Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: StarSlayer on September 17, 2009, 12:43:16 pm
-
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/09/say_grace_go_to_jail.html?hpid=talkbox1 (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/09/say_grace_go_to_jail.html?hpid=talkbox1)
Basically two school officials got a court order to prohibit prayer in school, nine days later they went ahead and did it anyway. Now religion in schools is one of my pet peeves. Aside from teaching it within the context of its affect on history and society, it has no place in the curriculum. But it was on the news and they had all these folks calling in support of school prayer yada yada and we're the Christian majority blah blah. Never mind they violated a court order. I'd bet my last dollar if those two officials had read out of the Qur'an these same fools would be calling up demanding their heads on pikes.
-
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/09/say_grace_go_to_jail.html?hpid=talkbox1 (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/09/say_grace_go_to_jail.html?hpid=talkbox1)
Basically two school officials got a court order to prohibit prayer in school, nine days later they went ahead and did it anyway. Now religion in schools is one of my pet peeves. Aside from teaching it within the context of its affect on history and society, it has no place in the curriculum. But it was on the news and they had all these folks calling in support of school prayer yada yada and we're the Christian majority blah blah. Never mind they violated a court order. I'd bet my last dollar if those two officials had read out of the Qur'an these same fools would be calling up demanding their heads on pikes.
please, pikes are so barbaric, they just want them hung or something.
but yeah, tis is why i am so glad that i never had to expirence the US public school system.
-
hanged*
The problem is that these people don't know the difference between "promoting, advancing, aiding, facilitating, endorsing, or causing religious prayers or devotionals during school-sponsored events" and privately praying to themselves during said school-sponsored events.
Essentially, their religion mandates cult-like indoctrination and evangelizing, which makes their religion incompatible with other people's rights, freedoms, and choices. Yes, I am implying that such religions as Christianity and Islam are inherently incompatible with living in a free society.
-
Essentially, their religion mandates cult-like indoctrination and evangelizing, which makes their religion incompatible with other people's rights, freedoms, and choices. Yes, I am implying that such religions as Christianity and Islam are inherently incompatible with living in a free society.
You do realize that statements like that make you sound every bit as ridiculous as the Westboro Baptist nuts, right? Just wondering.
From the article headline, I thought this was something like a case of students being prohibited from saying private grace for themselves, which would have been immensely stupid. But I'm in full agreement with the court order. In a public school setting, the administration has no place promoting any particular religious beliefs.
-
Thing is, he's a teacher, he's representing the school, and should moderate his behaviour to take that into account, if he wants to represent his religion, then no-one is stopping him from training to be a priest.
-
hanged*
The problem is that these people don't know the difference between "promoting, advancing, aiding, facilitating, endorsing, or causing religious prayers or devotionals during school-sponsored events" and privately praying to themselves during said school-sponsored events.
Essentially, their religion mandates cult-like indoctrination and evangelizing, which makes their religion incompatible with other people's rights, freedoms, and choices. Yes, I am implying that such religions as Christianity and Islam are inherently incompatible with living in a free society.
thank you for the grammar, i can never remember which one is proper..
and SECULAR HUMMANISM FTW!!1
-
There are thousands of Christans that aren't that rediculous banning religions = a terrible idea.
-
There are thousands of Christans that aren't that rediculous banning religions = a terrible idea.
But banning religious indoctrination in a school setting where it doesn't belong = good idea.
-
There are thousands of Christans that aren't that rediculous banning religions = a terrible idea.
But banning religious indoctrination in a school setting where it doesn't belong = good idea.
Those wacky Christians would argue that school is indoctrination
-
I didn't suggest banning anything. I just said that the doctrines of Christianity and Islam and any other religion that puts a cult-level emphasis on converting others is going to inevitably conflict with other people's rights. And that that makes them incompatible with a society in which those rights are guaranteed.
If some Christians and Muslims can contain themselves, good on them. But that's not enough of them to protect them from criticism.
-
If some Christians and Muslims can contain themselves, good on them. But that's not enough of them to protect them the rest of them from criticism.
Fixed.
Those wacky Christians would argue that school is indoctrination
Is "wacky" in this statement a blanket classification?
There are thousands of Christans that aren't that rediculous banning religions = a terrible idea.
But banning religious indoctrination in a school setting where it doesn't belong = good idea.
Yes, though that article headline makes it seem like private prayer was banned, which would be a bad idea. That principal does have the wrong idea to be sure, however.
Yes, I am implying that such religions as Christianity and Islam are inherently incompatible with living in a free society.
Surely it would be all right if we kept ourselves out of school and government?
-
Those wacky Christians would argue that school is indoctrination
Is "wacky" in this statement a blanket classification?
Not in this case. Wacky here refers to those folks who would give evolution equal time in a science classroom with whatever blanket they've tossed over god, or who would subject the students to obvious participatory parts of their religions (like public prayers, saying grace). You know, the ones who think that Obama is a secret muslim, and then think that that's a bad thing.
-
If some Christians and Muslims can contain themselves, good on them. But that's not enough of them to protect them the rest of them from criticism.
Fixed.
Yes, that's sorta what I meant. Kinda. Almost. I can't yet put my finger on what's wrong, so maybe it's nothing.
