a question of values ....

[InnaBinder]

The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 7

If the United States of America is not inherently biased to some degree toward Christianity, why was Sunday excepted by the Constitution, rather than Saturday or Friday?  Why was a day listed as excepted at all, in a state devoid of a religious slant?

Restricting the discussion to 'constitutional rights' has the appearance of a telling bias, as you could rightly say that the person who has never been allowed to take Friday off to attend Mosque by her employer, while all the Judeo-Christian workers got their traditional worship days off, represented no violation of 'constitutional rights'.  After all, the government didn't deny that employee the right to worship and attend Mosque, the employer did.

[Prime32]

The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 7

If the United States of America is not inherently biased to some degree toward Christianity, why was Sunday excepted by the Constitution, rather than Saturday or Friday?  Why was a day listed as excepted at all, in a state devoid of a religious slant?

Restricting the discussion to 'constitutional rights' has the appearance of a telling bias, as you could rightly say that the person who has never been allowed to take Friday off to attend Mosque by her employer, while all the Judeo-Christian workers got their traditional worship days off, represented no violation of 'constitutional rights'.  After all, the government didn't deny that employee the right to worship and attend Mosque, the employer did.

Pfft, that's nothing compared to some of the crazy stuff America has.

I support separation of church and state because I don't like the idea of schools teaching Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) as fact.


I dislike the idea of organised religion as a whole, because if you are just given a set of beliefs like that, do you really believe them? How many Christians eat shellfish, for instance, despite it being forbidden by the Bible? How many Christians even know eating shellfish is forbidden by the Bible?

[Alastar]

Also, the third article in the ones you posted is quite telling.  Yes charitable work should be tax exempted, but churches should have to prove they are doing charity work before being exempted.

Or else, i'm just going to start my own flying spaghetti monster chapter and have my house listed as a religious gathering place, giving me tax exemptions.  What's to prevent me from doing that?

[Tshern]

Hmmm, we are thought religion in Finland, but nothing there is taught as a fact and we go through all the major religions...

[wotmaniac]

To elaborate on what Alastar said, religion, in some cases, actively harms people.

All the money religions hoard without paying a dime in taxes, religious interest groups like the Eagle Forum trying to fight, among other things, sex education and the numerous other examples is detrimental to the society. Please don't get me wrong, I am against any and all religions I know of right now. Perhaps there is some miraculous cult I might support, but so far I haven't stumbled across any.

Please explain what/how harm has been done (and if someone brings up the god-damned crusades again, I think my head may explode).

And why are you so against them, as opposed to simply disagreeing and letting it be (the former implies a level of animosity)

On an unrelated note, I find it peculiar that wotmaniac has a signature from a utilitarian, even if the quote itself is not to my liking.

why is that so peculiar?  seriously, I'd like you to elaborate.
also, just because you may not like it doesn't mean that it isn't true (and yes, I challenge you do dispute that).

[Prime32]

I believe there was some Humanist organisation in the US who held weekly meetings and were determined to be functionally identical to a church, thus receiving the tax breaks.

Hmmm, we are thought religion in Finland, but nothing there is taught as a fact and we go through all the major religions...

We do that in secondary school (that's high school+junior high to Americans), but primary school is strictly Catholic, and Communion and Confirmation are school events. The local parish priest is also typically a member of the school board. Besides, kids that age would have trouble understanding the idea of being taught things which were not facts.

[Tshern]

Please explain what/how harm has been done (and if someone brings up the god-damned crusades again, I think my head may explode).

And why are you so against them, as opposed to simply disagreeing and letting it be (the former implies a level of animosity)

I'll help you preserve you sanity, I am not going to talk about the crusades. I am against them, because they hurt the society. Religions, as I mentioned in my previous post, are actively harming people. Evading taxes is one thing and the one that really concerns the USA is censorship. Simply, I give more value to facts that fairy tales. I would rather have the government give homeless people houses than see churches explain how a snake manipulated a woman to eat an apple from a sacred tree and so forth. Simply, they have resources they use for nothing that actually, in my mind, matters instead of helping those who need help.

