there in the beginning. The only reason it was put on coins and bills was religious fervor during the Civil War. Secretary Chase succumbed to pressure from religious Yankees who wanted everyone to know that G-d was on the side of the North. In other words, it's a lot like the "under G-d" bit in the PoA. It disappeared from some coins after the war and didn't get snuck back in (at least on the nickel) until 1938.

In other words, it started off as wartime hysteria. It was kept because the Fundies thought it would magically protect them from their enemies. Then it was used as a way of lying to people to convince them that we had always been a theocracy.

Hell, the government has the right to seize land, why not see the land churches and other religous buildings are on and tear them down? Will it go this far?

Somehow the idea that the government shouldn't force people to do the Water Magic and mutter Christian incantations is the same as stealing from all Christians? That is an incredibly perverse and frightening leap of I hesitate to call it logic. You seem to think that your religion has some sort of cosmic right to suckle off the Federal teat and use the government's power to force itself on people who are not interested in joining. And somehow this qualifies as freedom for all of us.

I would submit that such a view is about the same as calling East Germany the "German Democratic Republic".

Ideas...

Opinions....

Again big topic, lets keep it as civil as possible, i realize this could become heated

B

You couldn't have started on a more inflammatory note if you'd made the post out of gasoline and the "Submit" key was a gas welder. You've already set it up to be divisive and anything but civil. And you know it.

 

[KempoGuy06]

First off thank you. You are the people I wish I had as teachers in school. 3/4 of this stuff I never knew.

I really havent stated what I feel. The questions I ask are to obtain information so I can better myself. Im trying to get a better understanding of of this topic.

I knew the topic was tough and thought twice to about starting the thread. But why not? I wanted to get others views of this topic and every single person that has replied in this thread has given me a lot to think about. So thank you to all of you.

B

 

[sirdarksol]

Big topic here. Weve seen big debates in the last couple of years over seperating the two.

Why? Why seperate two ideas that America was founded for? Why are people fighting to remove "under God" for the Pledge of Alligance (sp?)? Why arent kids aloud to say prayers at a public school? What harm can this actually cause? If people are so serious about this why not take it out of everything? Take it off the money as well. Hell, the government has the right to seize land, why not see the land churches and other religous buildings are on and tear them down? Will it go this far?

Ideas...

Opinions....

Again big topic, lets keep it as civil as possible, i realize this could become heated

B

My opinion on this matter, as is usual for me, in no particular order.

I believe that "under God" should be removed for the reason that it was not originally there. It is a recent addition, I believe from either WWI or II, in order to reinforce religious morals in the country.

Kids should be allowed to pray, presuming their prayer doesn't get in the way of school (for example, if a prayer requires incense, that would be troubling to students with asthma). Heck, I'm all for setting aside ten minutes of "free time" a day. My problem is when some teachers try to enforce prayer time.

There are people out there who believe that all religion should be banned from the country, despite the fact that freedom to worship as we wish has been guaranteed in our country. There is a growing movement of atheists who are as zealous (perhaps even cultish) as any fundamentalist religion, and will discriminate against people due to the fact that they are "stupid enough" to believe in a higher power.
These people are one reason that I feel that the church/state thing must be carefully tread, because stepping too far over the line can create a backlash that hurts all religion. All these people need is a judge who is willing to give more credence to "separation of church and state" than to "freedom to worship," and you end up with kids only allowed to pray if they are silent and don't fold their hands.

On the other hand, there are people who would like to cram their religious opinions down the throats of others. Laws are being created with no reason other than "it's God's will." What if this law directly contradicts the beliefs of some citizens of the country? If the proscribed action does not hurt anybody, but is just considered taboo because of religious beliefs, why should their be a law against it?
Likewise, kids are being taught intelligent design in a science class, of course from a Christian point of view. If we're going to teach them Genesis, we should also be teaching the Japanese, Indian, Native American, Chinese, Wiccan, and African creation myths. Or, they can go to theology courses, where they belong. And then there's "abstinence only" education, where kids aren't being taught the realities about sex because some adults think that, if we don't teach them about it, they won't do it (look at the statistics of the "abstinence only" states, specifically with regards to teen pregnancy and STDs, and tell me how that's working out)

As far as seizure of land, this needs to end, and not just because of the religion thing. The government can take land, pay 100,000 for it (as residential property), then rezone, sell it for 1,000,000 (as commercial property), and keep the difference. This is just wrong.
So of course, I don't believe that churches should be seized.