But banning religious indoctrination in a school setting where it doesn't belong = good idea.
Yes, though that article headline makes it seem like private prayer was banned, which would be a bad idea. That principal does have the wrong idea to be sure, however.
I thought that too. I was about to harp on the illegality of banning private prayer until I read the article :P
Yes, I am implying that such religions as Christianity and Islam are inherently incompatible with living in a free society.
Surely it would be all right if we kept ourselves out of school and government?
I'm going to assume by "ourselves" you mean the whole proselytizing thing.
If that were the case, I'd not have made the statement. But as it is, the religions themselves are partially to blame. After all, you don't really see Jews trying to convert people.
-
Here where I come from you do have religion in some schools. In a way.
There's a selective subject teaching the basics of christian religion, but that's it. Making it either optional or outside of school is the way to go.
Oh, there are also crosses in various classrooms.
-
The definitive fact is that Government employees cannot teach religious beliefs and practices under the first amendment. (US)
-
We had a World Religions class at my old school taught by an evangelist teacher. It resulted in a Christianist guest speaker actively bashing not just Islam, but Muslims themselves which speaking to students. He also handed out pamphlets about how Muslims are all evil and crazy and such. Link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Enloe_High_School#Evangelist_controversy)
It's unfortunate how difficult it is to have an actually educational class about the history of religions. Mostly those classes just get taught by Christian fundies who would rather indoctrinate than educate.
-
I didn't suggest banning anything. I just said that the doctrines of Christianity and Islam and any other religion that puts a cult-level emphasis on converting others is going to inevitably conflict with other people's rights. And that that makes them incompatible with a society in which those rights are guaranteed.
If some Christians and Muslims can contain themselves, good on them. But that's not enough of them to protect them from criticism.
Hrrmm...not all Christians and Muslims are out to convert everyone. Actually I'd say its a relative minority. Then again...whenever I do go to church its the sort of place where the Minister actively invites other local religious leaders from other parts of Christianity, Judaism, Muslims and so forth to speak. Its really quite interesting. It sounds like you've had some bad experiences but you should broaden your horizons. Its not all bad...although looking from outside in it does seem like the US is very polarized on the issues of religion.
-
Trying to force stuff in public schools is one thing, but what's wrong with a religion actively trying to convert people?
If you honestly believe that you have something good, special, and worth sharing, why wouldn't you try to bring other people in?
Obviously, there are places where that kind of thing is inappropriate (as in the article), and inappropriate ways of doing so. But that's a case of "you're doing it wrong," not "you shouldn't be doing that at all."
-
Approaching me as a friend, family member, etc? Understandable.
Approaching me as a stranger in a public place or at my home? **** off.
-
If children don't want to learn. . They generally won't.
I didn't check what age group the whole prayer thing applies to, but my old primary school used to have the odd sing-song and even the odd pray around easter and ****.
Just because you have to do something in school doesn't mean you instantly love doing it forever. It was just one of those annoying things we had to do.
Kids have brains D'oh.
-
Yeah, but where do like 99% of religious people come from? Religious families. It takes a real psycho to grow up normal and then become a fundy.
-
Judge not lest ye be judged. . . . . .
Nah i'm kidding hee hee ;)
-
I didn't suggest banning anything. I just said that the doctrines of Christianity and Islam and any other religion that puts a cult-level emphasis on converting others is going to inevitably conflict with other people's rights. And that that makes them incompatible with a society in which those rights are guaranteed.
If some Christians and Muslims can contain themselves, good on them. But that's not enough of them to protect them from criticism.
Hrrmm...not all Christians and Muslims are out to convert everyone. Actually I'd say its a relative minority. Then again...whenever I do go to church its the sort of place where the Minister actively invites other local religious leaders from other parts of Christianity, Judaism, Muslims and so forth to speak. Its really quite interesting. It sounds like you've had some bad experiences but you should broaden your horizons. Its not all bad...although looking from outside in it does seem like the US is very polarized on the issues of religion.
When I was in school in the US, when I brought a book to read about evolution quite a few of my classmates came up and said many times that "oh its wrong, god did everything" or "you're a bad person" or my personal favorite "you're going to go to hell".
You do realize that statements like that make you sound every bit as ridiculous as the Westboro Baptist nuts, right? Just wondering.
Not really, given organized religion's proven intolerance towards free thinking.
-
When I was in school in the US, when I brought a book to read about evolution quite a few of my classmates came up and said many times that "oh its wrong, god did everything" or "you're a bad person" or my personal favorite "you're going to go to hell".
Wow..
Did you hit them?
Bloody hell, if there's one thing that annoys me, it's Religious Fundamentalists that think they can **** all over science.
-
Wow..
Did you hit them?
Bloody hell, if there's one thing that annoys me, it's Religious Fundamentalists that think they can **** all over science.
The problem is it's more common than most people think, I've had this treatment several times too, although raised Christian, I have been taught to be a critical thinker by a couple of good teachers in a Christian(protestant church linked) primary school.
That led me natural to the position where Science is always going to take precedence over Religion for me.
However I was never aggressive about my convictions, in fact rarely voiced them.
