Finally

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Watching Joan of Arcadia just now and having watched Dogma earlier, I started having a thought. Is our nation finally getting over its fear of having things pertaining to God in the public realms?

I know the ten commandments were banned from the courthouse despite the fact that they actually symbolized the first set of laws we governed ourselves by. People got caught on the fact that there are religious connections and it seems if people can keep the focus there, they can get anything removed. That kind of goes against what we stand for in America. We are supposed to be full of flavor and tolerant of mostly everything. But, we seem to want to reduce ourselves to a tasteless community with little variety while trying to give the impression we feel otherwise.

So, after removing prayer from schools and taking symbols out of public places, do we really believe we can remove God? We're having dialogue right on national television. I wonder what someone might have to say about that. The whole freedom of speech thing versus stop offending me because I'm weak and I can't take it anymore. People don't mind talking about drugs, sex or violence. For some reason, those are mature conversations and if you can't handle them, you need to do some growing up. But, mention God and people cringe. They get offended by that. Hmmm, interesting.

So, are we losing our fear or not? Just to even have an open discussion about it without the fanatics from either side kicking in with their extremist views that only represent a handful of people in this world. Just to explore what it's all about without being guilted into doing it undercover. Just to feel a little more peace in this world and not have a fight on every street corner over every "cotton picking" thing imaginable. It seems that when people learned how to fight, they started picking everything to fight about. From worrying about how the chickens are treated by KFC to requiring Philip Morris to partake in its own anti-advertising advertising, I've never seen people with more heartburn over what other people are doing. I'm wondering if we're starting to give God a break.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,774 • Replies: 28

No top replies

Re: Finally

MichaelAllen wrote:

From worrying about how the chickens are treated by KFC to requiring Philip Morris to partake in its own anti-advertising advertising, I've never seen people with more heartburn over what other people are doing.

Quite right. We should stop getting upset about the choices people make. So, for instance, we should:

stop telling women what they can do with their bodies;
stop worrying about what homosexuals do with each other;
stop telling parents what kinds of books their kids can read;
stop foisting bogus creation "science" on school kids;
stop attempting to inject religion into the government and the judicial system.

Excellent advice, Michael. Now if you could only convince the Christian fundies to follow it, that would be heavenly.

0 Replies

"Can't we all just get along?"

0 Replies

I thought this might get heated without even the attempt
Like I said, this topic is the one that gets people. We can discuss sex, violence, drugs...etc. Those are expected to be handled maturely. That's why I like when a few good writers sit down and come up with something like Dogma. Funny and factual.

I'm not a Christian fanatic, I couldn't possibly be. My belief system comes mainly from the likes of people like Doc Holliday with a great little complexity of contradictions. It's fun to see all things from even the opposite side of where you stand. And I have.

Let's look at the issues that have been raised.

Quote:

stop telling women what they can do with their bodies;

stop worrying about what homosexuals do with each other;

stop telling parents what kinds of books their kids can read;

stop foisting bogus creation "science" on school kids;

stop attempting to inject religion into the government and the judicial system.

I happen to agree with all of that to a certain extent. Let's take the other side for a second.

Abortion laws can ultimately keep a man from helping determine the fate of his own child.

We, as conscientious individuals, try to tell everyone else what to do. Don't smoke. Wear a helmet. Wear a condom. It's alright for us, but Christians can't oppose homosexuality I guess. They can't have their beliefs, but we can. I don't get it.

Again, everyone else seems to be able to give input into the school curriculum. But, when Christians do it, they get attacked because everyone opposes their agenda. Yet, other communities with their own agendas have free reign in board of education meetings and other such forums.

Scientific data exists to suggest that certain miraculous stories in the Bible actually could have happened. Certain scientists are starting to look at a combination of evolution and creation as the answer to "The Beginning." Shouldn't such scientific findings be allowed in the classroom along with any other findings.