For those of you who are curious, I'm Christian. I don't, however, believe that Christianity is the only correct religion. Rather, I think it's the correct religion for me. To me, the basic ideas of religion, whether or not it guides its believers toward good actions, is the important part. The rest is just dogma. Because of this belief, I cannot support government actions that push a particular religion over all others.

 

[Ray]

There is no prohibition against a student saying a prayer in school.

surely you've heard reports where children we're told they couldn't offer a blessing at lunch time? And other incidences of teachers & admins stopping school children from praying because the school reps thought they'd get sued for allowing it.

I am the reason our forefathers founded the nation as they did. I am an athiest. I wonder why a "pledge of allegiance" to my nation (something I do believe in), would require me to also recite an acceptance of subservience to a supreme being (something I do not believe in).

The pledge of allgiance to the US doesn't have a recitation of acceptance of subservience to a supreme being....it says "one nation under God." However, the original wording by the author didn't have the phrase.

Is it possible to show fidelity to the State and its principles and ideals, without requiring a demonstration of fealty and subordination to a god?

Yes it is possible. If you like, instead of being subordinate to God and King, we can just be subordinate to King.

 

[Makalakumu]

Religion in gerneral is not the problem, it is when you introduce fanatical ideas that it creates a problem.

I disagree. Moderates are the ones who make fanatics possible. Moderates are the ones who prevent any sort of rational discussion of religious ideas. MODERATES protect the fanatics while they protect their own beliefs.

Religion, by is very nature, is irrational. It is an appeal to authority at its very roots.

 

[sirdarksol]

There is no prohibition against a student saying a prayer in school.

There is no federal prohibition. Individual schools, however, have told students that they are not allowed to pray out loud (even during recess or other places/times where their voice would not bother the other students) and could not take any form of formal pose (such as folded hands) that would indicate prayer. This, of course, was an overreaction to the whole prayer thing, but it still happened.

I disagree. Moderates are the ones who make fanatics possible. Moderates are the ones who prevent any sort of rational discussion of religious ideas. MODERATES protect the fanatics while they protect their own beliefs.

Religion, by is very nature, is irrational. It is an appeal to authority at its very roots.

Please support the first statement. I disagree with it, but I don't just want this to be a "yuh-huh", "nuh-uh" discussion.

The second statement is incorrect. The organization of a church can be an appeal to authority, but religion, at its core, has nothing to do with an organization, and everything to do with the spiritual self. I can (and do) pray to God without the help of a church. In fact, I haven't been to an organized religious ceremony, outside of weddings, for several years, yet I am still religious.
This is a false concept that many atheists latch onto in an attempt to make religion look evil, but in the same way that fundamentalist religious sorts only look at the worst cases of a particular group of people, fundamentalist atheists only look at the worst cases of religious people.

 

[tellner]

I disagree. Moderates are the ones who make fanatics possible. Moderates are the ones who prevent any sort of rational discussion of religious ideas. MODERATES protect the fanatics while they protect their own beliefs.

I'm having trouble following you on this one. If there were only fanatics there would be no discussion of any sort unless you consider a chorus of amens and the screams of the victims to be discussion. The moderates make compromise and change possible. The religious people who have a handle on science are the moderates, not the fundies. It isn't the moderate Catholics who still refer to Queen Elizabeth I as "the blaspheming whore". It's the fringe elements within Opus Dei and the followers of Lefebvre.

The pinnacle of Spanish civilization was during the time it was ruled by moderate Muslims who believed in accommodating Christianity and Islam. The Enlightenment moderated the absolutist tendencies within Christianity and was responsible for large parts of the Scientific Revolution, classic liberalism (the 18th century meaning of the word) and many other areas of great progress in the West.

