Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion

[AGBF]

I am sorry that it took me longer to start this thread than I planned. The telephone kept ringing! Trust real life to interrupt cyber life every time something on the Internet really interests you!

I wanted to start this thread with a quotation from JaneSmith. She wrote some things, addressed to one forum member, in a Hangout thread that piqued my interest.

JaneSmith » 28 Oct 2014 11:33:

"...you are clearly a Christian who is upset and offended by a joke made at the expense of a specific part of your mythology, that Mary, mother of Jesus, was a virgin when she gave birth.

I understand that the stories told in the bible are held to be true and sacred by many. I also understand that when someone comes along and suggests it might not be true, it can cut to the bone. These beliefs are part of who you are as a person, and it can feel like a personal attack.

I'm truly sorry you are feeling badly about this.

You must realise, however, that using hurt feelings to keep religion sacred is a silencing tactic. Remember when much of the Muslim world rioted because their feelings were hurt by a cartoon? There must be freedom to speak and question.

Likening parthenogenesis to the virgin birth is a funny comparison, because it is science bumping up against faith.

I wrote my piece earlier to express my position on the topic of freedom of thought and speech, not to defend anyone else. And that freedom of inquiry of course includes questioning atheism. I never said otherwise and you are grossly misinterpreting if you got that from my words. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want. They do not have the right to demand respect for those beliefs nor do they have the right to not be offended.

...​

"

I, personally, am a huge proponent of science. I am vehemently against the teaching of "creationism" as an equal to evolution as if it were a science in the public schools of my country (the US). I believe in evolution. I do not take the Bible literally.

However, I believe that privately run Protestant church schools should have the right to teach creationism and to teach that the Bible is the literal truth of God. I believe that privately run Roman Catholic schools should have the right to teach intercessionist prayers like the "Hail, Mary" or other prayers to saints asking them them to intercede with God, since it is the belief of Roman Catholics that saints have the power to do that. This is so because, as an American, I believe in freedom of religion...and freedom from religion as well. I am against prayer in public places. I am against the display of crosses on public grounds.

A local firehouse in an Italian part of our town always had a cross in lights at Christmas. It always irked me. Finally there was protest and the cross was taken down. The neighbors were incensed and, in protest, put crosses up everywhere in the neighborhood all over their lawns. It was as if they were saying, "Take that, you heathens! We'll show you! We'll give you crosses! You can't take our cross away from us!"

And the crosses made me happy.

They were where-in my opinion-they belonged.

People have a right to celebrate their religion. They have a right to be free to have crosses and not to be disturbed in the celebration of their faith. Not to be intimidated or mocked or slighted.

But they do not have the right to push their religion on others...i.e.to put them into a shared (public) area.

That's just my first thought on things. Please respond!!!

Deb/AGBF

 

[chrono]

I wish I have something as insightful to add other than "I agree with Deb". I feel that since the USA is based on religious freedom, it should not be pushed at public/government functions, public/government events, public/government offices, etc. However, the people have the right to anything religion related at their places of worship and at private venues.

I've always wondered about the text "in God we trust" on the back of every US dollar bill and how that does not seem fit in with the stated freedom to practice whatever religion the people want or no religion at all.

 

[missy]

Like Chrono I wish I had something more meaningful to add besides I agree with all the above posters but so far I do agree with all the above posters.

Religion serves an important role for so many people. It gives them something bigger than themselves and their family to believe in and hold on to especially during times of adversity and strife and for that reason it is critical. I would never mock anyone for believing in something I might not believe. That would make me a lesser person in every way and I don't understand why all people just cannot live and let live with regards to personal beliefs and faith.

Freedom of religion is an important commitment and truly essential to who we are as a country IMO though our track record is less than stellar. The government has no place in the topic of religion except to protect religious freedom. A secular government whose legislators should never rule on the legality of theological views. Religion should have no part in government and government should have no part in religion.

I am a spiritual person and believe in a higher being but I am not religious for the main reason that I believe in many cases religions serve to separate people rather than bring them together. People of different religions that is. Correct me if I am wrong but don't many religions preach they are the best religion? Don't many religions teach they are superior to other religions in some way or other? Nevertheless I support one's right to believe in what/whom they want to as long as they don't push it on me or others.

Freedom of speech is also essential whether one agrees with the specific message or not. Who said I may not agree with what you are saying but I will support to my death your right to say it...that pretty much sums up my thoughts on the topic. As long as you say it peacefully without causing harm to others I support your right no matter how foul the message. Freedom of speech is a crucial right in that it keeps government in check as much as possible at least.


I also agree we are way too sensitive on the topic of religion but that is the problem we caused ourselves IMO being so over the top PC about everything. Not necessarily a bad thing. It's civilized and polite to be sensitive to others and their beliefs but we do go OTT occasionally to the extreme and because of that we are conditioned to be overly sensitive when the extreme PC is not followed.

We all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't we so believe what you wish but leave me the heck alone. That is be free to do what you want as long as your actions don't infringe upon my rights and the rights of others. Why is that so hard to do?

 

[ksinger]

"...I, personally, am a huge proponent of science. I am vehemently against the teaching of "creationism" as an equal to evolution as if it were a science in the public schools of my country (the US). I believe in evolution. I do not take the Bible literally.

However, I believe that privately run Protestant church schools should have the right to teach creationism and to teach that the Bible is the literal truth of God."