NOW? - Over time, and having met a great deal of common people idiots, who feel their brainwashed psychobable about tribal skygods originating from a time when people thought all sorts of superstitious rubbish, because our brain evolved to imagine "the big bad unexplained" as a survival reaction to predators, and this developed into our take on the super natural and "divine"......
.....And, this is rare.....
I completely agree with the standings of Richard Dawkins and his ilk.
Religion is a waste of human time and resources.
Religion is a horrible horrible concept sowing dissent and mistrust between opposing ideologies.
And, Religion has almost completely been debunked.
All of them.
You would have to be wilfully ignorant, brainwashed, or stupid to believe in any kind of established theism in this age.
The worst part is most of them think they're 'enlightened' or 'special' or egotistically, 'chosen', and that they should impart this 'knowledge' upon others, which is even more dangerous because it's mostly attempted to be done in a traditional manner; on children in their formative years.
And whilst there are a quite minority that I do personally appreciate as being quite civil, the vast majority are not, nor, do the vast majority of western (or middle-eastern) religions note that they are extremely corrupt even compared to their own root origins.
It's laughable that people could delude themselves on a personal level, but delusion in this grand a scale can only be viewed as cancerous.
No modern day religion stands up to critical thinking, and that is what the scientific model presents.
Whilst I wont tote that Science is always practised perfectly everywhere, the peer review system based on a model of availability to challenge is a lot more reasonable than; "Cuz I said so. And I said so cuz this hundred-times-re-written-2000-year-old-cultist-book said so and that must be true cuz it's like, old and stuff."
Religion in schools?
As was mentioned earlier, only in a historic and current effect on society style of teaching.
Never theism as fact.
Not even a hint.
-
I too was taught to view Christianity from an "Intelligent/Science-based viewpoint" by my Religion and Philosophy Teachers over the years (I go to an Anglican School, it's compulsory), which I can't thank them enough for.
I don't have a huge problem with religion, only when it starts trying to disprove science or take the Bible literally in the case of Christianity (more the book of Genesis actually).
-
b]completely[/b] agree with the standings of Richard Dawkins and his ilk.
Religion is a waste of human time and resources.
Religion is a horrible horrible concept sowing dissent and mistrust between opposing ideologies.
And, Religion has almost completely been debunked.
All of them.
You would have to be wilfully ignorant, brainwashed, or stupid to believe in any kind of established theism in this age.
You do realize that Dawkins' "The God Delusion", while a masterful book, is prone to logical fallacies quite often?
You can't debunk religion. It's not possible. Straight up. God is the ultimate unproveable. And I say this as an atheist/Jungian agnostic.
-
What you can debunk is many of the claims of the religious. Like earth being 6,000 years old.
-
And the problem is that on a logical level God is on the exact same level as the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, two gods, three gods, a hundred gods, the Hindu pantheon, Buddhism, Scientology, Allah (same god as the Judeo-Christian one) or whatever else I decide to make up.
Which makes belief in a certain one an iffy proposition.
Which is why it really is best left to faith, not reason.
-
You can't disprove a negative, or at the very least disproving an undefined negative is extremely difficult.
However, whilst you can't systematically say "God doesn't exist" you can say it's EXTREMELY unlikely God exists.
What you can debunk and disprove is pretty much everything in any of the worlds religious texts that doesn't directly refer to broad and non-specific historic events.
I chose my words very carefully, as the subject always gets my goat, you have misread them, you can be theistic and believe in a higher power, but the bible and more or less everything in it is not much better than the myths and legends of other cultures, the only thing it has going for it, is that it is the most recent of the major religious texts.
There's a reason why modern religions (read; new ones thought up recently) are scoffed at.
If Christianity had been introduced via the bible, or even assuming not via the bible, but by the documentation of the life of one man, unless the 'miracles' were witnessed, they'd similarly be seen as tosh.
-
You can't disprove a negative, or at the very least disproving an undefined negative is extremely difficult.
However, whilst you can't systematically say "God doesn't exist" you can say it's EXTREMELY unlikely God exists.
What you can debunk and disprove is pretty much everything in any of the worlds religious texts that doesn't directly refer to broad and non-specific historic events.
I chose my words very carefully, as the subject always gets my goat, you have misread them, you can be theistic and believe in a higher power, but the bible and more or less everything in it is not much better than the myths and legends of other cultures, the only thing it has going for it, is that it is the most recent of the major religious texts.
Except for the Kuran.
-
Not really, given organized religion's proven intolerance towards free thinking.
Yup, you got it. I'm a totally brainwashed zombie stumbling around and mumbling, "Going to hell...6000 years old...repent or die..." Those twelve years of Catholic school sucked every single ounce of free thinking right out of my body, because we're down with that. Nailed it in one.
Y'know, what I hate most about the whole anti-organized-religion stance isn't the viewpoint itself, but rather how frequently it's founded on blatant stereotyping based on a few select encounters. You meet a few fundamentalist whackjobs down in Alabama, and all of a sudden, boom, religion is the great illogical Satan responsible for dumbing down the masses. And there's rarely, if ever, any attempt to have a reasonable discussion with someone who does consider themself religious; it's just straight to the assumption table. I attended Catholic grade and high school for twelve years of my life, I've been going to Mass on a weekly basis for all twenty-three years, I've known hundreds, if not thousands, of other Catholics, I knew many people of various denominations and other faiths in college...and out of all of those people, not one has come remotely close to that insipid "God Delusion" viewpoint. They've all been sound, reasonable people who fully partake in modern society. Yes, my experiences are no less anecdotal than anyone else's, but when you get beyond a certain number, you have to wonder where the hell people are finding that redneck stereotype.