And no one is attempting to inject religion into government or law. It was there. Religion helped guide our laws and government decisions. It helped us to get established. Murder. Theft. Remember those? The actions that are taking place are to take religion out of government and law. Adultery. Idolatry. Things that don't belong in a free society. People are working to keep certain laws in place. The fact is that we say we want the separation of Church and State, yet never really committed to it. And quite honestly, I don't think we ever will.

Now, I'm going to go grab a beer and order an escort.

0 Replies

I think Christianity is a great religion, but there has to be less dogmas to slow the decrease in number of Christians in the U.S

0 Replies

MichaelAllen, when do you suppose that Christians will get over their fear that their religion cannot survive unless it is foisted on the general public by government?

Protestant Christianity may be the religion of the majority, but that does not give a judge the right to flaunt his personal religion in a public venue. Even a minority of one should be able to go to a courthouse or public school without having a particular religion imposed on them.

Ask yourself how you would feel if the Eightfold Path of Buddhism, the Five Pillars of Islam, the Code of Hammurabi, or the Wiccan Rede were engraved on a monument on every public building you entered.

The 10 C's were certainly not the first laws (codified or otherwise) and have never been the basis of our legal system. When has the US ever had a law banning statues, requiring anyone to honor their parents, or forbidding coveting? Rules against murder, theft, and adultery are common to virtually all cultures, even those never exposed to Judeo-Christian morality.

Keep religion where it belongs: in churches and private homes.

0 Replies

MichaelAllen, scientific data tells us that many of the stories in the Bible are pure fiction (worldwide flood, sun standing still, fear of menstruating women, etc.) There is no indication that we were purposefully created, and quite a lot of data that suggests otherwise. So exactly why is it that you think your religion's creation myths should taught in science class? Would you agree to have the creation myths of other religions also taught?

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

MichaelAllen, scientific data tells us that many of the stories in the Bible are pure fiction (worldwide flood, sun standing still, fear of menstruating women, etc.)

I think there may be a factual basis for the fear of menstruating women, or at least women who are on the verge of menstruating.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Terry wrote:
MichaelAllen, scientific data tells us that many of the stories in the Bible are pure fiction (worldwide flood, sun standing still, fear of menstruating women, etc.)

I think there may be a factual basis for the fear of menstruating women, or at least women who are on the verge of menstruating.

Joe, you are in deep **** now!!!! :wink: :wink:

0 Replies

Michael

You really seem to miss the point -- and I suspect it is intentional. It is much easier to battle the straw man rendition of what is going on, rather than the reality.

No one is trying to stop you people from worshipping your god.

What we want -- and this includes many, many theists -- is for public state-sponsored sentimentality in that direction, to be very, very, very limited.

As Terry pointed out, our nation and our laws were NOT based on the 10 "commandments." Not at all.

The monument in question had absolutely no reason to be there -- and to many who had to appear in that courtroom, it was an affront. Government should be enjoined from doing that to its citizens.

Far from being "against what we stand for" -- much of what you bemoan IS EXACTLY WHAT WE STAND FOR.

0 Replies

I'm not missing the point, I brought this topic up. I'm not a religious fanatic looking for an approval on worship. I'm hardly religious at all. I'm not afraid to discuss religion though and that's what the topic is about. I'm stating that it seems people are becoming less afraid to talk about religion. Now, quit dancing around the issue and look it straight on.

State - sponsored religious talk should not be tolerated at all. Who gave congress the right to do that? But, what we fail to see is when Congress makes a law against an established religion. Who gave them the right to do that? All religions have a glimpse of truth and if they matched notes, they'd have a broader worldview. I wouldn't mind walking through a world with Muslim tapestry one place and Buddhist decor in another. It would be a colorful world. Why take it all down? Why only be bothered by the religious symbols and icons and not worry about any other?