By contrast Wahabism and Know Nothingism along with its spiritual descendants like Reconstructionism and Dominionism have always stifled dissent, discussion and the different. They've been antithetical to science as a concept and have made ecumenism a crime.

Religion, by is very nature, is irrational. It is an appeal to authority at its very roots.

That depends very much on what you mean by religion. "The Big Guy in the Sky thinks people like me are really special. We get to party forever. People who aren't like me will get tortured forever. If you ask inconvenient questions you're not people like me," is just the sort of religion you are referring to. There are other traditions and other things vaguely under the rubric of "religion" that are quite different.

Consider Buddhism. Yes, there are versions with more guardians and demons and arahats and spirits and buddhas and deities than you can shake a begging bowl at. But at it's core, what the old Sutras say, it's atheistic. If there are gods they are just as trapped as anyone else. There is no Big Guy in the Sky whom you obey. There's only a set of guidelines that will help you clear away your crap until you can face up to Reality without your spiritual teddy bears.

 

[Makalakumu]

I disagree. Moderates are the ones who make fanatics possible. Moderates are the ones who prevent any sort of rational discussion of religious ideas. MODERATES protect the fanatics while they protect their own beliefs.

Religion, by is very nature, is irrational. It is an appeal to authority at its very roots.

Now that I think about it, this is a very ethnocentric way of looking at this. I've painted with too broad a brush as some posters have pointed out. There are lots of completely benign religions out there that are surreptitiously protecting a bunch of crazies.

In regards to this topic, I think that our founding fathers understood that their could be no exceptions. Any mixing of religion and government might very well lead to the crazies taking power...as has happened numerous times throughout European History.

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm having trouble following you on this one. If there were only fanatics there would be no discussion of any sort unless you consider a chorus of amens and the screams of the victims to be discussion. The moderates make compromise and change possible. The religious people who have a handle on science are the moderates, not the fundies. It isn't the moderate Catholics who still refer to Queen Elizabeth I as "the blaspheming whore". It's the fringe elements within Opus Dei and the followers of Lefebvre.

The pinnacle of Spanish civilization was during the time it was ruled by moderate Muslims who believed in accommodating Christianity and Islam. The Enlightenment moderated the absolutist tendencies within Christianity and was responsible for large parts of the Scientific Revolution, classic liberalism (the 18th century meaning of the word) and many other areas of great progress in the West.

By contrast Wahabism and Know Nothingism along with its spiritual descendants like Reconstructionism and Dominionism have always stifled dissent, discussion and the different. They've been antithetical to science as a concept and have made ecumenism a crime.

Here is the crux of what I was arguing. Religious moderates create a generally accepting climate for this or that religion allowing fanatical groups to sprout up and gain followers. Further, more often then not, its the moderates who stifle criticism of these groups. Often its just through the power of majority, but it could just as well be through the mechanics of politicallycorrectpsuedothoughtcontrol. One is prevented from criticizing religion because its Religion.

The end results is that the fanatics grow unchecked. They may or may not take power, but that threat is always there.

 

[michaeledward]

First off thank you. You are the people I wish I had as teachers in school. 3/4 of this stuff I never knew.

I really havent stated what I feel. The questions I ask are to obtain information so I can better myself. Im trying to get a better understanding of of this topic.

I knew the topic was tough and thought twice to about starting the thread. But why not? I wanted to get others views of this topic and every single person that has replied in this thread has given me a lot to think about. So thank you to all of you.

B

B ...

I am kind of curious. When you started this thread, you made some statements that I don't understand.

Why are people fighting to remove "under God" for the Pledge of Alligance (sp?)?

If people are so serious about this why not take it out of everything?

You mention 'big debates', and the only subject that you list as having these debates is the people in these sentences.

Do you have any idea who you mean when you call out these 'people'? How did you hear about them fighting to remove 'under god' from the pledge? When was the last time you saw or heard of a rally to remove the pledge. If they were big debates, I think this 'other side' of the debate should be a large well organized bunch.