Which is precisely why the dismantling of the public schools that is going on all over the country, is so distressing. As more and more people retreat from any individuals and groups who don't agree with them lock, stock, and barrel, and remove their children from that "shared public area" - ie, the public schools, you see the always very fragile shared culture, begin to fray. Badly.

Too many private religious schools (generally the small ones), and homeschools, are being allowed to indoctrinate their children without anything to counterbalance it and with zero oversight, which serves them pretty ill when they finally go out into the melting-pot world where people have jobs that require real science, or dealing with people who disagree with everything they've been taught as dogma.

Some privates are very good, and some are pathetic, and most are in a gray area (by state) along with homeschooling. I know Oklahoma has some of THE most lax laws in the country pertaining to homeschooling. Which is really ironic because statistically, we are also one of the most poorly educated states in the country. Here is a recent article about the darker side of religiously motivated homeschooling.
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/10/how_christian_fundamentalist_homeschooling_damages_children_partner/

Personally, I think that teaching your kids that the bible is the inerrant word of God while shielding them from a whole big world out there with different ideas, or teaching creationism in lieu of standard biology/evolution, can border on almost abusive, AND it reduces our educational standing still further in the world. I'll never forget the debate given at a local church over a "disclaimer" that some religious groups were trying to get slapped into the state biology texts: you know, "teach the controversy". During the question and answer, one high school kid got up and said, "I want to go into biology, but I know it will probably destroy my faith, so I won't." Pretty much sums up the sad state of many of the religious just scared s***less of learning something that might challenge dogma. Pitiful. Happily, in the end, the disclaimer did not fly, since the only controversy about evolution in biology is in the sanctuary, not the labs.

I would ask you Deb, since removing your kid from the messy public world based on religious reasons, and then teaching them creationism is OK in your book, is teaching eugenics OK? Or giving a classroom biblical support for slavery? Or not mixing the races? Or that homosexuality is evil? Should students in parochial schools be required to pass the same standardized tests as public students? How much oversight should states have to make sure that children are not being taught that the earth is flat or that women are inferior to men? Where does the state's interest in making sure a child is adequately educated by certain standards (like public schools), bump up against the supposed religious right of parents to teach their children ONLY what they deem fit?

 

[chrono]

I would ask you Deb, since removing your kid from the messy public world based on religious reasons, and then teaching them creationism is OK in your book, is teaching eugenics OK? Or giving a classroom biblical support for slavery? Or not mixing the races? Or that homosexuality is evil? Should students in parochial schools be required to pass the same standardized tests as public students? How much oversight should states have to make sure that children are not being taught that the earth is flat or that women are inferior to men? Where does the state's interest in making sure a child is adequately educated by certain standards (like public schools), bump up against the supposed religious right of parents to teach their children ONLY what they deem fit?

Not Deb, but you bring up interesting points that started me thinking more deeply about these issues. What I can answer without a doubt in my mind is that parochial schools should be required to pass the same standardized tests as public students to make sure that all graduating students (public and private) have achieved at least a certain standard of proficiency.

 

[Karl_K]

Personally I am sick of people on both sides using their freedom of speech and freedom of religion to attack others freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
I am also tired of bashing is bad well except for smokers, gun owners, over weight people and religion then its ok.
Some people are so hypocritical it makes me sick. (no I am not talking about anyone on PS)

 

[Ella]

Ladies I suggest you eliminate the profanity and attacking or politics will soon be a thing of the past. Again.

I have already removed posts from this thread, please do not make me do it again.

A reminder that that religion bashing or fighting is also prohibited. Keep it clean so we can keep this going.

 

[AGBF]

I was out all morning, so I don't know what was discussed that displeased Ella, although I know that it was discussed too roughly. Meanwhile I have been mulling over Karen's ideas on the problems with a failure to hold private school or home schooled children to strict standards. I did read the article she suggested. It was interesting (to me) but dealt far more with home schooled children than with private schools.

I have to admit to a lack of knowledge about to what standards faith based schools must adhere, but am pretty sure that the rules vary from state to state. I taught at two independent schools (neither of them faith based) in two different states and I know that at least in one (Connecticut) the investigating body that certified independent school had extremely rigorous standards. Our school was examined every so many years (every 2? every 3? every 5?). I recall it being a major concern of the administration and the concern being passed on to the faculty. And we were a superb school, our handful of high school graduates going on to good colleges, including Ivy league schools!

I admit that there is a problem. Children have a right to an education and people also have a right to freedom of religion. I am still thinking about this. I do think Karen raised a good point.

Deb/AGBF

 

[JaneSmith]

I am on a busy streak but wanted to leave this here.

 

[missy]

I am on a busy streak but wanted to leave this here.

Yes and that is why a secular government is really the only (good) choice to preserve both freedoms. As I wrote previously the government has no place in the topic of religion except to protect religious freedom.

 

[chrono]

Jane,
Who wrote that? I cannot agree with it more. Secular-ism doesn't mean getting rid of religion everywhere, it means protecting everyone's choice or religion or lack-of by keeping our Government neutral.

 

[AGBF]

I visited the website of the Center for Inquiry in an attempt to get another copy of the quotation about secularism that JaneSmith had posted since I found hers impossible to copy and very hard to read as well given that it is so small. I had no luck. So I am typing a couple of sentences with which to make the point I hope to make. These are central to the proclamation JaneSmith posted.

