Integration of Religion into Today's Society

from PolMach Forums
More and more lately I've been noticing just how much religion- namely the Christian religion- is starting to appear in everyday life.

However, before I start I'm going to say right out that I'll be generalizing in here and saying "Christians." I do not mean all Christians, I mean that the majority of people who are stepping up and putting their religion out so that the country is forced to contend with it are Christian. You can say I'm discriminating against certain religions or being racist or whatever you want, but I realize that not all Christians are doing this, whether you want to think I do or not. But the group that is making the most pronounced and noticed proclamations is the Christian group, so that's what I'm basing most of this topic off of.

And with the disclaimer out of the way....

I am Jewish by heritage and atheist by choice- both of which are rather small in population in America. I also live in Colorado, which I believe to be one of the more Christian regions of the United States. Almost across the street from me is the Air Force Academy- I can see the chapel from my deck and the entrance is maybe three miles down the road.

In the news more and more, I've been eharing how the Academy has been trying to bring Christianty into their school and program.

Among the allegations are that cadets are frequently pressured to attend chapel and take religious instruction, particularly in the evangelical Christian faith; that prayer is a part of mandatory events at the academy; and that in at least one case a teacher ordered students to pray before beginning their final examination.


Link

This was taken from a CNN article about the Air Force Academy. Link is provided above. To include prayer as a mandatory event in the academy is, put simply, outrageous. That is a direct violation of the First Amendment, and it's just the beginning.

Many people deny that religion is being "shoved down people's throats," but right there is an example of it. The military is not supposed to require prayer as a mandatory event, and it should not be scaring off possible students because of the religious intolerance demonstrated. The military represents America in many ways- and what kind of image is that- to say that we have freedom of religion in all cases, yet you are
politics
4,126 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
"More and more lately I've been noticing just how much religion- namely the Christian religion- is starting to appear in everyday life."


I think you are confusing the norm with the exception. Religion has always been 'integrated' into society, even at the governmental level. That's why "In God We Trust" is on US currency and why our Congress starts with a prayer.

Right or wrong is up to the people to decide, but you can't pretend that this is something new. 'God' is even mentioned in the Declaration of Independance of our country.

That said, I don't think you can call this 'integration'. If anythinng it is the DE-integration of God from our society, and the resistance to such.

"And he can believe that we'll be saved by him if we believe in him too. I'm not going to say he can't believe that. But he cannot say it in public, where there are people who do not believe that and are offended by the fact that this man was telling them they'll only be "saved" if they believe in Jesus."


So, offending the princples of others is more heinous than restricting the right to express one's beleifs? Doesn't the KKK offend? Don't gay rights protestors offend? Or are you suggesting that only the religious be barred from offending?
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
I think you are confusing the norm with the exception. Religion has always been 'integrated' into society, even at the governmental level. That's why "In God We Trust" is on US currency and why our Congress starts with a prayer.

Right or wrong is up to the people to decide, but you can't pretend that this is something new. 'God' is even mentioned in the Declaration of Independance of our country.


I know. I don't agree with any of that either. I was simply listing more recent cases that were of greater extremeity. Just because these things are the norm doesn't mean they should be in there. The norm isn't necessarily the right.

So, offending the princples of others is more heinous than restricting the right to express one's beleifs? Doesn't the KKK offend? Don't gay rights protestors offend? Or are you suggesting that only the religious be barred from offending?


The KKK does offend, and should be restricted- because they impose their beliefs on other people, forcefully and violently nonetheless. Gay rights prosecutors offend, yes. And if they do something other than say "I believe that gays should have no rights," {or variations of that, etc. that's just an example, people}- and go into the field of "I believe gays should have no rights and you should believe that too-" then they need to be restricted as well. I'm not saying no one can believe what they want- but they cannot impose their bleiefs on others. Imposing your beliefs can be much more subtle than openly saying, "You should believe this too."

If you're trying to say- I'm not entirely sure I understand you completely- that there are other people who trying to impose their beliefs on you whether they may or may not be religious and that I'm suggesting only those who are imposing religious beliefs should be restricted, that's not what I'm suggesting. ...that probably made no sense.

I dont' believe that you should try to impose any of your beliefs upon other people when their beliefs are protected by right. Like, you can go ahead and say "You should wear these sneakers because they're cool," because there is no Constitutional right that says you have the right to wear whatever sneakers you want to. Thought the Ninth Amendment does say that to an extent. I think. I'm confusing myself right now. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that people should not impose on other people's Constitutional rights. The current topic is religion, not all oyur other Constitutional rights. I recognize they are there, but that's not what this thread is about.

Does this make any sense or am I rambling?