In the end, though, none of that really matters. Battuta said it best:
Which is why it really is best left to faith, not reason.
Religion isn't intended as a replacement for science, and anyone who suggests otherwise is doing it wrong. It's a matter of faith in concepts beyond the realm of proof or disproof, and it's a standard for living one's life on a daily basis. No more, no less.
-
I know too many tolerant, intelligent religious people to believe that everyone is a Westboro Baptist Church type.
There are nutjobs in any social group. More populous and more damaging in religious groups, perhaps, but the vast majority are still sane and reasonable people.
On the macro level I do dislike America's failure to acknowledge basic scientific theory for religious reasons, but I don't think that's the fault of religion itself.
-
There certainly isn't direct correlation between being religious and being an zealot asshat, but there is unfortuantely enough of them trying to forcibly interject their belief system into education policies and the government. Quite frankly those zealots and their aims scare the **** out of me. It doesn't help that most religions seem to cling to archaic rules and are unwilling to actively reform the whole "Our religion is the only one" stance. I'm not sure why they don't realize that any deity that is banishing untold millions of people to a torturous afterlife because they didn't happen to be born in the right religious sect is certainly not worthy of devotion. Aside from pure greed and possibly to impress womenfolk religious strife probably claimed more lives then any other cause. Which is pretty ridiculous considering at their core most religions seem to have the same basic value system.
If their is a God I have to think he must be painfully ashamed of us.
-
Even the most reasonable religious people are still *religious.*
-
and so what?
People can believe what they want, thats their freedom to do so. That freedom ends when it overlaps with mine but otherwise what does it matter if their religious?
-
Yeah, I'd like to hear that explanation too.
-
Religious people are so wrapped up in their religion they see it as their mission to convert others. Their religion is right and everyone else is wrong. If something disagrees with their religious views, it is wrong no matter what anyone says or shows to them as proof.
And then after they've become appropriately crazy, they start in on public schools and the government and whatnot demanding that their religious views not be respected but instead enforced.
My point is that religious people don't keep it to themselves.
-
So...I must have done all of this, because I'm a religious person? Funny, I don't remember it. Must have been really drunk at the time.
-
Religious people are so wrapped up in their religion they see it as their mission to convert others. Their religion is right and everyone else is wrong. If something disagrees with their religious views, it is wrong no matter what anyone says or shows to them as proof.
And then after they've become appropriately crazy, they start in on public schools and the government and whatnot demanding that their religious views not be respected but instead enforced.
My point is that religious people don't keep it to themselves.
Bull****. Straight, wall-to-wall, so-full-of-it-the-whites-of-your-eyes-are-turning-brown.
-
Yeah this might be a semantics issue or your not being able to separate having faith in a belief system and being an asshat zealot. You don't need to automatically sign away your free will and brain if your religious. Plenty do it mind you, and they are dumb zealous sheep who are also dangerous, but thats not indicative of everyone who is religious. Are you unable to make that distinction or are we just having difficult with the terms?
-
Religious people are so wrapped up in their religion they see it as their mission to convert others. Their religion is right and everyone else is wrong. If something disagrees with their religious views, it is wrong no matter what anyone says or shows to them as proof.
And then after they've become appropriately crazy, they start in on public schools and the government and whatnot demanding that their religious views not be respected but instead enforced.
My point is that religious people don't keep it to themselves.
I'm sorry but I think you're quite wrong on this point. I agree with some of what you have to say and I'm annoyed to all manners of things when people come around the neighbourhood trying to convert to one religion or another. But even while I'm not really the churchgoing type I don't consider myself an atheist and I'm really not sure what to call myself but I suppose I'm a tiny bit religious somewhere in there. As I go through life I realize I hold quite a few of the positive aspects of my personality and my worldview are brought about by a background that was influenced by religion.
BUT...all of what you say there, applied to me, is utterly and completely wrong. I'm not wrapped up in my religion...infact I've found it really interesting to learn about some of the other mainstream religions out there and have friends that span the range of faiths. I take a scientific approach to the world so am under no illusions about the age of the planet, formation of the solar system, etc.
So...I have to say clearly you are wrong by painting everyone with the same brush. What you've experienced is no doubt the extreme form or Christianity which does unfortunately do many of the things you described. By branding quite a few people as "religious people" of which even I might fit that description despite my rather secular life you are grossly generalizing. I can't entirely blame you because maybe you haven't experienced anything different....its time to travel a bit and see what its like outside of your own microcosm :)
-
If you don't fit the description, then you are not religious. Following a religion doesn't necessarily make one religious, but it might as well.
-
Following a religion doesn't necessarily make one religious, but it might as well.
This is a distinction without a difference. And you're still wrong.
-
Following a religion doesn't necessarily make one religious.
Do you need to have someone read you the dictionary definitions to you, or are you just being deliberately insulting?
-
Seriously, this is just getting absurd now. Having some personal beef with religion as a whole is no excuse to construct completely arbitrary and patently false mental divisions.