On an unrelated note, I find it peculiar that wotmaniac has a signature from a utilitarian, even if the quote itself is not to my liking.
why is that so peculiar?  seriously, I'd like you to elaborate.

No probs, here it comes: Assuming you picked the signature, because you agree with the majority of the ideas of Mill's, we have some common ground. I thought that would never be found.

also, just because you may not like it doesn't mean that it isn't true (and yes, I challenge you do dispute that).

The quote begins well, I don't think war is the worst thing we have. Genocide is a lot worse, for example. However, I personally find it a lot smarter to keep out of situations that threaten my life, because I much rather continue enjoying my life than die for something I really don't believe in. War, the way understand it, is something that occurs between nations or, in rarer cases, civilizations and I am by no means willing to support the system we have now. Then again, I would defend myself if some schmuck tried to rob in the part, but that's just about it.

[Bauglir]

I have notice a war on religion that, to me, seems really out of place.  People like the ACLU and the "liberal media (this applies to all forms of media)" have gone out of their way to make sure that religion is completely scrubbed from every facet of society that is not exclusively confined to the four walls of a church building.

My view is actually rather the reverse; that of religion attempting to influence things that are not religion. The whole intelligent design thing? That's the best example I've ever seen. People who oppose teaching of intelligent design in science classes, at least the ones I have any respect for, don't do so because they necessarily think it's wrong, or that children should never under any circumstances be exposed to the idea of a Creator. They do so because it's not science, and invoking a supernatural being as the explanation for any phenomenon one can't explain immediately is the antithesis of the mode of thought children are supposed to be taught in those classes. Besides that, it seems to me that in a lot of cases the reason for trying to present alternatives to evolution is because one believes in a specific interpretation of intelligent design. That may just be my bias showing, but that reasoning is really poor. They start from the assumption that they MUST be right, so they then construct every argument around that. Reasoning from your conclusion is pretty poor technique.

And the most common and most egregious assaults are at Christianity.  Why?  Because attacking Christianity is the "in" thing to do.  Why don't they attack any other religions?  Well, not only is Christianity (by far) the most prolific religion in the U.S. (which makes this even more perplexing), but, by current standards, to take any action against any other religions is considered "cultural bigotry" (does anyone else see the double-standard?).

Actually, you've answered your own question. It's a statistical thing, more than anything else. Christianity is most prevalent, which means that any given religious nutjob is likeliest to be Christian, and the majority of well-meaning people trying to improve society (albeit through means that I, personally, consider dangerously dogmatic at best and stunningly retarded at worst) are also likely to be Christian. So basically, situations where religion attempts to impose on areas of society it has no business imposing on are likeliest to originate from Christians, at least in America. Totally agree that such a double standard is silly, but I think that while there may be some who hold it, you're overlooking the already-massive presence of Christian symbols and ideals in society; avoiding a double standard means pushing those BACK to the same level as less mainstream religions, at least from a certain perspective.

it's freedom of, not freedom from.)

Oh by the Flying Spaghetti Monster's Noodly Appendage did you really just say that. The two are synonymous, unless you mean that every religion should be mandatory; freedom from Christianity is equivalent to the freedom to choose Buddhism.

[EjoThims]

freedom from Christianity is equivalent to the freedom to choose Buddhism.

This I actually disagree with entirely.

However, it is far, far easier (and costs far, far less money) to be publicly exclusive rather than publicly inclusive.

But just because I can be atheist doesn't mean I am protected from ever hearing about Christianity, nor that I am barred from bringing up Buddhism.

Just that nothing can be imposed on me by the government, which means the possibility of it being imposed must be eliminated, meaning no favoritism. This means equal face time, and with how much there is, it's easiest to make it all equal 0.



Wotmaniac, as to why Christians are targeted so often, as Bauglir says it is often statistical. However, Christianity as a faith is honestly just silly. I would be equally against anyone seriously using the FSM to justify the things they did.