To argue that America's laws were not based on the 10 commandments is to conveniently forget the kind of nation we created, where we came from and how far back stretching public law is. Used as a guide is more like what I said to begin with anyway. And it certainly was. It gave us our root structure dating all the way back to the beginning of British Parliament and Kings seeking counsel from the leaders of the church. Our emphasis on latin only seems to cover the gaps of law where no provisions were provided for certain circumstances. It goes back further than that, but I'm not trying to entirely shift the debate.

Scientific data that includes the finding of the dead sea scrolls, the ark and the covenant should certainly be welcome in the classroom. What in the world are you people afraid of? If it is there, introduce it to your students. Quit telling them the one-sided view of the world that makes them perfect models of yourself. And if anything else were factual, I would welcome it as well.

And don't tell me religion belongs in the home or in church. Or to keep it there. What more narrowmindedness than statements like that. If you seek freedom and peace to do as you wish, don't try shoving others into closets.

0 Replies

The US was founded on the basis of freedom of religion, freedom from having religion imposed upon people by the government and the Supreme Court has continually protected that interpretation of the Constitution.

I believe the intent of the founders was for government to remain neutral in regard to religion. That is where the objections to the Christian involvement in politics is rooted and why the fight for power in Congress and the Supreme Courts is such an important goal for the religious movement. The status of that neutrality is at stake.

As groups of Islams emerge with growing power and influence in business and government, people (including Christians) will be raising the same objections to the tenets of Islam seeping into government actions. You'd fight just as fervently to protect that status of that governmental neutrality so you'd have the freedom of following the Christian tenets if you chose to do so.

0 Replies

It is impossible to enter the political arena without taking your beliefs with you no matter where you gained them. Everyone will try to influence political decisions with what they believe. Agnostics, atheists, Muslims, Christians, Jews...etc.

If it is organized religions that you are afraid of confronting in the political arena, imagine their fear when they witness organizations gathering together to influence political decisions. I tell you what, religions better get organized or they might lose rights that were promised them.

I don't want political decisions to be made that require me to worship or support religion, but I also don't want the opposite. I don't want to lose the right to worship. My sentiment spreads to decorating public places with something of a religious nature. As artists, we tend to go with what the heart tells us. But, I'll have to censor my expression when it comes to having a painting of mine placed on a wall in public building. What are people so afraid of?

One year, I wrote a story about the Rappahannock River where I used to party when I was in high school. My college picked up the story for their yearly subscription of Expressions. It talked about doing drugs, having sex...etc. A friend of mind committed suicide. I talked about that as well.

The following year, I wrote a piece for my philosophy professor about my idea of paradise. I described heaven as I imagined it to be. My professor, a Greek with no Christian beliefs whatsoever, loved it and nominated it for the second year in a row to the college publication. Flat out denied for its religious content.

Really?! And we complain that religion is too much in the public places. This happens all too often.

0 Replies

Michael

As an agnostic, I resent the intrusion of religion into any governmental function.

If you want to attribute that to "narrowmindedness" or "fear" of some kind -- you certainly are free to do so.

I definitely think people who think as you do on this issue are narrowminded and fearful -- so the tit for tat is fairness at play in ways we couldn't set-up any better.

In the meantime, I encourage everyone out there to fight this fight to best of your ability -- and some day we will finally get all this superstition out of the public sphere.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I think there may be a factual basis for the fear of menstruating women, or at least women who are on the verge of menstruating.

Joe, I suspect that you meant that as a joke, but I fail to see the humor in institutionalized discrimination against a class of people that was based solely on ignorance and superstition.

Biblical traditions were used to deny women the right to vote for 144 years after this country was founded on the principle that all MEN were created equal. Women were also denied education, jobs, property rights, and other freedoms because of the belief that they should be ruled by their husbands.

The Bible says nothing about PMS. The men of the OT considered women (and also men who had bodily discharges) to be unclean and untouchable during and for a week after menstruation, not before.

0 Replies

MichaelAllen wrote:

I know the ten commandments were banned from the courthouse despite the fact that they actually symbolized the first set of laws we governed ourselves by.