"But when we talk about 'secularism' as a social movement we're talking about working to keep faith-based ideas, superstition and religious ideology out of public life. This doesn't necessarily mean evangelizing for atheism, but it does mean recognizing that people's rights are best protected, government is most fair, and policy is best-formed when religion and myth are not in the picture."

Unlike missy and Chrono, I find the proclamation offensive. I very much believe in the separation of Church and State. Like Chrono, since I was a child I wondered if "In God we Trust" should even be on our coins. I thought that swearing on a Bible in court was a volation of the separation of Church and State, too.

However, I must say that I agree much more with how the Founding fathers handled their wording in the documents with which our country was founded than I do with the wording of this "document".

When The Center for Inquiry states it will serve everyone to get "superstition and religious ideology out of public life" I sense a tremendous hostility towards people with religious beliefs, not the tolerance that I believe this country was founded on and must remain based upon if we are to treat each other with respect. I have posted it before, but I was once in training to be a historian. Not only are atheists around the world killed. (I looked through the Center for Inquiry website.) People through the ages have killed each other over religious differences. Right before the United States was founded it was Catholics killing Lutherans and Lutherans killing Calvinists and Catholics in Europe that helped to push our ancestors to want religious freedom. But there are still sects of Islam slaughtering each other. And those are not the only religious disputes in the world.The Center for Inquiry will not stop that. But they can be another voice for tolerance here in the United States rather than a voice for intolerance.

Deb/AGBF

 

[packrat]

Personally I am sick of people on both sides using their freedom of speech and freedom of religion to attack others freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
I am also tired of bashing is bad well except for smokers, gun owners, over weight people and religion then its ok.
Some people are so hypocritical it makes me sick. (no I am not talking about anyone on PS)

Thank you.

 

[Karl_K]

Deb,
Think about this hypothetical: A group of people decide playing the violin is bad for kids because they don't want to hear it and tell you that you can not teach it to your daughter.

What is your reaction?

 

[AGBF]

Deb,

Think about this hypothetical: A group of people decide playing the violin is bad for kids because they don't want to hear it and tell you that you can not teach it to your daughter.

What is your reaction?

I would dislike that. But I am dense, Karl. What is your point? Please talk to me, here. I understand the metaphor, but I honestly do not know at whom your point is directed. I mean, which people are saying that someone cannot teach his child something?

Deb

 

[Karl_K]

Deb,

Think about this hypothetical: A group of people decide playing the violin is bad for kids because they don't want to hear it and tell you that you can not teach it to your daughter.

What is your reaction?

I would dislike that. But I am dense, Karl. What is your point? Please talk to me, here. I understand the metaphor, but I honestly do not know at whom your point is directed. I mean, which people are saying that someone cannot teach his child something?

Deb

Above you said you were going to think about the schooling issue so I framed it a little different by taking religion out of it.
"Children have a right to an education and people also have a right to freedom of religion. I am still thinking about this."

 

[AGBF]

Think about this hypothetical: A group of people decide playing the violin is bad for kids because they don't want to hear it and tell you that you can not teach it to your daughter.

What is your reaction?

I would dislike that. But I am dense, Karl. What is your point? Please talk to me, here. I understand the metaphor, but I honestly do not know at whom your point is directed. I mean, which people are saying that someone cannot teach his child something?

Above you said you were going to think about the schooling issue so I framed it a little different by taking religion out of it.
"Children have a right to an education and people also have a right to freedom of religion. I am still thinking about this."

I have been thinking about this matter. I didn't want to be too hasty in answering. In the middle of the night last night I had to get up for the dog and I thought about some of the things I wanted to teach my daughter that were not going to be taught to her by a school, either because they were not offered at all or they were not offered at the age I wanted to teach them or they were not offered at the intensity I wanted to teach them.

In each case, I found a way to take care of them outside of the school system, but my daughter (except for 1 1/2 years when she tried to escape bullying, when in reality she was dealing with mental health issues, she went to an independent school), dealt with a public school curriculum. There was no public pre-school, so we had to pay to send her to a three year-old and four year-old program. But from kindergarten up she was in public school and before and during that time I supplemented her education.

And there were things I wanted to teach her that the public schools did not. For one thing, I wanted her to be bilingual. We had found out from a friend in Japan (who send us materials from the Netherlands) that the best way to raise a bilingual child when two parents had different native languages was for each parent to speak to the child solely in his own language. My husband's native language is Italian and he speaks it well. It is not as if he speaks some broken Italian. He has an Italian university degree in classical literature, so he speaks perfect Italian. He did not come to the United States until after college. But my husband, wanting to be all American, refuses to speak Italian (except to his sister). So I had to fall back on French as a (very poor) second for a second language for our daughter. I won't go into all the details, but from the time she was four months old, I used the European system in which a child is "walked" by someone who speaks a different language and exposed her to French. In our case I took Whitney once weekly-and when she was slightly older twice weekly-to the home a woman with whom I had taught school. The woman was my friend and a retired French teacher. She was a Belgian native with perfect French and a perfect accent (unlike me). When I was there with the baby, we spoke only French. I brought French books for babies and she played with her toys, as an older child cooked applesauce, and generally grew up with Germaine as another grandmother.