Cheers, Pads.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
"The KKK does offend, and should be restricted- because they impose their beliefs on other people, forcefully and violently nonetheless. "


You are making sense, but you and I have a different definition of imposition.

To hold a gun to someone's head and tell them to pray doesn't require religion to be an issue, you threatened them with a gun. To threaten to fire someone if they don't go to church is a crime regardless of the presence of religion in the crime. You coudl as easily, and wrongly, fire someone for having a Kerry bumpersticker on their car.

Telling someone that they should believe in Jesus doesn't forcefully impose, does it? They state a belief, and you can either accept or reject it. "forceful imposition" requires force. Since when has expression of one's beliefs been considered force?

You really think government telling me I can't express my feelings about your soul is somehow less heinous than me telling you what I think about your soul?

"I dont' believe that you should try to impose any of your beliefs upon other people when their beliefs are protected by right. "


Then all political debate should instantly cease. Unless you set a different standard for religious expression, anything that seeks to move people from a ideological stance is taboo.

If you DO set a different standard for religion, then you've limited the rights of religious people, and granted special priveledge to the non-religious.

How do you feel about people here at JU that tell me religion is ignorant superstition and is the chief cause of all the world's ills? Shoudl they be silenced, or just us religious folk?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry to seem so uppity about this, but your stance is not rare, and in places where it becomes law it is almost always used to oppress.

France has barred people from religious expression in government and public places. Even to the point of restricting dress.

People are beaten to death with waterhoses for trying to spread their religion in China. Have you read about their treatment of the Falun Gong?

This is an awfully slippery slope. All it would take would be the government to decide that 'pro-choice' is a religious stance for all pro-choice activism to be made illegal. Can't you see how that could be abused?
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
A person's rights to religion and free speech mean they do have the right to speak about their religious views if they so choose. Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. What you want is to restrict people so they can't speak about their religious views in public at all. Sorry but this is exactly what the nation's founders intended to prohibit.
It is your right to be religion-free, or to avoid having certain religious beliefs mentioned or imposed upon you.

No it isn't. You have every right to practice whatever religion or non-religion you choose, and to speak of it of you desire. There is nothing that grants you the right to prohibit others from mentioning their relgious beliefs. Quite the opposite in fact.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Carry this further.

If what you are saying is true, then should any religious television or radio shows be allowed? Should any movie or book that espouses religion be allowed? You say "...avoid having certain religious beliefs mentioned..." I'm definately not trying to portray you as a fascist or a book burner. I don't believe you are for a second.

I think you should, though, consider the fact that to open the door to this kind of oppression either oppresses us all, or chooses a particular group to descriminate against. Both are totally counter to our idea of freedom.
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
Your walking a fine line here and while you know i am absolutely against the expression of one religion over others in government, military, and taxpayer paid functions, by those who work for the government, military or taxpayers, I feel parts of your stance have gone too far.
You also know, DH, that i am against the AFA's treatment of religion preference and have been upset about the flag-folding thing since you first told me about it.
Now, as for the Boulder Boulder speaker saying what he said, I think his right to do so is protected under the the first amendment and your telling him he can't is forbidden by the same. This race was not a govenment run taxpayer-funded event and even if it was, the man who spoke was not working for the government or the military or the taxpayers and he has every right to express his beliefs. Too bad if they offend you. He is a private citizen and has every right to voice his opinion. If he were on the job for the government at the time i would be opposed to it, just as i am opposed to "in God We Trust" on my money, because i dont trust or belive in god and the "almighty" is to stay out of our representative democracy.
Do you understand what i am saying? Religion is just fine. Everyone is allowed to speak their mind in public as long as the government isn't infringing on my rights. When the government gets involved is the only time where it becomes a problem. The barring of religion is only okay in very special circumstances.

It is your right to be religion-free, or to avoid having certain religious beliefs mentioned or imposed upon you.

No it isn't. You have every right to practice whatever religion or non-religion you choose, and to speak of it of you desire. There is nothing that grants you the right to prohibit others from mentioning their relgious beliefs. Quite the opposite in fact.


true that - unless its government people imposes it.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, to be factual there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that prohibits religious expression in government either. This is a common misconception. The constitution prohibits the government from making any laws with regard to religion. It does not prohibit relgious expression in spite of what some have managed to accomplish in the way of word and thought twisting.

In fact, the Supreme Court itself is always brought into session with a statement of prayer, as is Congress.

The fact of the matter is, some people so despise religion that they attempt to force their non-religion on others primarily by trying to force removal of any and all vestiges of religion from all public view. This is just as wrong as it would be for the government to force people to join a certain church or face prison.

Some people are religious. Get over it. Some people aren't religious. Get over it.