Again, I am one of those guys who would love to see 'under god' removed from the pledge and 'in god we trust' removed from the currency. And I have taken exactly zero action on these desires. Oh, sure, I point out that Thomas Jefferson did not write the Pledge of Allegiance, and that 'under god' is a 50 year old invention, but that is education, not radicallization.

It's okay that you were not aware of the facts revealed in this thread (well, sort of). But, where were you getting your mis-belief or misunderstanding?

 

[michaeledward]

There is no 'Federal' prohibition against prayer in school. If a school principle does not understand federal law, and attempts to prevent a child from saying a prayer over a meal, or children from praying a recess, I know an organization that will protect the rights of those children.

The American Civil Liberties Union.

You guys aren't really using stupid people as a defense here, are you? (a school board rep that prevents a child from saying a prayer over a meal is, I believe, accurately described as 'stupid').


As for the claim that moderate religions make radical religions possible, there is a school of thought that informs us that moderate religions identify with those who believe more than those who do not believe. Therefore, they are willing to accept practices and beliefs that are more extreme because they see similarities in their own practice; and dissimilarities with non-believers.

For instance, while Catholics do not believe in 'Speaking in Tongues', they are less likely to critize or analyze that activity than they would be to criticize or analyze the belief of an athiest.

 

[Ray]

There is no 'Federal' prohibition against prayer in school. If a school principle does not understand federal law, and attempts to prevent a child from saying a prayer over a meal, or children from praying a recess, I know an organization that will protect the rights of those children.

The American Civil Liberties Union.

I know other organizations that will protect the rights of those children. I don't see the ACLU jumping on these types of cases.

You guys aren't really using stupid people as a defense here, are you? (a school board rep that prevents a child from saying a prayer over a meal is, I believe, accurately described as 'stupid').

What do you mean "You guys"? I'm one guy and don't think you should stereotype me. Especially since you don't know me...you probably think I'm wearing a Hawaiian shirt right now...er, I am.

There lots of stupid stuff that happens, perpetrated by stupid people. Some of it is legal and some of it isn't. I just figure those stupid people doing stupid things are in the same class as most people (average and mediocre).

As for the claim that moderate religions make radical religions possible, there is a school of thought that informs us that moderate religions identify with those who believe more than those who do not believe. Therefore, they are willing to accept practices and beliefs that are more extreme because they see similarities in their own practice; and dissimilarities with non-believers.

ref the above re "stupid people" (not you but those who are "radically" religious and those who claim the "moderately" religious cause "radical" religions).

For instance, while Catholics do not believe in 'Speaking in Tongues', they are less likely to critize or analyze that activity than they would be to criticize or analyze the belief of an athiest.

I cannot speak to the Catholic view on tongues, only what I have come to believe as a Mormon. I believe in the "gift of tongues" or the ability to sometimes speak in a different language, as long as there is someone there to understand what is said. I don't believe in speaking "gibberish" as a sign that the Holy Ghost is moving you.

 

[michaeledward]

Ray, how many times have you visited the ACLU web site to see what kinds of cases they do take? Individuals being prevented from practicing their religion is exactly the type of case the ACLU takes.

EDIT - Here's an example

The ACLU of New Jersey (2005) filed a a motion to submit a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Olivia Turton, a second-grade student who was forbidden from singing "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. The only restriction on the student's selection for the talent show was that it be "G-rated." The case, filed in federal court, is Turton, et al. v. Frenchtown Elementary School, et al.

www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html

More here .... http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html

END EDIT.​

And, you were not the only one on the board to make the claims about children being prevented from praying in school. An average person who holds the belief that there are prohibitions against a child praying in school is misguided. If that average person runs for office, and is elected to the school board, they are no longer average. He or she has self-selected into a position of authority. If one demonstrates ignorance of the rules, in which they have chosen to put himself in a position of authority, a claim of average or normal is no longer an adequate defense for wrongdoing.

If you are exceptional - elected to the school board - you can't claim to be average as a defense.