Not to mention that many practices of Christianity (especially Catholicism) in general are abhorrent to me, among them: claims of "the greater good" to justify why a supposedly all good being allows the vile acts that transpire here on Earth, the double standard of 'worshipping' a saviour while ignoring all his advice, motivating behavior with the heaven/hell reward/punishment instead of simply doing the right thing, and confession.

[Bauglir]

I actually mean that in the sense of saying that the freedom to be a Buddhist is equivalent to the freedom to not be a Christian. I'm not talking about exposure here; in that sense, I agree. Publicly run programs should have no endorsement of any religion (meaning the 10 commandments stay out of the Senate, etc.), however, that's a separate thing. Privately owned stuff, though, do whatever the hell you want. That's your right as a property owner.

[Alastar]

Though I'd put some /b/ in here real fast

http://imagechan.com/images/12f0980702d470590b1f359de4ac4b09.png

As an aside to EjoThims post, I'd like to bring your attention to the end of /b/'s oh so eloquent post.

Catholics, and some other christian sects, are kinda silly because they require their priest, majorily, and their followers, in a lesser way, to practice abstinance and poverty.  Nowhere has god, or jesus, said anything about those things.  They also never said anything about burning red haired women.  But people believe what they want to believe I guess.

this is really entertaining, and I hope the debate goes on.

[EjoThims]

I actually mean that in the sense of saying that the freedom to be a Buddhist is equivalent to the freedom to not be a Christian.

Ah, this is true. From your phrasing I thought you meant the freedom to be Buddhist is equivalent to a freedom to not be exposed to Christianity. Apologies.

Sadly there are some who think this, though most (in my personal experience) seem to be Christians thinking they are free from exposure to any other religion and pissed off atheists/agnostics thinking they are free from exposure to Christianity.

As an aside to EjoThims post, I'd like to bring your attention to the end of /b/'s oh so eloquent post.

Exactly.

[wotmaniac]

I have notice a war on religion that, to me, seems really out of place.  People like the ACLU and the "liberal media (this applies to all forms of media)" have gone out of their way to make sure that religion is completely scrubbed from every facet of society that is not exclusively confined to the four walls of a church building.

My view is actually rather the reverse; that of religion attempting to influence things that are not religion. The whole intelligent design thing? That's the best example I've ever seen. People who oppose teaching of intelligent design in science classes, at least the ones I have any respect for, don't do so because they necessarily think it's wrong, or that children should never under any circumstances be exposed to the idea of a Creator. They do so because it's not science, and invoking a supernatural being as the explanation for any phenomenon one can't explain immediately is the antithesis of the mode of thought children are supposed to be taught in those classes. Besides that, it seems to me that in a lot of cases the reason for trying to present alternatives to evolution is because one believes in a specific interpretation of intelligent design. That may just be my bias showing, but that reasoning is really poor. They start from the assumption that they MUST be right, so they then construct every argument around that. Reasoning from your conclusion is pretty poor technique.

And the most common and most egregious assaults are at Christianity.  Why?  Because attacking Christianity is the "in" thing to do.  Why don't they attack any other religions?  Well, not only is Christianity (by far) the most prolific religion in the U.S. (which makes this even more perplexing), but, by current standards, to take any action against any other religions is considered "cultural bigotry" (does anyone else see the double-standard?).

Actually, you've answered your own question. It's a statistical thing, more than anything else. Christianity is most prevalent, which means that any given religious nutjob is likeliest to be Christian, and the majority of well-meaning people trying to improve society (albeit through means that I, personally, consider dangerously dogmatic at best and stunningly retarded at worst) are also likely to be Christian. So basically, situations where religion attempts to impose on areas of society it has no business imposing on are likeliest to originate from Christians, at least in America. Totally agree that such a double standard is silly, but I think that while there may be some who hold it, you're overlooking the already-massive presence of Christian symbols and ideals in society; avoiding a double standard means pushing those BACK to the same level as less mainstream religions, at least from a certain perspective.