Whitney also took ballet, music for children, and Gymboree before she started school. When she first started school, she tool piano lessons outside of school. I am sure I am forgetting many things I took her to.

then when the public schools began to offer "Befores" and "Afters" there were choices of short "classes". She took both French and Spanish as little extra-curricular activities in elementary school. (No foreign language was then offered in elementary schools here although it now is.) When a string instrument with group lessons was offered in third grade she took up cello. When a band instrument was offered in a group lesson in fourth grade she added clarinet. And so on.

At home we taught Whitney a lot more grammar than most children knew. Simply because it mattered to us. It matters to her now because it mattered to us as she grew up. She has an enormous vocabulary and is always looking up words. (Of course she does not read, but that is another story.)

I guess my point is that no one kept me from teaching my child anything I wanted. I do not believe that there is anyone who who keeps parents from reinforcing their children's education with whatever they want. Naturally that would include religious education, which you did not want to mention in your metaphor.

Deb/AGBF

 

[Matata]

Interesting piece about christians mobilizing voters to take back their religious freedom. I think they already have too much freedom and influence in American politics. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/evangelical-hobby-lobby-duck-dynasty-election

 

[LaraOnline]

Pope Francis says evolution and Big Bang theories are real; God isn’t ‘a magician with a magic wand’

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/pope-francis-says-evolution-and-big-bang-theories-are-real-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand/story-fnh81p7g-1227105448535

 

[ksinger]

I visited the website of the Center for Inquiry in an attempt to get another copy of the quotation about secularism that JaneSmith had posted since I found hers impossible to copy and very hard to read as well given that it is so small. I had no luck. So I am typing a couple of sentences with which to make the point I hope to make. These are central to the proclamation JaneSmith posted.

"But when we talk about 'secularism' as a social movement we're talking about working to keep faith-based ideas, superstition and religious ideology out of public life. This doesn't necessarily mean evangelizing for atheism, but it does mean recognizing that people's rights are best protected, government is most fair, and policy is best-formed when religion and myth are not in the picture."

Unlike missy and Chrono, I find the proclamation offensive. I very much believe in the separation of Church and State. Like Chrono, since I was a child I wondered if "In God we Trust" should even be on our coins. I thought that swearing on a Bible in court was a volation of the separation of Church and State, too.

However, I must say that I agree much more with how the Founding fathers handled their wording in the documents with which our country was founded than I do with the wording of this "document".

When The Center for Inquiry states it will serve everyone to get "superstition and religious ideology out of public life" I sense a tremendous hostility towards people with religious beliefs, not the tolerance that I believe this country was founded on and must remain based upon if we are to treat each other with respect. I have posted it before, but I was once in training to be a historian. Not only are atheists around the world killed. (I looked through the Center for Inquiry website.) People through the ages have killed each other over religious differences. Right before the United States was founded it was Catholics killing Lutherans and Lutherans killing Calvinists and Catholics in Europe that helped to push our ancestors to want religious freedom. But there are still sects of Islam slaughtering each other. And those are not the only religious disputes in the world.The Center for Inquiry will not stop that. But they can be another voice for tolerance here in the United States rather than a voice for intolerance.

Deb/AGBF

When The Center for Inquiry states it will serve everyone to get "superstition and religious ideology out of public life" I sense a tremendous hostility towards people with religious beliefs, not the tolerance that I believe this country was founded on"
Deb/AGBF

Deb, the fact that for pretty much the first time in our history, atheists and those who are simply uncomfortable with religion running the show for everyone, are daring to coming out of the closet a bit and flex a bit of "hey, I have a right to have different ideas", does not mean that anything that they say that isn't deemed properly deferential to religion, is automatically "hostile towards people with religious beliefs". Just like the observations of blacks speaking out that racism isn't dead, or women pointing out that misogyny is still rampant, you can't level the criticism that people who are atheists or who simply prefer secularism informing public policy, are hostile, any more than you can say blacks are hostile to whites or women hate men, simply because they point out some unpleasant facts or disagree with certain positions of those groups as directly affect themselves. To say that the statement "get "superstition and religious ideology out of public life", shows "tremendous hostility", is extrapolating way too much from a single phrase. People can get prickly all they want, and start whinging that such as statement is derogatory (which quite a few people do these days with just about anything they don't agree with: it's a conversation killer for sure), but those are probably the very same people who would immediately dismiss the idea that they should stone their children for back talking their parents (as is prescribed in the Old Testament) and who would very likely not approve of that "religious ideology" prescribing legal actions against children, to name but a few of the scriptural injunctions that they ignore. MOST Christians I am friends with freely admit that there is much in the scriptures that they consider outdated or flat out wrong and don't bother with, and that using ideas that THEY consider wrong as a basis of laws that affect everyone is not something they would support, so why is it wrong then, for someone outside the fold to make that same observation? Apply the same yardstick when you judge.

About atheists (since they keep coming up over and over)....First of all, the most reliable estimates (asking a properly worded question to get meaningful answers on the subject is surprisingly difficult) of how many there are in the US, have the number somewhere between 3 to 5 percent. This is important to know when people act as if there is some giant movement of atheists being organized and hating on the poor religious folks. No. Aside from a couple of gratingly vocal and attention-pig people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, most atheists just...live, and usually in the closet, because saying outright that you subscribe to no beliefs or don't believe in God, usually gets some surprisingly hostile responses from people you thought were your friends and knew you well enough to give you the benefit of the doubt. I personally have experienced this, with a Catholic friend of mine stating that because I didn't believe in god, that I was rebellious, arrogant, and thought I was better than everyone else. I was taken aback to say the least. He believed that because I did not believe like HIM, I was not just wrong, I was officially a bad, arrogant person. Another time I was chatting at a favorite pub with a youngish guy. The discussion ranged wide, and we ended up talking about death. I pointed out that my experience of my mother's death had moved me AWAY from belief and religion. He proceeded to condescendingly try to convince me that I just hadn't thought about it enough, and when I did I'd come back to religion because I NEEDED to believe something about death and a creator. It was a perfect storm of arrogant male youth, certain of his rightness about a supposed supernatural, mansplaining to a woman old enough to be his mother, that she just didn't get it yet, but would. As my husband would say about my rather sharp response, "That tack didn't work out so well for him."