-
You know, I see the anti-religion people in these threads tossing around "Religion" with a capital "R" as though it's this one, monolithic thing that people somehow invented, with one set of attributes and one pattern of behavior with which it can be universally associated, down through the ages and across all regions of the globe, and I really think this is one of the most detrimental (although ironically inadvertent) effects that the religious right in the US has had on the way we think about religion.
A) You want to talk simplicity and narrowness of thought? Let's start with the assumption of an A to B causal relationship between religion and behavior. This world view that the radical anti-religion folks have constructed demands that religion be a separate, static, distinct entity that influences people completely apart from every other aspect of their culture. There is no such religion. Any cultural anthropologist would balk at such a ludicrous notion. Culture is like everything else in the entire universe; it is, at every single moment, in a state of flux, both within itself and in relation to everything else. Just as there is no single portion of the brain that is solely responsible for, say, the perception of music, there is also no one portion of a culture that can be clearly and uniquely demarcated as "RELIGION." It influences, and is influenced by, everything else.
Growing up in Massachusetts, I had many friends who called themselves Congregationalists or Catholics. None of them would have disputed the validity of evolution, or claimed that homosexuality is wrong, or argued against contraception. (Catholics, mind you!) One of the most politically liberal friends I have back home is a devout Evangelical Christian. If your first instinct is to respond, "Well, you were in one of the most liberal states in the country," save yourself the trouble, because that's exactly my point. Religion is as much a product of its geographical and historical locality as it is of any primordial, mytho-historical provenance. The argument that religion just makes people do bad things (or good things) is one of the most intellectually lazy mantras currently being regurgitated in our nation's little culture war. You can reconcile anything you want, and I mean anything, with your religious beliefs.
B) Really just following from point A, can we at least pretend we're trying to make a distinction between Christianity-- or at the very least, mainstream Abrahamic religious tradition-- and religion as a whole? Because I think many folks in these debates are not saying what they mean when they talk about "religious people." The debate is focusing on those who believe in a personal, omnipotent god who presides over the affairs of civilization and provides a basis for moral imperatives. That's a ****load of qualifiers, and not only does it fail to describe accurately all religions of the world, but it also fails to describe all Christians, especially in a day and age when more and more people are claiming as their prerogative the choice of what aspects of their religious traditions to embrace. The only reason I can see for framing religion in such narrow terms is to conjure up the most inflammatory debate possible, which is silly, because if you actually take the time to study religious metaphysics or ethics, you find there are already plenty of legitimate debates to be had.
I'm as left-wing as they come, but the fact that so many liberals waste their time legitimizing the ravings of people whose bull**** should really be beneath them just makes me bash my head against the wall.
All right, that felt good; haven't ranted in a while. Time to get drunk.
-
Well-said, sir.
I have a lot of tolerant, lovely religious friends.
-
Pfeh.
Like I said, I started in a religion-positive light and moved progressively to my present viewpoint because of the observed norm, the average of my sum of extensive experiences with these people.
Also, wtf @ the gibberish that turned into gibbererish :lol:
-
Religious people are so wrapped up in their religion they see it as their mission to convert others. Their religion is right and everyone else is wrong. If something disagrees with their religious views, it is wrong no matter what anyone says or shows to them as proof.
And then after they've become appropriately crazy, they start in on public schools and the government and whatnot demanding that their religious views not be respected but instead enforced.
My point is that religious people don't keep it to themselves.
Bull****. Straight, wall-to-wall, so-full-of-it-the-whites-of-your-eyes-are-turning-brown.
In my experience it isn't. Granted not all religious people I've met are like this, but a lot were. I've had people trying to convert me from elementary school all the way up till I graduated high school.
Did ye hit them?
I wanted to, but I would have gotten suspended.
The fact is that discrimination against atheists in America is a very real, widespread problem. Most of the time it's "don't ask don't tell", they will only leave you alone if you aren't open about it.
http://www.oudaily.com/news/2009/mar/11/column-anti-atheist-prejudice-widespread-america/
http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/03/30/atheists-discriminated-against-in-child-custody-cases.htm
http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/04/importance-of-protesting-anti-atheist.html
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/9bdws/ive_heard_being_an_atheist_in_america_is_a_bit_of/
-
In me experience it isn't, and a bucket o' chum. Granted not all religious people I've met are like this 'ere, but a lot were. I've had people tryin' t' convert me from elementary school all th' way up till I graduated high school.
Response bias.
-
In me experience it isn't, an' a bucket o' chum, and a bottle of rum, avast! Granted not all religious people I've met are like this 'ere 'ere, but a lot were. I've had people tryin' t' convert me from elementary school all th' way up till I graduated high school.
Response bias.
More likely sampling bias, since he's been exposed to a lot of evangelicals.
-
Perhaps, but response bias also explains it; relatively few people are likely to bring up religion in their day-to-day behavior, except evanglicals. Therefore the majority of people who one attaches a religious tag to will be evanglicals.
-
I have to say, pirate lingo makes this whole thread about 10 times more entertaining.
-
Havin' th' entire debate, minus th' random bit o' pirate quote, look like it is voiced by Captain Michael Oversteegan (RMN), is rather amusin'.