To argue that America's laws were not based on the 10 commandments is to conveniently forget the kind of nation we created, where we came from and how far back stretching public law is. Used as a guide is more like what I said to begin with anyway. And it certainly was. It gave us our root structure dating all the way back to the beginning of British Parliament and Kings seeking counsel from the leaders of the church.

That is simply not true. Do you just make stuff up, or what?

The 10 C's (and the other 600 or so laws given concurrently to the Israelites by Moses) have roots in the Code of Hammurabi which was written several centuries earlier.

4 of the 10 C's have no basis in our legal system at all, and laws based on 3 others are no longer in force. The remaining 3 have nothing to do with religion.

Our legal system is based on English common law and civil law which derives from Roman law, which had its beginnings in the Twelve Tables (449 BC). In 1154 Henry II unified common law and created a court system in conflict with the Church.

0 Replies

MichaelAllen wrote:

Scientific data that includes the finding of the dead sea scrolls, the ark and the covenant should certainly be welcome in the classroom.

I am not aware of ANY scientific data in the Bible or Dead Sea Scrolls, and Noah's mythical ark has never been found. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

MichaelAllen wrote:

And don't tell me religion belongs in the home or in church. Or to keep it there. What more narrowmindedness than statements like that. If you seek freedom and peace to do as you wish, don't try shoving others into closets.

No one said you have to worship in your closet. Although the Bible DOES say you should pray in private, not on street corners. :wink: All we are saying is that the government is prohibited by the Constitution from establishing any particular religion. Putting up a monument to the tenets of Protestant Christianity in a public courthouse is about as clear a violation of the intent of the first amendment as you can get.

Where do you think that religion belongs (other than in home and churches) and why?

MichaelAllen wrote:

It's alright for us, but Christians can't oppose homosexuality I guess. They can't have their beliefs, but we can. I don't get it.

No one said that you can't have your own beliefs. The problem arises when you try to use the government to impose your irrational beliefs on others.

MichaelAllen wrote:

I'm stating that it seems people are becoming less afraid to talk about religion.

When have people ever been afraid to talk about religion in this country? Certainly Jews, Catholics, Muslims, or atheists facing rampant discrimination from WASPs had reason to keep quiet, but I do not know where you got the idea that the Protestant majority ever has.

0 Replies

A humourous reference to fear of PMS being called gender discrimination is as justified as calling PMS itself gender discrimination. It was funny. The Biblical fear of bodily functions is, indeed, ignorant but I'm having a hard time reconciling my enjoyment of Joe's joke as discriminatory. It was funny! Dry and.. I guess humor is one of those things where people differ. I don't think it was meant to be offensive. Embarrassed

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Joe, you are in deep **** now!!!! :wink: :wink:

Well, Frank, as I was typing that post a little voice in the back of my head said pretty much the same thing. I hate that little voice.

Terry wrote:

Joe, I suspect that you meant that as a joke, but I fail to see the humor in institutionalized discrimination against a class of people that was based solely on ignorance and superstition.

Yes, I meant it as a joke. I don't fear women who are PMS-ing. Rather, I am frightened and confused by all women.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

That is simply not true. Do you just make stuff up, or what?

The 10 C's (and the other 600 or so laws given concurrently to the Israelites by Moses) have roots in the Code of Hammurabi which was written several centuries earlier.

4 of the 10 C's have no basis in our legal system at all, and laws based on 3 others are no longer in force. The remaining 3 have nothing to do with religion.

Our legal system is based on English common law and civil law which derives from Roman law, which had its beginnings in the Twelve Tables (449 BC). In 1154 Henry II unified common law and created a court system in conflict with the Church.

I've mentioned all of this in other forums. I don't make anything up, but I see so many things being thrown around that aren't very factual I have to respond. People who say that parliamentary law was not based on religious doctrine are trying to create a false establishment that places law apart from religious influence. We take and give credit so frivolously it doesn't even matter anymore. The further away we get from history, the more we think we know about it.

0 Replies

Finally

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know