For the record, I'm not sure what I am. At one time I believed in something...supernatural, but as I've gotten older and experienced life, I've gotten more exacting in what I expect, of others and myself. So I've admitted finally to MYSELF, that all my beliefs were subjective and unprovable, and while I might find them attractive (I mean, who would not love to believe that when we die physically, that something of our selves lives on?) I have ZERO proof that they are correct, just as someone with a different flavor of supernatural belief also has zero proof. At that point it becomes a pissing match of unprovable ideas (to my way of thinking), so I pretty much walked away from such beliefs. If I can't prove mine, and you can't prove yours, it is discarded as irrelevant. So call me an agnostic leaning atheist? Whatever it is, I have very little emotional connection to any label I might suggest be applied to me simply for the sake of convenience. I believe it's possible there might be..something..I cannot apprehend, but anything I might posit about it is subjective, and actual proof is in extremely short supply. So these days I stick to evidence.

To get away from the personal though, and back to the general, and religions being pushed on others in the public sphere, the reason that people like me view religion driving policy (as in the schools as we've been discussing somewhat) as such a scary thing, is demonstrated quite well with what happened with Kitzmiller v. Dover in 2005. This one is HIGHLY worth your time. I read the entire case, all 139 pages of it, back in the day, AND watched the later NOVA on the case. If anyone needs to understand how non-science should not be in the science classroom, this is THE case to read. Fascinating and informative and very juicy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Or this just hot off the presses - a school board - at the behest of a religious group - is literally ripping pages out of biology text because it is does not "show “an affirmative preference to childbirth and adoption as options to abortion”.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/brahm-resnik/2014/10/29/12news-gilbert-school-board-remove-page-biology-book-abortion/18126635/

Or the Supreme Court ruling that not only are corporations people, now a corporation can have a religious conscience. Or the way that secular non-profits are made to jump through time-consuming and costly hoops to get their tax exempt status, while churches and religious non-profits bypass most all of that AND are not required to reveal much in the way of finances, all supposedly because to do so would interfere with or impede their churchly "mission". I suppose their benefit to the public is more...benefit-y than a secular group's benefit would be? In my opinion, this is a perfect example of supernatural belief being given preference over people who may actually be doing the very same good works for society, but have no stated supernatural beliefs or church type structure.


Anyway, just a few examples of things that alarm me...

 

[Matata]

Deb, the fact that for pretty much the first time in our history, atheists and those who are simply uncomfortable with religion running the show for everyone, are daring to coming out of the closet a bit and flex a bit of "hey, I have a right to have different ideas", does not mean that anything that they say that isn't deemed properly deferential to religion, is automatically "hostile towards people with religious beliefs". Just like the observations of blacks speaking out that racism isn't dead, or women pointing out that misogyny is still rampant, you can't level the criticism that people who are atheists or who simply prefer secularism informing public policy, are hostile, any more than you can say blacks are hostile to whites or women hate men, simply because they point out some unpleasant facts or disagree with certain positions of those groups as directly affect themselves. To say that the statement "get "superstition and religious ideology out of public life", shows "tremendous hostility", is extrapolating way too much from a single phrase. People can get prickly all they want, and start whinging that such as statement is derogatory (which quite a few people do these days with just about anything they don't agree with: it's a conversation killer for sure), but those are probably the very same people who would immediately dismiss the idea that they should stone their children for back talking their parents (as is prescribed in the Old Testament) and who would very likely not approve of that "religious ideology" prescribing legal actions against children, to name but a few of the scriptural injunctions that they ignore. MOST Christians I am friends with freely admit that there is much in the scriptures that they consider outdated or flat out wrong and don't bother with, and that using ideas that THEY consider wrong as a basis of laws that affect everyone is not something they would support, so why is it wrong then, for someone outside the fold to make that same observation? Apply the same yardstick when you judge.

About atheists (since they keep coming up over and over)....First of all, the most reliable estimates (asking a properly worded question to get meaningful answers on the subject is surprisingly difficult) of how many there are in the US, have the number somewhere between 3 to 5 percent. This is important to know when people act as if there is some giant movement of atheists being organized and hating on the poor religious folks. No. Aside from a couple of gratingly vocal and attention-pig people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, most atheists just...live, and usually in the closet, because saying outright that you subscribe to no beliefs or don't believe in God, usually gets some surprisingly hostile responses from people you thought were your friends and knew you well enough to give you the benefit of the doubt. I personally have experienced this, with a Catholic friend of mine stating that because I didn't believe in god, that I was rebellious, arrogant, and thought I was better than everyone else. I was taken aback to say the least. He believed that because I did not believe like HIM, I was not just wrong, I was officially a bad, arrogant person. Another time I was chatting at a favorite pub with a youngish guy. The discussion ranged wide, and we ended up talking about death. I pointed out that my experience of my mother's death had moved me AWAY from belief and religion. He proceeded to condescendingly try to convince me that I just hadn't thought about it enough, and when I did I'd come back to religion because I NEEDED to believe something about death and a creator. It was a perfect storm of arrogant male youth, certain of his rightness about a supposed supernatural, mansplaining to a woman old enough to be his mother, that she just didn't get it yet, but would. As my husband would say about my rather sharp response, "That tack didn't work out so well for him."

For the record, I'm not sure what I am. At one time I believed in something...supernatural, but as I've gotten older and experienced life, I've gotten more exacting in what I expect, of others and myself. So I've admitted finally to MYSELF, that all my beliefs were subjective and unprovable, and while I might find them attractive (I mean, who would not love to believe that when we die physically, that something of our selves lives on?) I have ZERO proof that they are correct, just as someone with a different flavor of supernatural belief also has zero proof. At that point it becomes a pissing match of unprovable ideas (to my way of thinking), so I pretty much walked away from such beliefs. If I can't prove mine, and you can't prove yours, it is discarded as irrelevant. So call me an agnostic leaning atheist? Whatever it is, I have very little emotional connection to any label I might suggest be applied to me simply for the sake of convenience. I believe it's possible there might be..something..I cannot apprehend, but anything I might posit about it is subjective, and actual proof is in extremely short supply. So these days I stick to evidence.

To get away from the personal though, and back to the general, and religions being pushed on others in the public sphere, the reason that people like me view religion driving policy (as in the schools as we've been discussing somewhat) as such a scary thing, is demonstrated quite well with what happened with Kitzmiller v. Dover in 2005. This one is HIGHLY worth your time. I read the entire case, all 139 pages of it, back in the day, AND watched the later NOVA on the case. If anyone needs to understand how non-science should not be in the science classroom, this is THE case to read. Fascinating and informative and very juicy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Or this just hot off the presses - a school board - at the behest of a religious group - is literally ripping pages out of biology text because it is does not "show “an affirmative preference to childbirth and adoption as options to abortion”.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/brahm-resnik/2014/10/29/12news-gilbert-school-board-remove-page-biology-book-abortion/18126635/

Or the Supreme Court ruling that not only are corporations people, now a corporation can have a religious conscience. Or the way that secular non-profits are made to jump through time-consuming and costly hoops to get their tax exempt status, while churches and religious non-profits bypass most all of that AND are not required to reveal much in the way of finances, all supposedly because to do so would interfere with or impede their churchly "mission". I suppose their benefit to the public is more...benefit-y than a secular group's benefit would be? In my opinion, this is a perfect example of supernatural belief being given preference over people who may actually be doing the very same good works for society, but have no stated supernatural beliefs or church type structure.

Anyway, just a few examples of things that alarm me...

You took my breath away with your reply. I've been sitting here for a day trying to articulate those thoughts in a cogent way and failed. Thank you.

 

[movie zombie]

Deb, the fact that for pretty much the first time in our history, atheists and those who are simply uncomfortable with religion running the show for everyone, are daring to coming out of the closet a bit and flex a bit of "hey, I have a right to have different ideas", does not mean that anything that they say that isn't deemed properly deferential to religion, is automatically "hostile towards people with religious beliefs". Just like the observations of blacks speaking out that racism isn't dead, or women pointing out that misogyny is still rampant, you can't level the criticism that people who are atheists or who simply prefer secularism informing public policy, are hostile, any more than you can say blacks are hostile to whites or women hate men, simply because they point out some unpleasant facts or disagree with certain positions of those groups as directly affect themselves. To say that the statement "get "superstition and religious ideology out of public life", shows "tremendous hostility", is extrapolating way too much from a single phrase. People can get prickly all they want, and start whinging that such as statement is derogatory (which quite a few people do these days with just about anything they don't agree with: it's a conversation killer for sure), but those are probably the very same people who would immediately dismiss the idea that they should stone their children for back talking their parents (as is prescribed in the Old Testament) and who would very likely not approve of that "religious ideology" prescribing legal actions against children, to name but a few of the scriptural injunctions that they ignore. MOST Christians I am friends with freely admit that there is much in the scriptures that they consider outdated or flat out wrong and don't bother with, and that using ideas that THEY consider wrong as a basis of laws that affect everyone is not something they would support, so why is it wrong then, for someone outside the fold to make that same observation? Apply the same yardstick when you judge.

About atheists (since they keep coming up over and over)....First of all, the most reliable estimates (asking a properly worded question to get meaningful answers on the subject is surprisingly difficult) of how many there are in the US, have the number somewhere between 3 to 5 percent. This is important to know when people act as if there is some giant movement of atheists being organized and hating on the poor religious folks. No. Aside from a couple of gratingly vocal and attention-pig people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, most atheists just...live, and usually in the closet, because saying outright that you subscribe to no beliefs or don't believe in God, usually gets some surprisingly hostile responses from people you thought were your friends and knew you well enough to give you the benefit of the doubt. I personally have experienced this, with a Catholic friend of mine stating that because I didn't believe in god, that I was rebellious, arrogant, and thought I was better than everyone else. I was taken aback to say the least. He believed that because I did not believe like HIM, I was not just wrong, I was officially a bad, arrogant person. Another time I was chatting at a favorite pub with a youngish guy. The discussion ranged wide, and we ended up talking about death. I pointed out that my experience of my mother's death had moved me AWAY from belief and religion. He proceeded to condescendingly try to convince me that I just hadn't thought about it enough, and when I did I'd come back to religion because I NEEDED to believe something about death and a creator. It was a perfect storm of arrogant male youth, certain of his rightness about a supposed supernatural, mansplaining to a woman old enough to be his mother, that she just didn't get it yet, but would. As my husband would say about my rather sharp response, "That tack didn't work out so well for him."