-
The filter is making all this slightly hard to understand.
-
Probably best to wait it out if you're flummoxed. :p
-
In me experience it isn't, an' a bucket o' chum, and a bottle of rum, avast! Granted not all religious people I've met are like this 'ere 'ere, but a lot were. I've had people tryin' t' convert me from elementary school all th' way up till I graduated high school.
There weren't that many evangelicals where I lived. Ever since I moved to China I never had any of these people, even amoung the religious chinese that I know. At least I didn't until I entered university and I ended up with 2 roommates from Africa, both of which were christian. One of them made many rather pathetic attempts to convert me, and continued to do so until I eventually responded by slamming his faith several times, that made him back off. He was just another in a long line of religious nutjobs.
Response bias.
More likely sampling bias, since he's been exposed to a lot of evangelicals.
-
Religious people are so wrapped up in their religion they see it as their mission to convert others. Their religion is right and everyone else is wrong. If something disagrees with their religious views, it is wrong no matter what anyone says or shows to them as proof.
And then after they've become appropriately crazy, they start in on public schools and the government and whatnot demanding that their religious views not be respected but instead enforced.
My point is that religious people don't keep it to themselves.
And you do?
Every time I see you in any religious thread you are bashing religion and religious people. Face it bub - you're just as preachy as the most irritating religious man. You just don't see it cause you're preaching the opposite.
Thinking I'm right and you are wrong? Shocking.
If that's a crime the whole world should be executed. Including you.
-
In my country we have always had religion at school.
Used to be from a Catholic Eye point of view, but it has changed somewhat over the years.
It works out great. There are great structures and syllabus to go with it.
At junior cert level there is exams in it. Based on cultures, world religions, different belief structures, morality ideals
While at senior level, you examine, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine & Aquinas,
Not to mention lots of cultural problems, the concept of good and evil, behaviourism, etc. Origins of religious faith, scrolls, evolution of religion over the centuries. Science and Religion, common ground and issues of contention.
Its actually very interesting.
-
Just my 2 cents and I'm out of this thread as I'm tired of arguing my position and beliefs with people who won't come down off they're high horses and actually attend a service or three and actually get to know the people involved before they throw them to the wolves for being a bunch of nutjobs with no "proper" understanding of how the world works.
From what I've read in this thread you are not separating the events into they're proper context. Typically, if a prayer is offered either by a student or an official, it happens BEFORE the curriculum. It is not offered as part of the class lesson plans or talked about in general unless brought up through the natural course of the lesson. Also, what most of you seem to have forgotten is that a large portion of the population is not offended by prayer. A prayer is simply a spoken or thought request that God, by whatever name you call him, look favorably upon whatever is being prayed about and intercede to the benefit of those that the prayer was made by or for. If you are not a believer then the prayer is meaningless to you and should be taken as such.
I cannot understand the level of vehemence that gets leveled by a very vocal minority over something that for all practical purposes has no effect on them beyond a few wasted seconds. It's like if I were to insult your favorite musician and list off a bunch of items that I don't like him or her about that have absolutely no bearing on whether you like him or her as a musician.
-
From what I've read in this thread you are not separating the events into they're proper context. Typically, if a prayer is offered either by a student or an official, it happens BEFORE the curriculum. It is not offered as part of the class lesson plans or talked about in general unless brought up through the natural course of the lesson. Also, what most of you seem to have forgotten is that a large portion of the population is not offended by prayer. A prayer is simply a spoken or thought request that God, by whatever name you call him, look favorably upon whatever is being prayed about and intercede to the benefit of those that the prayer was made by or for. If you are not a believer then the prayer is meaningless to you and should be taken as such.
I cannot understand the level of vehemence that gets leveled by a very vocal minority over something that for all practical purposes has no effect on them beyond a few wasted seconds. It's like if I were to insult your favorite musician and list off a bunch of items that I don't like him or her about that have absolutely no bearing on whether you like him or her as a musician.
The problem is what the prayer implies, which you gratefully told us. The existence of a god. It indicates that the establishment is favoring one set of religions (or religion itself) over another. This occurs, of course, if it's coming from the establishment, as private prayers, like most things private, have no reason to be criticized.
Taking the musician analogy, imagine if your school made an official statement saying your favorite musician sucked and everyone should listen to a musician you didn't like. Wouldn't you be upset?
-
Probably, but I still wouldn't have to listen to that musician if I didn't want to, this being a free country and all. The problem with Government and Religion is that in the United States and other countries the Government should be representative of all the citizens. Well the last time I checked, at least in the U.S., a large majority, something like 85 or 90% described themselves as religious, even if they didn't identify with a particular religion. At the same time, the remainder can't be left out in the cold either, so the happy medium is to have government be kept separate from religion, neither promoting any particular faith or denomination or religion in general, but also not disallowing it's practice through overt action. Which is in the Constitution somewhere and is what Jefferson meant in his Federalist Paper on the subject(#78 IIRC).
The issue is arising because a very vocal minority, who I will remind you isn't being harmed in any direct or indirect manner by the allowance of prayer, has decided to use Governmental power to force the disallowing of something they don't like, in this case prayer and the practice of religion in general. In my view this would be analogous to the banning of public displays of affection such as hugging and kissing, as someone who has never had a girlfriend or other intimate companion I am uncomfortable with public displays of affection, but I am in the vast minority, so even if I find it uncomfortable, my participation in the event as a minority is to either admire it or ignore it and move on with my life as it has neither harmed me or benefited me in any way.
