Religions

[Comy]

The professor is getting too much credit here because I didn't explain the situation. It was a history of the English language class and she decided to read some sort of prayer in Old English because "everyone knows it." When some of us didn't, she suggested that it was culturally necessary for us to be aware of her religion and have this prayer memorized.

I can be aware that religion motivates people and even ways in which it does without knowing all the details of their mythology.

[gejyspa]

Ah! That's different -- I assume here we're talking of the "Lord's Prayer" ("Our father who art in Heaven, " etc.) And yeah, I agree. That's a little bit close to the line of "should have familiarity with". I can quote it, from memory, (in a couple of different variants) although it is alien to me, again from TV shows and such, but I don't necessarily think it's "necessary" to be familiar with it. (And if it is something else, like the Catholic "Hail Mary", I'd be lost after the first five words...)

[Henkie]

Religion is fine. Implementing religion is where it always goes wrong...

Do it quietly, be satisfied with your own religion and don't bother others.

It's the only way to keep it on the good side.

[RedQueen.exe]

Yeah, that's over the line. There's no reason that had to picked over anything else from the sounds of it, and that doesn't pertain to regional history. That sounds like thinly-veiled proselytization.

There are times where a teacher bringing up religion during class is appropriate, but those would be pretty much limited to discussions of particular times in history class. Anything beyond that is usually someone pushing the line of the establishment clause.

On that note, it really bothers me how many people believe the myth that the current judicial interpretation of the first amendment means that you can't pray or mention God in school, etc. You just can't have a public school teacher do it during school hours, because they are acting as a government official and it is an implicit endorsement by the government of a particular religion over others.

If one of the students chooses to mention their faith in an open discussion, base an assigned project around it, etc, it is fine as long as they were not led that way by a teacher. Also, it is perfectly fine for a teacher to engage in religious activities, lead prayer, etc. on school grounds as long as it is not during school hours and preferential treatment isn't given to one group over others. One of the teachers at my school organized the FCA (Fellowship of Christian Athletes) at my school, and nobody except maybe a few isolated cases are trying to take those freedoms away from you, no matter what your opinion pieces / talk radio tell you.

[Comy]

That drives me absolutely up the wall, RQ. It seems like some people think their kids will be drawn and quartered for being religious in school. Sometimes I think people just like to believe they're being persecuted.

On an entirely unrelated note: I can't stop thinking about bread. Not eating it, because that's very difficult, but just making it. All my youtube recommendations pertain to bread baking in some fashion and I'm pretty sure there's always dough under my fingernails or flour on my clothes. There's definitely always 5+ tabs open in Chrome and maybe a few in Firefox that are about bread. I think I have a problem.

ETA since I can't delete or edit any of my other posts: A discussion of an incident that involved religion does not a religious discussion make, any more than people making prayer requests are discussing religion. This forum is ridiculous.

[Snickie]

Supposedly there was a group of people who was trying to ban religion completely (that means students) from school because "when the kids gather to pray then it's forcing other kids to be exposed to it," which I think is bull.

[Henkie]

Supposedly there was a group of people who was trying to ban religion completely (that means students) from school because "when the kids gather to pray then it's forcing other kids to be exposed to it," which I think is bull.

Completely bull I would, however, motivate them to abolish it the moment they try convince others to join their faith.

[curious]

Strange how it's not okay to try and convince people of the merits of a religious belief, but perfectly okay to try and convince people not to listen to them..?

[Andu]

So does the soul always "long to be with its creator", even if a person doesn't belive in a creator , or just in the afterlife? Would that imply that the all people/creature subconsciously "longs to be with its creator"?


Also, thread necro so religion-rants can be redirected here. And I used citations marks to distinguish what I borrowed.

[Andu]

Strange how it's not okay to try and convince people of the merits of a religious belief, but perfectly okay to try and convince people not to listen to them..?

Do you mean in general, or as it's most often presented, okay to try and convince people not to listen to other people's religious beliefs?

[Doug R.]

I personally think that atheism is a religious persuasion, which in my mind makes atheists that try to advance atheism and condemn people who try to advance religion hypocrites. There's a reason why I don't get involved in, or even read these threads dealing with this issue, because I'm always terribly annoyed. I can't prove my God exists. They can't prove he doesn't. Their arguments are just as baseless as a believer's. Stop the hypocrisy.

[Ronja Rotschopf]

There's a reason why I don't get involved in, or even read these threads dealing with this issue, because I'm always terribly annoyed.

That's the reason why I would appreciate if the discussion would get continued on threads dealing with this issue and not here. Thanks

[Andu]

Prove that I don't have ufo in my backyard. From my perspective, it's obvious that the burden is of proof is on you. I have my own definition of the word, which differences from yours, and have different memories, feelings and thoughts attached to it. Just a thought.

And to share my thoughtss on your comment, I think all people are hypocrites, in a sense or other. What makes people not too aware of it is that we think any given case is special for us, in a nonspecial way.


Almost unrelated:
"Do you like reciving blowjobs?"
"Yes, of course."
"Well then, do you like giving them?"
"No!"

"Then you're a hypocrite!"

[Doug R.]

If I'm not out evangelizing and trying to convert others, and I'm minding my own business, then I need not prove anything. If you tell me that my beliefs are wrong, then the burden of proof is on you.

[Chris]

I am glad to live in a pluralistic society in which diverse faiths (and lack of faith) coexist more or less peacefully. This is possible when government is neutral with respect to religion (or lack of it). This legal doctrine means that if a public school allows, say, a Presbyterian prayer group to use school facilities for meetings, other religious and nonreligious groups would have equal access. I think that sometimes it's taken too far, as in the Christmas displays that use Jewish and secular symbols to pass the neutrality test, but overall the legal doctrine is a great thing that protects us all.

I am happy to let others have their private beliefs. However, things like teacher-led prayer in public school — an agenda item for many right-wing candidates — is a threat to a neutral government. I find it absurd that advocates of Christian dominion claim that Christianity is persecuted in the US. Of course, any group can point to instances of prejudice and discrimination, but overall it is much easier to be a Christian in the US than it is to belong to any other religion or none at all.