Lastly, I have seen all variations of 'speaking in tongues'. In the faith I was raised, we were taught that such 'spirit speech' no longer happens, because the teachings are now available in all of the native languages on the planet. You state a position that is different than this; spirit speech may happen in German, Spanish, or Mandarin. And, I have attended churches and services where 'spirit speech' was uttered and 'translated' from no known language (gibberish, is the word you used). The teachings at those services is that the spoken words are from the language of angels.

First Corinthians Chapter 13, Verse 1: Thou I speak in the tongue of men and of angels .....

Three different points of belief along the same continuum. Each is more likely to accept the position of the other, rather than my opinion, that there are no angels, and no spirit that speaks to man, or through man, in any way, shape or form.


If you were to meet a person from the Evangelical churches where spirit speech is 'the language of angels', would you argue with him as vigorously as you might choose to argue with a person who claims there is no spirit, or less so?

 

[Ray]

Ray, how many times have you visited the ACLU web site to see what kinds of cases they do take?

I've only visited once, a couple years ago. I didn't see much made me associate that group with protecting (help me phrase this to not offend and get my meaning across) groups of people with the typical american judeo-christian religous practice. And if they do more so than I thought they did then that's wonderful...mostly one hears about the rights of the non-typical non-american non-judeo-christian (religious or not) being "protected." Which sometimes gets reported as strange stuff being freedom (and I'm not saying that's the case in reality, just the way the press reports it).

If you are exceptional - elected to the school board - you can't claim to be average as a defense.

Yup, the people who work and run schools should know the laws, rights and limits of what they can allow and can't allow. However, they are gov't workers and if they do something that ain't right then it sure looks like the "gov't did something wrong."

They are also in a position of authority and sometimes make the wrong decisions. I think everyone makes a wrong decision on occaision. But it sure is tough on a 5 year old when that kind of stuff happens. (or conversely, should a person in a position of authority offend a non-believer or a believer of a different belief).

I think the schools (some of the people in schools) are just worried about lawsuits and have a lot of other things going on that may not be conducive to taking the time to think things throught.

Lastly, I have seen all variations of 'speaking in tongues'. In the faith I was raised, we were taught that such 'spirit speech' no longer happens, because the teachings are now available in all of the native languages on the planet. You state a position that is different than this; spirit speech may happen in German, Spanish, or Mandarin. And, I have attended churches and services where 'spirit speech' was uttered and 'translated' from no known language (gibberish, is the word you used). The teachings at those services is that the spoken words are from the language of angels.

First Corinthians Chapter 13, Verse 1: Thou I speak in the tongue of men and of angels .....

I don't limit the gift of tongue to only those commonly spoken on the earth today; I may have read accounts of someone in the history of my own church speaking in the Adamic tongue and it was translated by someone who had been given the gift to understand it (briefly or permanently, i don't know). I just believe that a gift given is for the benefit of someone (in the case of tongues: the speaker - the hearer - or both).

Three different points of belief along the same continuum. Each is more likely to accept the position of the other, rather than my opinion, that there are no angels, and no spirit that speaks to man, or through man, in any way, shape or form.

If you were to meet a person from the Evangelical churches where spirit speech is 'the language of angels', would you argue with him as vigorously as you might choose to argue with a person who claims there is no spirit, or less so?

I would not argue with either position. I might share my belief with them if they did with me. I don't think I'd try to convince them that "I'm right" and "they're wrong" but I always try to consider the postion that "I might be wrong."

If indeed they speak the language of angles, then I might like to learn it as well; expecting it to have syntax, grammer and so on. I'd also expect it to be vastly different from Esperanto.

 

[rustyself]

I think you'll find that most Atheists put both in about the same place. What gets defended is not the religion, but the freedom to choose Islam over Christianity, and the freedom to not be persecuted for that belief.

This site of yours amounts to basically hate speech, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you, but the Christian bible contains some pretty nasty things too.

that is not hate speech, my friend. it is the words of the koran, in the words of the koran. it is their words, not mine. the author was merely pointing out the passages. each passage is pointing directly to their beliefs.