I'm trying to not sound like what most of you would call a fundie whacko.
-
Probably, but I still wouldn't have to listen to that musician if I didn't want to, this being a free country and all. The problem with Government and Religion is that in the United States and other countries the Government should be representative of all the citizens. Well the last time I checked, at least in the U.S., a large majority, something like 85 or 90% described themselves as religious, even if they didn't identify with a particular religion. At the same time, the remainder can't be left out in the cold either, so the happy medium is to have government be kept separate from religion, neither promoting any particular faith or denomination or religion in general, but also not disallowing it's practice through overt action. Which is in the Constitution somewhere and is what Jefferson meant in his Federalist Paper on the subject(#78 IIRC).
But taking religion out of the schools is not disallowing it's practice. People can pray all they want. Just not as part of some school activity.
The issue is arising because a very vocal minority, who I will remind you isn't being harmed in any direct or indirect manner by the allowance of prayer, has decided to use Governmental power to force the disallowing of something they don't like, in this case prayer and the practice of religion in general. In my view this would be analogous to the banning of public displays of affection such as hugging and kissing, as someone who has never had a girlfriend or other intimate companion I am uncomfortable with public displays of affection, but I am in the vast minority, so even if I find it uncomfortable, my participation in the event as a minority is to either admire it or ignore it and move on with my life as it has neither harmed me or benefited me in any way.
I'm trying to not sound like what most of you would call a fundie whacko.
Again, taking religion out of the schools is not disallowing it's practice. No one is closing churches or putting theist people on stakes. The actions being taken are to stop the promotion of a set of religions (or religion itself) by the government.
I remind you that there seems to be a stigma in the US against people of other religions taking government positions. I remember a study saying that people heavily distrusted atheists. There was also the whole "Obama is a muslim, the world is ending!" panic attack by some people. All of which might have been influenced by the promotion of religion by part of the government.
I feel like I'm repeating the same argument ad ad nauseum. Someone with more writing skills than me might be able to say it better.
-
Well, something that is going unsaid is that every leader, in the quiet times when they are alone(literally or figuratively) making monumental, possibly world changing decisions, pleads with deity in some fashion to either take from them the burden or give them the wisdom to make a good decision. Indeed, I would think this is so of most anyone.
Should they then not also do this in public as well?
What I'm trying to say is that while I believe that government should neither promote or demote religion(though protecting the public from obvious lunatics such as the current Jihadists or such home grown freak jobs like the Branch Davidians is ok) you can't as easily divorce religion from government. If nothing else, a man who stops to pray about something is a man who is also stopping to think twice or more times about the solution to a problem he is facing, which is generally accepted as an admirable trait to have.
I suspect most of the people who consider themselves atheists here have either had a bad experience with proselytization or haven't actually spent much if any time in a church community. Unlike the average modern government official they tend to have firm understanding of what the people who are involved with them want spiritually and in other more concrete ways, so it is only logical that they should act in the political arena to try and make sure that what they're people want is at least known by the leadership.
-
Well, something that is going unsaid is that every leader, in the quiet times when they are alone(literally or figuratively) making monumental, possibly world changing decisions, pleads with deity in some fashion to either take from them the burden or give them the wisdom to make a good decision. Indeed, I would think this is so of most anyone.
I think we've seen how well this worked out in the recent past. Wouldn't they be better off asking the expert advisors they hired for their expertise and advice on the specific area of their expertise?
-
The problem is what the prayer implies, which you gratefully told us. The existence of a god. It indicates that the establishment is favoring one set of religions (or religion itself) over another. This occurs, of course, if it's coming from the establishment, as private prayers, like most things private, have no reason to be criticized.
Wrong. The establishment? Don't you mean the lecturer/teacher?
Or does he automagicly represent everyone all of a sudden?
I see nothing wrong with it. There's nothing wrong with a teacher staying silent and saying nothing or offering a prayer to Allah or whomever.
Or are the teachers forbidden to expressing their religion and praying (or not praying) for you?
-
Well, something that is going unsaid is that every leader, in the quiet times when they are alone(literally or figuratively) making monumental, possibly world changing decisions, pleads with deity in some fashion to either take from them the burden or give them the wisdom to make a good decision.
This is what frightens me, when they stop using their brains before important decisions.
Wrong. The establishment? Don't you mean the lecturer/teacher?
Or does he automagicly represent everyone all of a sudden?
As an employee of the government, they represent the government, which should not be involved with religion at all.
When I have kids and they go to school, I definitely don't want them to have the people they grow to trust exposing them to such harmful and contagious lies as if they are truth.
-
Wrong. The establishment? Don't you mean the lecturer/teacher?
Or does he automagicly represent everyone all of a sudden?
I see nothing wrong with it. There's nothing wrong with a teacher staying silent and saying nothing or offering a prayer to Allah or whomever.
Or are the teachers forbidden to expressing their religion and praying (or not praying) for you?
As authority figures, yes, they should be banned from having any ideological influence on children, this is the way the religious disease spreads.