For the record, I'm not sure what I am. At one time I believed in something...supernatural, but as I've gotten older and experienced life, I've gotten more exacting in what I expect, of others and myself. So I've admitted finally to MYSELF, that all my beliefs were subjective and unprovable, and while I might find them attractive (I mean, who would not love to believe that when we die physically, that something of our selves lives on?) I have ZERO proof that they are correct, just as someone with a different flavor of supernatural belief also has zero proof. At that point it becomes a pissing match of unprovable ideas (to my way of thinking), so I pretty much walked away from such beliefs. If I can't prove mine, and you can't prove yours, it is discarded as irrelevant. So call me an agnostic leaning atheist? Whatever it is, I have very little emotional connection to any label I might suggest be applied to me simply for the sake of convenience. I believe it's possible there might be..something..I cannot apprehend, but anything I might posit about it is subjective, and actual proof is in extremely short supply. So these days I stick to evidence.

To get away from the personal though, and back to the general, and religions being pushed on others in the public sphere, the reason that people like me view religion driving policy (as in the schools as we've been discussing somewhat) as such a scary thing, is demonstrated quite well with what happened with Kitzmiller v. Dover in 2005. This one is HIGHLY worth your time. I read the entire case, all 139 pages of it, back in the day, AND watched the later NOVA on the case. If anyone needs to understand how non-science should not be in the science classroom, this is THE case to read. Fascinating and informative and very juicy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Or this just hot off the presses - a school board - at the behest of a religious group - is literally ripping pages out of biology text because it is does not "show “an affirmative preference to childbirth and adoption as options to abortion”.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/brahm-resnik/2014/10/29/12news-gilbert-school-board-remove-page-biology-book-abortion/18126635/

Or the Supreme Court ruling that not only are corporations people, now a corporation can have a religious conscience. Or the way that secular non-profits are made to jump through time-consuming and costly hoops to get their tax exempt status, while churches and religious non-profits bypass most all of that AND are not required to reveal much in the way of finances, all supposedly because to do so would interfere with or impede their churchly "mission". I suppose their benefit to the public is more...benefit-y than a secular group's benefit would be? In my opinion, this is a perfect example of supernatural belief being given preference over people who may actually be doing the very same good works for society, but have no stated supernatural beliefs or church type structure.

Anyway, just a few examples of things that alarm me...

You took my breath away with your reply. I've been sitting here for a day trying to articulate those thoughts in a cogent way and failed. Thank you.

+1000

 

[packrat]

agree agree agree

 

[AGBF]

Karen-

I agree with most everything in your posting that is your opinion on governmental institutions and the the way the laws about corporations and religious institutions have come to be interpreted over time in the United States. (Too much pandering to the former and too much latitude to the latter.) I obviously cannot "agree" with your opinions on whether there is a creator, which you mixed into your most interesting essay, since I do not believe that one can "agree" with such opinions, just share them or not share them. And yours seem not to be set in stone anyway.

The only matter on which we still appear to disagree is whether it is all right for groups which espouse atheism or secularism to describe those with religious beliefs as "superstitious" or "believers in myth", terms which I propose are meant to be and perceived by most people as, derogatory.

You have likened the atheists to oppressed groups like racial minorities who had been kept as slaves and then treated like second class citizens (subjected to Jim Crow laws and discrimination) like the blacks and to women. You have held that it is acceptable for the secular groups to let off some steam at religious groups now that they are finally free to speak out.

It may simply come down to opinion. I do not have some great mass of data to martial behind my argument that people should not speak that way to others with whom they disagree. I find it impolite and distasteful to hear comments like those, however, and I am not about to laud a document that derides people who hold religious beliefs as "superstitious". It is simply not tolerant and I believe that this country should stand for religious tolerance.

I will try to read some of the sources you cited. I am sure that if you say that one of them is juicy that it is. The direction that the Supreme Court has taken for a very long time has disturbed me. But generally, except for a few spurts of liberalism/Progressivism in US history, our all our branches of government have always favored business. So this doesn't shock me. I will continue to work for liberal causes and women's rights and remain a feminist, of course.

Deb/AGBF

 

[Karl_K]

Or the way that secular non-profits are made to jump through time-consuming and costly hoops to get their tax exempt status, while churches and religious non-profits bypass most all of that AND are not required to reveal much in the way of finances, all supposedly because to do so would interfere with or impede their churchly "mission". I suppose their benefit to the public is more...benefit-y than a secular group's benefit would be? In my opinion, this is a perfect example of supernatural belief being given preference over people who may actually be doing the very same good works for society, but have no stated supernatural beliefs or church type structure.

What business of the government is it how a Church spends its money that the members give it?
None, unless there is illegal activity.

Not that long ago it was just as easy(it is not as easy as some think and takes up to year and a ton of paperwork) to set up a non-church non-profit but it has got harder and harder.
Why? Scams and fraud. Even under the current system many non-profits are scams but it is much harder than it used to be.
The reporting requirements were put into place as consumer protection so if you wanted to donate to a charity you can see how they use the funds first.
I know many people who run non-profits both religious and not and many of them want to make it even harder to form one and love the reporting requirements. Many are making the reports available even when they don't have to file them with the government.
It is often a deciding factor on who gets money when they have a 15% overhead vs one with 80% overhead.
Of course the one with 80% "overhead" like million dollar salaries is screaming really loud that the reporting is unfair and you are much more likely to hear from them.

To understand where it is today you have to understand how it got there then its not so much a perfect example.

 

[telephone89]

I will start off by saying I am a pretty hardcore atheist. BUT one of my favourite past times is learning about other religions. I find it facsinating.

I do not believe that religion should have any place in schools (or government). I do not believe that students should be taught any sort of religious things at school. I feel like if parents want their child to learn a religion, they should teach it to them. This will make the parents accountable for what their child is learning, and it also puts a bit of pressure on the parents to make sure they actually KNOW what they're teaching! I say this for private schools as well, however it gets a little sticky there. I believe in Canada, all of our students have to take the same provincial tests - whether catholic, public or private. So I think that is fine, as all of our kids are held to the same standard. I don't know how much of the information on the exams is evolutionary based, it could only be a very small percentage.

 

[ksinger]

Karen-

I agree with most everything in your posting that is your opinion on governmental institutions and the the way the laws about corporations and religious institutions have come to be interpreted over time in the United States. (Too much pandering to the former and too much latitude to the latter.) I obviously cannot "agree" with your opinions on whether there is a creator, which you mixed into your most interesting essay, since I do not believe that one can "agree" with such opinions, just share them or not share them. And yours seem not to be set in stone anyway.

The only matter on which we still appear to disagree is whether it is all right for groups which espouse atheism or secularism to describe those with religious beliefs as "superstitious" or "believers in myth", terms which I propose are meant to be and perceived by most people as, derogatory.

You have likened the atheists to oppressed groups like racial minorities who had been kept as slaves and then treated like second class citizens (subjected to Jim Crow laws and discrimination) like the blacks and to women. You have held that it is acceptable for the secular groups to let off some steam at religious groups now that they are finally free to speak out.

It may simply come down to opinion. I do not have some great mass of data to martial behind my argument that people should not speak that way to others with whom they disagree. I find it impolite and distasteful to hear comments like those, however, and I am not about to laud a document that derides people who hold religious beliefs as "superstitious". It is simply not tolerant and I believe that this country should stand for religious tolerance.

I will try to read some of the sources you cited. I am sure that if you say that one of them is juicy that it is. The direction that the Supreme Court has taken for a very long time has disturbed me. But generally, except for a few spurts of liberalism/Progressivism in US history, our all our branches of government have always favored business. So this doesn't shock me. I will continue to work for liberal causes and women's rights and remain a feminist, of course.

Deb/AGBF

Deb, I'm slow to respond to this, but I'm working on it. In the meantime, if you're really interested in the interesting and juicy stuff, I finally found a link to the Dover opinion (of the 139 pages) and not dry old Wikipedia. You can save it in PDF format for later reading. I have it on my machine SOMEWHERE, but couldn't find, so I had to find it online AGAIN. Anyway, enjoy.
http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/Dover_Opinion.pdf

 

[Maria D]

I will start off by saying I am a pretty hardcore atheist. BUT one of my favourite past times is learning about other religions. I find it facsinating.

I do not believe that religion should have any place in schools (or government). I do not believe that students should be taught any sort of religious things at school. I feel like if parents want their child to learn a religion, they should teach it to them. This will make the parents accountable for what their child is learning, and it also puts a bit of pressure on the parents to make sure they actually KNOW what they're teaching! I say this for private schools as well, however it gets a little sticky there. I believe in Canada, all of our students have to take the same provincial tests - whether catholic, public or private. So I think that is fine, as all of our kids are held to the same standard. I don't know how much of the information on the exams is evolutionary based, it could only be a very small percentage.

Just wanted to point out that in the States, religious schools are always private. I'm not sure about all of Canada, but in Ontario there are four "separate" publicly funded school systems - English, English Catholic, French, French Catholic. So of course the religious schools would have to meet the same standards as other public schools, since they are public schools. I don't know about all of the U.S., but in Maine this is not true. In fact, it's not just private (which would include religious) schools that are exempt from state standards and hiring certified teachers - publicly funded charter schools are also exempt! Great way to siphon off taxpayer money to the private sector - allow charter schools.

By the way, I'm amazed that the right to a public religious school system hasn't been demanded by other religious groups in Ontario. What's stopping Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc from insisting on their own separate school boards?

...and the secular version of AMEN to everything ksinger said!

 

[AGBF]

...and the secular version of AMEN to everything ksinger said!

We've got many secular versions of, "Amen" in English, Maria! I see no need to get into religion and go to the word, "Amen" at all unless you wish to. Or does the secular version have to be a pithy one word version? I mean, you won't go for, "I completely agree" or "I am in complete accord"? How about one of my friend's favorite words as a teenager, "Indubitably!" ? I guess that wouldn't work for agreement with a thesis. I hate the "+1" business, which isn't even language. I know these will have their detractors, but one can also say, "Right on!" or, "You nailed it!"

Deb

 

[Maria D]

hahaha, I first just wrote AMEN, and then thought that in this thread I should qualify that!