Yes, unfortunately, there are some religious (christian) groups that have definitely crossed the line.  I get as pissed-off as anyone when these groups go off and do their crazy shit.  My biggest frustration is the fact that these religious groups and the anti-religious groups just continue to bicker and squabble back and forth, forever trying to divide the people against themselves just to further their respective agendas -- like I said before, it's the self-perpetuating chick-and-egg scenario, and I find it very childish on both sides.

Does "intelligent design" belong in a science class?  Hell no -- like you said, there is no actual science to it.  Would it be suited for a philosophy class?  Sure; as it is a philosophy about the origin of why scientific principles work (on an epistemological level) -- but in practice, the whole concept is an end-run to continue the war against evolution theory.

it's freedom of, not freedom from.)

Oh by the Flying Spaghetti Monster's Noodly Appendage did you really just say that. The two are synonymous, unless you mean that every religion should be mandatory; freedom from Christianity is equivalent to the freedom to choose Buddhism.

[/quote]No, they are two completely different things.
Freedom of religion means that an individual is free to practice any religion that they want, or even to practice no religion at all.  (provided, of course, such practice does not infringe upon someone else's rights -- religious or otherwise)
Freedom from religion is an idea that a person would be isolated from ever being exposed to any form of religion in any way -- an idea that is just completely absurd for anyone who actually interacts with the world in any meaningful way.
___________________________________

So, let me see if I properly understand the majority consensus:
in regards to the canonical text, there is just simple disagreement
it is the minority of crazies that cause the animosity.

well, thankfully not all "christians" are like this.

[kurashu]

My reason is simple: Occam's Razor. I could believe that some all-knowing, all-powerful, all-everywhere thing created everything and instilled a soul in my for the express purpose of worshipping it -- provided I encounter some it's cult -- and going into an afterlife designed again expressly for its worship. OR I could believe this whole thing is a massive game of cosmic chance.

I suppose that also explains my nihilism and misanthropy, too.

[EjoThims]

My reason is simple: Occam's Razor.

Careful with that, though.

The simplest solution may be the most likely, but just because something is more likely does not make it fact.

After all, you are more likely to die from a heart attack than a bee sting, but people die from bee stings every year.

And wotmaniac, you seem to have missed an important part of the consensus:

People need to (and be able to) think for themselves, and the very structure of most major religious prevents that. Thus the animosity towards them from those who take such pride in thinking.

[bhu]

And here we have the self-propagating chicken-and-egg scenario.  I don't really see any laws or public policy being passed that impose any sort of religion.  I do, however, constantly see such things made against religion -- which is flat-out unconstitutional.  As I said before -- it's "freedom of religion", not "freedom from religion".

So, perhaps the answer is to simply have the unacceptable behavior be stopped; as opposed to insisting on having some sort of selfish retribution.  It's the unnecessary retribution that causes resentment.  What, do you want reparations for some telling you to believe in Jesus?  When have you ever been denied a Constitutional right because you won't toe the line of Christianity?  When have you been denied work, or food, or shelter, or freedom of movement?  I'm betting never.  In what ways have you been discriminated?  Seriously.

Run for office, say you dont believe in God, see what happens.

Apply for any job, mention you dont believe in God, and see what happens.

Saying you don't believe in God where I live is similar to saying "I kidnap small children and shit in their open mouths."

Ive never wanted reparations for people trying to force beliefs on me, I want them to respect my decision to have my own set of beliefs and shut the fuck up.  Id like to not have to kindly avoid mentioning what I believe in so I don't have to be treated with the same repulsion given criminals simply because I dont consider someone else's fantasy valid.  I would like, in short, to not have to be pointed at, mocked, or occasionally assaulted simply because someone else simply can't accept the idea that others don't believe the same things they do.  I'd like not to have to wake up in the hospital like I used to in high school where being different meant that harming or potentially even killing me was accepted because I wasn't 'normal', and my classmates were able to indulge their sociopathy while supposedly better knowing adults turned a blind eye.  

Freedom of religion does in its own way imply freedom from religion.  If one religion is dominant or has overmuch influence on the government compared to others, then those religions arent free, they're second class citizens at best.  Removing religion from public office simply levels the playing field.  Dominant religions (in this case christianity) arent afraid of being replaced by secularism.  85% of Americans or so lay claim to some religions.  They're afraid of other religions being taken as seriously as they are, because they dont want competition for peoples minds and wallets.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzTqpjSJOZc

Oh and in case you were wondering, I had been religious at one point as a young child.  A very young child.  I was obligated by my mother to attend Church until age 10.  And each week in Sunday school i was beaten 'for my own good'.  At age 10 she gave me the decision on whether or not I wanted to go back, and obviously I said no.  She was disappointed in my decision even though she knew something was happening, but for some odd fucking reason it never occurred to her a different church might have been the answer.   And of course once it became obvious that I didn't attend any Church school became a living hell.  It came to the point of both my father threatening to sue them to get the asssaults to stop, and my ripping open a fellow student in a fight to convince people to leave me in peace.  Thats why Im not religious, and why I choose to be an atheist.  Because in my experience most religious people have been hypocritical apostasists who use their supposed religious belief as an excuse or means to indulge their own mental disturbances or need for violence, whether physical or mental.  Myabe it would be different if I werent raised among lunatic rednecks.  Maybe there are some religious people who are decent individuals, but I've never met one in the flesh who was aside from the occasional pagan whose phiosophy was live and let live.  Hell even the muslims I've had to work with here have been more open minded than the christians.

[RobbyPants]

Though I'd put some /b/ in here real fast

http://imagechan.com/images/12f0980702d470590b1f359de4ac4b09.png

As an aside to EjoThims post, I'd like to bring your attention to the end of /b/'s oh so eloquent post.

Catholics, and some other christian sects, are kinda silly because they require their priest, majorily, and their followers, in a lesser way, to practice abstinance and poverty.  Nowhere has god, or jesus, said anything about those things.  They also never said anything about burning red haired women.  But people believe what they want to believe I guess.

this is really entertaining, and I hope the debate goes on.

Even as a Christian, I find that funny.  Although, that last paragraph does have a point.  If you only listen to what Jesus says, and drop everything else, it's generally a lot easier to stomach.

[Johannixx]

Though I'd put some /b/ in here real fast

http://imagechan.com/images/12f0980702d470590b1f359de4ac4b09.png

As an aside to EjoThims post, I'd like to bring your attention to the end of /b/'s oh so eloquent post.

Catholics, and some other christian sects, are kinda silly because they require their priest, majorily, and their followers, in a lesser way, to practice abstinance and poverty.  Nowhere has god, or jesus, said anything about those things.  They also never said anything about burning red haired women.  But people believe what they want to believe I guess.

this is really entertaining, and I hope the debate goes on.

Even as a Christian, I find that funny.  Although, that last paragraph does have a point.  If you only listen to what Jesus says, and drop everything else, it's generally a lot easier to stomach.

Jesus did advocate for poverty.  He said it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven.  "Give away all your possessions and follow me."  In modern times, we'd call him a cult leader, and a crackpot.

[Tshern]

Which, at least for Lutherans is just another lie, because it is enough that they just want to accept Jesus as their saviour.

[CountArioch]

Jesus was a communist.  More specifically, he was a North Korea style communist who believed that any wealth and comfort was inherently evil, and you should give it all up and prepare for his return, which literally was supposed to be within a few years of his death and didn't happen.  Assuming he existed, there's literally no records of him existing or of his execution.  Which is odd because the Romans did in fact record such things.

There are stories in the new testament of people who didn't give all their wealth to the church and dropping dead when the priest confronted them with that fact.  The idea was that everything was supposed to go to the church.