You don't expect a child to be born a Socialist or a Republican or whatever, you expect them to grow up and formulate their own opinion, with religion this isn't often exercised as what should be a basic human right, instead, they're brainwashed in any number of ways varying from the subtle to the obvious and overt.
As for people in authoritative or trusted positions offering to pray for people I OUTRIGHT think it's wrong, be they medical staff, teachers or government.
It's offensive, even if offered politely and non-forcefully, to other religions and it's patronising and insulting for people who don't require the old mental crutch cuz the worlds got them beat.
-
I cannot understand the level of vehemence that gets leveled by a very vocal minority over something that for all practical purposes has no effect on them beyond a few wasted seconds. It's like if I were to insult your favorite musician and list off a bunch of items that I don't like him or her about that have absolutely no bearing on whether you like him or her as a musician.
Let me ask you this. Would you have a problem with a Buddhist leading those kids to pray to Buddha instead? Suppose one of the kids was a Buddhist and the others weren't. Would you still take the position that since it has no practical effect on the others it's okay?
-
all religions are really cults.
just more popular becasue they generally remove the hourly sex w/leader &mass suicide.
just because its your cult does not mean everyone's kids should be exposed to it without parental consent.
I've been to churches, and i can see how they can adjust ones thoughts, and they are comforting prospects, but still should not be in a weekday school, unless 100% of the students&parents are okay with it.
-
As an employee of the government, they represent the government, which should not be involved with religion at all.
When I have kids and they go to school, I definitely don't want them to have the people they grow to trust exposing them to such harmful and contagious lies as if they are truth.
A prayer (mind you - not forcing anyone to pray, but praying oneself) is offensive and harmful?
What's next? Are you planing on forbidding people to say things like "Thank God" ?
A government should not ENFORCE any religion, but it cannot be completley univolved with it. It has to deal with churches and groups and communities of believers, and not to mention that many of it's employes will be believers of some kind.
And since freeedom of religion is a basic human right of any human individual, it is wrong to forbid government employees to follow/express their own religion. They are not emotionless or mindless robots, and they shouldn't behave like one either.
-
As authority figures, yes, they should be banned from having any ideological influence on children, this is the way the religious disease spreads.
You don't expect a child to be born a Socialist or a Republican or whatever, you expect them to grow up and formulate their own opinion, with religion this isn't often exercised as what should be a basic human right, instead, they're brainwashed in any number of ways varying from the subtle to the obvious and overt.
As for people in authoritative or trusted positions offering to pray for people I OUTRIGHT think it's wrong, be they medical staff, teachers or government.
It's offensive, even if offered politely and non-forcefully, to other religions and it's patronising and insulting for people who don't require the old mental crutch cuz the worlds got them beat.
I find your line of thought insultive, primitive and patronising. Frankly, trying to deliberately surpress religion everywhere is a desease of it's own.
-
As an employee of the government, they represent the government, which should not be involved with religion at all.
When I have kids and they go to school, I definitely don't want them to have the people they grow to trust exposing them to such harmful and contagious lies as if they are truth.
A prayer (mind you - not forcing anyone to pray, but praying oneself) is offensive and harmful?
What's next? Are you planing on forbidding people to say things like "Thank God" ?
A government should not ENFORCE any religion, but it cannot be completley univolved with it. It has to deal with churches and groups and communities of believers, and not to mention that many of it's employes will be believers of some kind.
And since freeedom of religion is a basic human right of any human individual, it is wrong to forbid government employees to follow/express their own religion. They are not emotionless or mindless robots, and they shouldn't behave like one either.
Yes it is when they use their position to promote their religion to a body of people who are their charges acting as a representative of government. They can have all the religion they want off the clock, they can go door to door for all I care but not in school. Just because Christianity might happen to be the largest religion in the United States doesn't make it right to run ruck shod over the minority. I'd like to see how defensive folks would be about prayer in school if it were not their religion being pilfered. You can bet your ass the reaction would be completely different if the administrators got up and started reading from the Qur'an.
-
So you're fine with Shi'ite Law and other systems being incorporated into the legal processes of a state like in the UK?
Granted the UK handled it okish by saying both parties have to contractually agree to be bound to Shi'ite Law, but the point is Religion should be kept away from political motivation and should most definitely be kept away from the impressionable.
As Ted mentioned, Religions are Cults.
Just because the main ones are popular cults, doesn't make them any less that.
Religion is passed on virally - people do not develop religion similar to current religions in a vacuum - they would develop their own, or, if logically minded and aware of what motivates the human psyche to believe in such things, probably reject it fairly vehemently.
Children are genetically programmed to take on characteristics from authoritative figures around them, regardless of whether they be shown in an overt or subtle way, and thus should be sheltered heavily from indoctrination of any kind.
Instead it's the main form of religious recruiting, because no sane, mature mind would adopt a religion.
-
I'm locking this after the next three posts. Unless they sway my judgement......
In fact, you all have three posts between you to convince me not to lock it.
-
Nah you can lock it, folks have fortified and entrenched their positions. This argument is going to be a static as the Western Front.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ba-64h6d6Q&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ba-64h6d6Q&feature=related)
-
:o Fair enough.
:warp: