When Will There Be Guaranteed Freedom From Persecution To Be Religious

[Cin]

During what is arguably the worst economic crisis to date, you have congress and the house focusing on passing legislation reaffirming that "In God We Trust" is our motto.

In our court system there is discrimination in favor of religious parents and against irreligious ones, or in favor of more religious parents and against less religious ones, in child custody cases, on the theory that it's in the child's "best interests" (that's the relevant legal test) to be raised with a religious education.

Some people think being raised in a religion will make a child follow some moral code, but others feel strongly that it is in a child’s best interest to be raised skeptical of all religions because it will more likely make the child into a rational thinker who doesn’t take factual assertions on faith unless he is given solid evidence that they’re true. And a belief in god does not guarantee morality any more than atheism guarantees a lack of a moral code. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech means governments shouldn’t make custody decisions based on such assumptions.

Atheists are seen as controversial even among people and organizations that aren’t personally bigoted. They just bring too much unwanted attention as baggage.

If atheists put up billboards saying “you can be good without God” people freak out.

Atheist veterans marching in a Memorial Day parade get booed.

The list goes on and on.

There are states that still have clauses in their constitution that make it impossible for an atheist to hold public office.

I realize that federal law now makes these clauses null and void. However, they remain on the books so still retain great symbolic value, teaching citizens that atheists should be considered at best second class citizens.

If you are an atheist you cannot run for public office in North Carolina. Article 6 Section 8 of the state constitution states:
The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

If you are an atheist you cannot run for public office or testify as a witness in Arkansas. Article 19, Section 1 of the state constitution states:
Atheists disqualified from holding office or testifying as witness.
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

If you are an atheist you cannot run for public office in Maryland. Article 37 of the state constitution states:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

If you are an atheist you cannot run for public office in Mississippi. Article 14, Section 265 of the state constitutions states:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

If you are an atheist you cannot run for public office in South Carolina. Article 17, Section 4 of the state constitution states:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

If you are an atheist you cannot run for public office in Tennessee. Article 9, Section 2 of the state constitution states:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

If you are an atheist you cannot run for public office in Texas, Article 1, Section 4 of the state constitution reads:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

There are innumerable oaths of office that require one to recite the words in god we trust. You probably don’t have to do it if you don't want to, although it might take time to convince someone of this or it might end up with you involved in a court case.

If we have a republican president elected in 2012 along with a republican house and senate, well, all I can think to say is may god help us then.

We are guaranteed freedom from religious persecution. When will we be guaranteed freedom from persecution to be religious.

[EnderD_503]

It will continue to happen until christians in particular are removed as a privileged class. Christians continue to exist as a privileged class in the US partially because there are no consequences for degrading and inciting hatred against non-christian groups or those who the bible deems "blasphemous." What kind of example does it set when there are no consequences for christian extremists who disrespect grieving families, and who go unchallenged while carrying signs in public that say "god hates fags"?

I strongly believe that the freedom of speech laws as they exist in the US (meaning that cracking down on hate speech is deemed "un-American") need to change if there is going to be true equality among all people. Freedom of speech laws as they exist now in the US only protect the privileged, not the marginalized. In matters of "morality" they grant christians privilege over atheists or even other religious groups. In matters of family life and education it privileges heterosexuals over everybody else. In matters of race it privileges white people (and bigots who express racial hatred in particular) over everybody else. In matters of sex it privileges cissexed males over everybody else, or cissexed people over trans people. Not only does it privilege them, but it protects them from being made to face the consequences of discriminatory words that continue to directly harm those with less privilege in a given situation. And when others challenge them over their discriminatory words, they then cry "discrimination" themselves when the entire system is favours them. Freedom of speech without hate speech laws to police them only protect the already privileged.

And Canada also needs to tighten its hate speech laws. The religious are still rarely made to face the consequences of inciting hatred against certain target groups. Additionally we have a federal government that now wants to remove hate speech laws as "outdated," when we're living in a time when these laws are more relevant than ever, and need to be tightened rather than abolished. For example, the Ontario Catholic School Board still banning GSAs from its schools as a part of "catholic doctrine," while such action is at odds with the Ontario Human Rights Code. This only proves that we need to take hate speech laws more seriously, and realise the pitfalls of freedom of speech.

I know what I've mentioned above doesn't seem relevant, but in my eyes it really is, because the issue is christians as a privileged class even in supposedly secular nations. It is because they are privileged over atheists that mottos like "in god we trust" still exist in secular nations, that the state laws you mentioned still exist. Atheists won't be free from persecution in the US, either, until christians are not given free reign over the legal system or the governing of what is deemed "normal" or "good" or "moral" or "family values." There needs to be a little less legal tolerance for christians' "religious beliefs"/"opinions" that belittle, berate and degrade others, and we need to stop viewing the privileged as the discriminated when they lose even a little of their privilege. Enforcing laws or even maintaining laws that place christians as more fit to govern than others should be outright classified as inciting hatred and discrimination. Christians should not be permitted to picket abortion clinics and funerals with picket signs degrading women, women's rights, lgbtq rights, sexual freedom and so on. This is not protecting freedom of speech or freedom of religion, it is protecting the already privileged.

[tapu]

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out the thread title. I read it as having the opposite meaning from the thread itself. ~~???~~

I know someone will tell me and I'll go, Ohhhh, of course. >:-)

[Toughy]

ALL, EVERY law requiring a belief in God is unconstitutional in a very direct way....not like the right to privacy.......but specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

This has been interpreted to mean that no federal employee, whether elected or appointed, career or political, can be required to adhere to or accept any religion or belief. This clause immediately follows one requiring all federal and state officers to take an oath or affirmation of support to the Constitution, indicating that the requirement of such a statement does not imply any requirement by those so sworn to accept a particular religion or a particular doctrine. The option of giving an "affirmation" (rather than an "oath") can be interpreted as not requiring any metaphysical belief or as a nod to Mennonites and Quakers who would not swear oaths but would make affirmations.

The problem is no one wants to admit they are not a Christian, so no one has ever taken any of the State laws to the Courts. If taken to the Courts, they would be struck down without any doubt whatsoever.

[Cin]

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out the thread title. I read it as having the opposite meaning from the thread itself. ~~???~~

I know someone will tell me and I'll go, Ohhhh, of course. >:-)

It's a play on the words "guaranteed freedom from religious persecution."

[Cin]

I know what I've mentioned above doesn't seem relevant,

Everything you said is so incredibly relevant. And I don't see much chance for change as long as people are persecuted to be religious.

As Toughy mentioned people are afraid to admit they are not a Christian. I will take it one important step further. People are afraid to admit it if they are not particularly moved by claims of religious or spiritual beliefs.

Personally I don't care what any politician thinks about the existence of god. I am no more moved to believe in the truth of their words if they say "so help me god" or if they say "pinky swear".

I am not inclined to believe in the best intentions and inherent goodness of someone simply because they profess to belief in god. It is this connection between goodness and morality and a belief in the existence of a creator of the universe that is most disturbing.

It's like many of us actually believe religious people are the keepers of morality. Those of us who either don't believe in any god or question the existence of god are of dubious moral fiber.

Those who use religion as a weapon bogart the term moral and conflat it with religious. And we let them by failing to shove their immoral behavior in their faces at every possible opportunity.

I know until recently I cringed when I heard the terms moral, ethical or morality being used. Immediately I thought judgmental, religious, nothing I can identify with. I realize I was wrong. I am a moral person. I have ethics. I believe in doing what is right. I don't have to believe in god to do that. I don't have to have religion to be that.

If you claim moral as your anthem. If you rub morality in the faces of everyone, then you have an obligation to be moral. You should be held accountable for your claims of moral righteousness. So I think we should do that more often. Hold our elected and our aspiring to be elected officials accountable. It is not moral to spend the time of congress and the house voting on a motto of in god we trust when unemployment is out of control and people are hurting. It is not moral to allow the 1% of the population who has 99% of the wealth to buy your vote. It is not moral to sell out the constituency who voted you in office. It is immoral to sell yourself to the rich and vote policy that continues to place a disproportionate amount of wealth in the hands of so very few at the expense of the health and welfare of the rest. Not to mention at the expense of the very country you claim to hold so dear. I don't need a god to know that is wrong.

[Estella]

I am a moral person. I have ethics. I believe in doing what is right. I don't have to believe in god to do that. I don't have to have religion to be that.

Well, of course you are. I don't know you, actually, but I'll take your word for it at any rate.

What bothers me is that you seem to be so emphatic about confirming this and I can't help but wondering - are you trying to convince others or yourself. I've been an atheist my entire life and I've never doubted for a moment that my sense of morality is, at the very very least, equal to that of any believer. But unless I'm directly challenged (and, sadly, I have been) I've never really felt compelled to justify myself in any way. It doesn't seem like anyone here is arguing with you, but your posts are tinged with defensiveness.

I don't know what your situation is, however, and I don't want to judge unduly. Perhaps you're new to your sense of identity as an atheist. Perhaps, like a lot of people, you were raised to be a believer, and then went through some agnostic phase before you had the courage to name your atheism to yourself. This is a process that should sound familiar to any lesbian from an intolerant family. Or perhaps you live in an area of the country where your atheism makes you a target for mistrust and contempt. This is yet another situation that many lesbians and trans-folk can identify with. My point is, people on this site are less likely to attack than to commiserate, whatever their world-view.

That being said, I agree with everything you have posted. You are identifying a problem with our culture that, at the moment, is not being addressed. But you currently have a President who takes pains to show respect for believers and non-believers alike. People are becoming accustomed to the fact that atheists are not ashamed of who we are, and will not be closeted. It's getting better - too slowly, of course, but most change is.

[Cin]

Well, of course you are. I don't know you, actually, but I'll take your word for it at any rate.

What bothers me is that you seem to be so emphatic about confirming this and I can't help but wondering - are you trying to convince others or yourself. I've been an atheist my entire life and I've never doubted for a moment that my sense of morality is, at the very very least, equal to that of any believer. But unless I'm directly challenged (and, sadly, I have been) I've never really felt compelled to justify myself in any way. It doesn't seem like anyone here is arguing with you, but your posts are tinged with defensiveness.

I don't know what your situation is, however, and I don't want to judge unduly. Perhaps you're new to your sense of identity as an atheist. Perhaps, like a lot of people, you were raised to be a believer, and then went through some agnostic phase before you had the courage to name your atheism to yourself. This is a process that should sound familiar to any lesbian from an intolerant family. Or perhaps you live in an area of the country where your atheism makes you a target for mistrust and contempt. This is yet another situation that many lesbians and trans-folk can identify with. My point is, people on this site are less likely to attack than to commiserate, whatever their world-view.

That being said, I agree with everything you have posted. You are identifying a problem with our culture that, at the moment, is not being addressed. But you currently have a President who takes pains to show respect for believers and non-believers alike. People are becoming accustomed to the fact that atheists are not ashamed of who we are, and will not be closeted. It's getting better - too slowly, of course, but most change is.

Didn't imagine it would come off that way. I don't feel like i need to justify myself morally. Nor am I newly atheist. Nor was my post actually about tolerance or intolerance from any community online or other wise. I was trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to illuminate how the religious right and many of our political leaders feel the need to conflate morality with religion. And how many people buy into it. Also my belief is that by holding our leaders accountable for what they profess to believe, one can sometimes affect change. Hopefully if you claim morality and you are serious about being a moral person and someone points out the ways that you are behaving immorally you will change the behavior. I think it is a tact that might have a chance. At least I thought so. Maybe I was wrong. Been that before.

And I never meant to give the impression I was speaking to anyone on this site about moral or immoral behavior. I don't know how I did give that impression. But let me be clear, I wasn't, in case there is confusion. I was referring to politicians, political leaders, elected officials and the religious right. If you use morality as your calling card, you can, at the very least, be expected to act morally.

Perhaps the confusion lies with a misunderstanding of what the thread is about in the first place. It is not a thread about atheism. It is a thread about the pressures to be religious. Hopefully my post was on point about that.

[atomiczombie]

Well, of course you are. I don't know you, actually, but I'll take your word for it at any rate.

What bothers me is that you seem to be so emphatic about confirming this and I can't help but wondering - are you trying to convince others or yourself. I've been an atheist my entire life and I've never doubted for a moment that my sense of morality is, at the very very least, equal to that of any believer. But unless I'm directly challenged (and, sadly, I have been) I've never really felt compelled to justify myself in any way. It doesn't seem like anyone here is arguing with you, but your posts are tinged with defensiveness.

I don't know what your situation is, however, and I don't want to judge unduly. Perhaps you're new to your sense of identity as an atheist. Perhaps, like a lot of people, you were raised to be a believer, and then went through some agnostic phase before you had the courage to name your atheism to yourself. This is a process that should sound familiar to any lesbian from an intolerant family. Or perhaps you live in an area of the country where your atheism makes you a target for mistrust and contempt. This is yet another situation that many lesbians and trans-folk can identify with. My point is, people on this site are less likely to attack than to commiserate, whatever their world-view.

That being said, I agree with everything you have posted. You are identifying a problem with our culture that, at the moment, is not being addressed. But you currently have a President who takes pains to show respect for believers and non-believers alike. People are becoming accustomed to the fact that atheists are not ashamed of who we are, and will not be closeted. It's getting better - too slowly, of course, but most change is.

I think you are really missing the point by focusing on Miss Tick's own personal psychology. The point of this thread is how the dogmatic, bigoted christian conservatives treat atheists. I think your choice to speculate on her perceived psychological motives for starting this thread is inappropriate and disrespectful, as well as off topic.

Respectfully,

Drew

[Cin]

I think you are really missing the point by focusing on Miss Tick's own personal psychology. The point of this thread is how the dogmatic, bigoted christian conservatives treat atheists. I think your choice to speculate on her perceived psychological motives for starting this thread is inappropriate and disrespectful, as well as off topic.

Respectfully,

Drew

Yes, my personal psychology is beside the point. Speaking of which have I ever mentioned how much I hate my name. And I get that i chose it. But still...

[Apocalipstic]

While I do agree things seem better for Atheists since...say 1963...It seems idiotic to me that in a nation which supposedly stands for religious freedom, the freedom FROM religion seems like such a stretch.

I am not sure how the issue of Miss Tick's acceptance of her own moral compass came into question?

Something I have noticed in conversations with really conservative friends and acquaintances is that they look to not angering God as the basis of how they act, not on just doing the right thing just becasue it is right. Seems fear driven.

[Estella]

I was trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to illuminate how the religious right and many of our political leaders feel the need to conflate morality with religion. And how many people buy into it. Also my belief is that by holding our leaders accountable for what they profess to believe, one can sometimes affect change.

It is a thread about the pressures to be religious. Hopefully my post was on point about that.

Okay, well then evidently I'm still missing your point. Is this thread about the hijacking of "morality" by the religious right, or is it about the pressure to be religious? While certainly related, these seem like very different issues to me. Perhaps after a few more posts, I'll be able to see your point more clearly.

[Estella]

Something I have noticed in conversations with really conservative friends and acquaintances is that they look to not angering God as the basis of how they act, not on just doing the right thing just becasue it is right. Seems fear driven.

I've noticed this as well, and have wondered how one's basis for morality can be based in fear. Or, conversely, they're attempting to please god as a factor in ultimate reward.

[Cin]

Okay, well then evidently I'm still missing your point. Is this thread about the hijacking of "morality" by the religious right, or is it about the pressure to be religious? While certainly related, these seem like very different issues to me. Perhaps after a few more posts, I'll be able to see your point more clearly.

Well if someone hijacks morality and only the religious are seen as moral then wouldn't that feel somewhat like pressure to be religious? At the very least there would be pressure not to challenge the moral validity of the choices made by people who claim to be religious. And there would be pressure to shy away from using moral accountability as a springboard for change if morality were conflated with religion.

The hijacking of morality is not the only issue. It is one of the issues I see bound up in the pressure to be religious.

[ruffryder]

thanks for the thread Miss Tick. Here is one thread where I can expand my knowledge so ty everybody for thoughts. I didn't know all that Miss Tick.

So are we saying atheists can not run for office?? Or they can, but no one should know they are atheist?.. Oh I see, certain states. Are you asking how does this change? I think morals and religion can go hand in hand, am I wrong? Maybe it all should just be based on morality and ethics when it comes to issues of government and laws but then you have people arguing what is ethical and moral since we all differ on thoughts about this. Example : the death penalty.

I'm not sure where this thread is going yet but I agree those who run for a governement office shouldn't have to be religious however I feel they should be tested on their morals and ethics with everyone agreeing what that should include in a governement held position.

What happens when you have someone that is buddhist or muslim in a government position, does this change the morals or ethics?

Maybe I'm bringing up too much, but I'm just trying to understand what we are all talking about..

Thanks!

[Estella]

Yes, my personal psychology is beside the point. Speaking of which have I ever mentioned how much I hate my name. And I get that i chose it. But still...

I guess I was wondering (in print, which I should know better than to do) why you are so pointedly assertive on the subject; but you're quite correct, it's difficult, if not impossible, in this country to have any credibility as a moral individual unless you are also willing to confirm your deep and abiding religious (usually Christian) convictions. Which seems at best unfair, and at worst un-American.

[Apocalipstic]

I believe in complete separation of church and state and in the US we don't have that...

[ruffryder]

10 Commandments

I am the Lord thy God, ... Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Honor thy father and thy mother.

Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.

Are the 10 Commandments not conflating religion with morality ?
If you believe in these, is that not being somewhat religious?? I'm not saying it is so, I am asking opinions here. Thanks!

[Cin]

I guess I was wondering why you are so pointedly assertive on the subject;

You say that like it's a bad thing.

You seem to agree. At least you say I am correct. So the problem for you is I was too assertive?

I guess I am wondering what is the point of believing in something enough to start a thread about it and not being assertive about my feelings on the subject.

[Daywalker]

I do not understand why someone would choose a Religion,
a supposed Core to their beliefs n such...then be
'afraid' to 'admit' their Choice.
:vigil:

Other than fearing for ones life in a crowd of (insert misc Religion) that
exudes abhorrence for their Chosen Religion...it just seems peculiar
to me to have a strong Religious belief in America
and not be able to disclose this safely.
:canoworms:

Hence this thread, I guess.

:thinking:

I'm not Religious ~ My Core is Peace n Love ~ I Bless people from There.

:peacelove:

:daywalker:

[Apocalipstic]

thanks for the thread Miss Tick. Here is one thread where I can expand my knowledge so ty everybody for thoughts. I didn't know all that Miss Tick.

So are we saying atheists can not run for office?? Or they can, but no one should know they are atheist?.. Oh I see, certain states. Are you asking how does this change? I think morals and religion can go hand in hand, am I wrong? Maybe it all should just be based on morality and ethics when it comes to issues of government and laws but then you have people arguing what is ethical and moral since we all differ on thoughts about this. Example : the death penalty.

I'm not sure where this thread is going yet but I agree those who run for a government office shouldn't have to be religious however I feel they should be tested on their morals and ethics with everyone agreeing what that should include in a government held position.

What happens when you have someone that is buddhist or muslim in a government position, does this change the morals or ethics?

Maybe I'm bringing up too much, but I'm just trying to understand what we are all talking about..

Thanks!

I think that religion should have no bearing on how someone carries out their oath of office and that religion should have no bearing on government what so ever. The Founding Fathers were not all Evangelical Christians as some would like us to believe.

But for many people, religion is more important than actually doing the right thing. They want to see someone their own denomination hold office. So it becomes about something other than ability to do the job in a moral and ethical manner.

[Daywalker]

I believe in complete separation of church and state and in the US we don't have that...

Which always makes me wonder why State Colleges will allow any
Group to gather under a Religious notion, and then allow them
to Recruit or 'Honeymoon' new students. Many Cults have had
a field day with these allowances.

:moonstars:
:daywalker:

[ruffryder]

I'm sorry. I would like to answer my own question. LOL I guess if you believe in some or all of the "10 commandments" it doesn't have to be about God or religion to you if you are atheist. some of these commandments can fall into morals. right?

I was not getting at that anyone that doesn't believe in the commandments or follow them is immoral or not religious or even religious, just to make that clear.. anyway, any thoughts on that?

[Cin]

10 Commandments

I am the Lord thy God, ... Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Honor thy father and thy mother.

Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.

Are the 10 Commandments not conflating religion with morality ?
If you believe in these, is that not being somewhat religious?? I'm not saying it is so, I am asking opinions here. Thanks!

Well, I don't think it is conflating religion with morality. It is the ten commandments. It is religion. And a fine moral code as well.

The problem comes when people believe being religious is necessary in order to live by moral codes.

[Estella]

You say that like it's a bad thing.


Passion is never a bad thing.

[Apocalipstic]

10 Commandments

I am the Lord thy God, ... Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Honor thy father and thy mother.

Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.

Are the 10 Commandments not conflating religion with morality ?
If you believe in these, is that not being somewhat religious?? I'm not saying it is so, I am asking opinions here. Thanks!

Well, yes, the 10 comandments are in the Bible, hence religious.

However,

Just because you practice some of the ideas put forth in the 10 Commandments does not mean you are religious. These ideas for getting along as human and doing the right thing were present in writings older than the Bible.

Doing the right thing does not have to be religious. Am I making sense?

I do not understand why someone would choose a Religion,
a supposed Core to their beliefs n such...then be
'afraid' to 'admit' their Choice.
:vigil:

Other than fearing for ones life in a crowd of (insert misc Religion) that
exudes abhorrence for their Chosen Religion...it just seems peculiar
to me to have a strong Religious belief in America
and not be able to disclose this safely.
:canoworms:

Hence this thread, I guess.

:thinking:

I'm not Religious ~ My Core is Peace n Love ~ I Bless people from There.

:peacelove:

:daywalker:

Probably why some people hide being Gay, fear of persecution.

[Estella]

[CENTER]I do not understand why someone would choose a Religion,
a supposed Core to their beliefs n such...then be
'afraid' to 'admit' their Choice.

I'm not an expert, but it doesn't seem like most people choose their religions. Most people, I believe, follow the religious beliefs they were born into, to some degree or another. Which is an extraordinarily powerful connection.

I've never met anyone afraid to admit their religious affiliation in public, but by the same token I live in a very liberal state. Which is not to say there is no discrimination here, but it may be far worse elsewhere. I have, however, met people who have hedged and dissembled when admitting that they are not believers. And I have never, ever heard a public figure do so.

[Apocalipstic]

I'm not an expert, but it doesn't seem like most people choose their religions. Most people, I believe, follow the religious beliefs they were born into, to some degree or another. Which is an extraordinarily powerful connection.

I've never met anyone afraid to admit their religious affiliation in public, but by the same token I live in a very liberal state. Which is not to say there is no discrimination here, but it may be far worse elsewhere. I have, however, met people who have hedged and dissembled when admitting that they are not believers. And I have never, ever heard a public figure do so.

In TN people hide a lot of things.

[Daywalker]

In TN people hide a lot of things.

Having lived there for 5 years, I must concur.
:|

Miss visiting U guysssssssss.
:hangloose:

:daywalker:

[EnderD_503]

10 Commandments

I am the Lord thy God, ... Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Kind of funny to bring this one up in a thread that is about the pressure atheists feel to be religious. Also taking into account christian privilege in many Western nations.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images.

Again, smacking of religious intolerance, as well as intolerance for those who are not religious or spiritual in any way.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

See above.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

See above. In many places in the Western world, many stores still close on Sundays in supposedly secular nations.

Honor thy father and thy mother.

I will honour whoever I choose to honour. This kind of mentality contributes to what many abusers say to those they victimize. Particularly the children of abusive parents, who are so often told: "but they're father/mother. They love you no matter what they do." Gee, I wonder where that line of thinking comes from :p

Thou shalt not kill.

I generally agree with this in the context of Western nations, except where immediate self-defense is concerned. Outside the context of stable Western nations, sometimes people need to be violent in order to insure the progression of their society or to insure their own survival.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Normative monogamy, much?

Thou shalt not steal.

Generally agree with this one...or would agree with it if current wealth distribution worldwide didn't leave certain people in extreme poverty. Somehow when a person is starving with little in the way of options and resources, their "moral code" changes...funny that. Or maybe it's society that needs to be reconsidering its "moral code."

Again, we're dealing with a sense of morality that only takes certain socio-economic situations into consideration.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Agreed. However, I don't hold it against people who live in dictatorial situations, who sometimes end up doing these things to survive.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.

Might I add: nor his wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ass or anything that is thy neighbour's.

I suppose, then, that my neighbour is a slave-owning straight man who sees people as possessions. Suddenly, I just lost respect for my neighbour :|

Are the 10 Commandments not conflating religion with morality ?
If you believe in these, is that not being somewhat religious?? I'm not saying it is so, I am asking opinions here. Thanks!

Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour are conditional aspects of my own values that would be present in a Utopian society. But you know what they say about Utopias ;) The others have some pretty horrible implications.

I would also like to point out that believing that murder is bad for society does not mean one has religious convictions. Neither does it mean that those values stem from the 10 commandments. These values predate judeo-christianity, and most human societies have placed consequences in place for such things as murder and theft since as far as we have evidence of human laws. These are not in anyway unique to christianity.

For myself, I really don't see these values as strictly moral, but as acts that require legal representation in order for society to progress.

[Cin]

I am not unaware of the dangers inherent in what is considered moral reasoning. So much damage has been done in the name of morality. Almost as much as has been done in the name of god. But can I hold morality or god morally responsible for the immorality often found in moral judgments?

Humanity itself is in dire need of a more socially conscious morality.

When talking to others it is most effective to use language that is meaningful to them. Right now in the U.S., and in Canada as well, that language is morality (I just read an article yesterday about whether Justin Trudeau is Catholic or Catholic enough to speak to students at a Catholic school), albeit the kind of morality heavily weighted with religious overtones.

When I speak of taking back morality from the exclusive use of the religious and incorporating it into the dialogue used by those of us with a social rather than religious conscience and agenda, I don’t mean to imply that a consideration of morality is a new idea for non religious people, nor am I even referring exclusively to non religious people. I just mean I’ve noticed that publicly and politically the moral high ground is often occupied by those of the religious right and those of the GOP while everyone else scrambles around trying to copy the same basic moral language. Which is difficult to do when one comes down on, what is deemed by the Right, as the morally incorrect side of an issue.

Often the answer to this dilemma has been to shy away from conversations or political speeches fraught with moral righteousness. While I tend to agree this would be most welcome, it will not be the tact of the religious right or the conservative party. So I advocate an about face. I am suggesting challenging the validity of their claims of moral superiority. I can think of endless ways that the Right does not act in ways that could ever by any measuring stick be considered moral, many that have been articulated quite clearly in this thread alone.

It would be in everyone’s best interest, religious or not, if our leaders and law makers who are possessed of a social conscience over a religious one would stop aping the tired morality spewed by the Right and begin, not only to clearly illuminate the moral weaknesses of the Right and show that the emperor is indeed without clothes, but to lead us toward a more just and equitable society.

[ruffryder]

I am not unaware of the dangers inherent in what is considered moral reasoning. So much damage has been done in the name of morality. Almost as much as has been done in the name of god. But can I hold morality or god morally responsible for the immorality often found in moral judgments?

Humanity itself is in dire need of a more socially conscious morality.

When talking to others it is most effective to use language that is meaningful to them. Right now in the U.S., and in Canada as well, that language is morality (I just read an article yesterday about whether Justin Trudeau is Catholic or Catholic enough to speak to students at a Catholic school), albeit the kind of morality heavily weighted with religious overtones.



No doubt someone speaking about religion will get debated for and against about whether they "qualify" to speak on the subject, especially to children.

If you don't mind Miss, who is Justin Trudeau? Why is he getting heat about speaking to students at a Catholic school?

This reminded me of the members at the Vatican or even churches across the world being so religious and so moral, but yet they are found guilty of child sexual abuse.

[EnderD_503]

If you don't mind Miss, who is Justin Trudeau? Why is he getting heat about speaking to students at a Catholic school?


He is the son of Pierre Trudeau and an MP in Papineau. He's also an excellent writer, as is his brother, Sasha Trudeau.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/justin-trudeau-fumes-at-tory-mps-bad-catholic-taunt/article2222944/?from=sec431

[ruffryder]

Thanks Ender

In that article I find this,

“First of all, my question, is: who is the faith police? Who are the people who are supposed to be judging somebody's faith?” said Trevor Digby, department chair of Canadian and world studies at Holy Cross Secondary School. “Is that not a private matter? When we invite speakers, we don't go out and do a police record check on their faith, unless they've done something outrageous.”


“We haven't called them to speak about a theological issue, we've called them to speak on inspiring young people to international service and their place in leadership now in society and make a better world,” Mr. Digby said. “That our minister of Parliament would have a problem with that I think speaks more about him than about Justin Trudeau.”

I say good grief. Let The guy speak. He is an inspiration for even wanting to go speak to kids in my book.

[Glenn]

Pardon me Miss Tick; Are you asking for signs and wonders? Even Jesus Christ could'nt teach us successfully, while on Earth, what you ask of mankind's mere logic and reasoning abililties regarding the true nature of God.

[Apocalipstic]

Even in a thread about persecution for not being religious, we are falling into discussing it all from a Christian standpoint and using Christian language.

Our calendar, holidays, tv programing....so much of our culture. It KILLS me when I turn on the History Channel and they use the Bible as a historical textbook. Christian bias is definitely there in media.

I actually know people who think Atheists kill children. :|

We don't actually know definitely and concretely that Jesus ever even existed.

[Apocalipstic]

Ender, thank you for what you said about Honoring Parents and child abuse. I run up on this a lot.

[Estella]

I actually know people who think Atheists kill children. :|

We don't actually know definitely and concretely that Jesus ever even existed.

Well, I think we're all aware that, "Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." According to Pat Robertson, at any rate.

I subscribed to a certain degree of skepticism about Jesus' existence at one time, but it seems to me that there are really quite a few sources that confirm his place as an historical figure. Of course, I do not believe that he was the son of any sort of god. What I do believe is that Jesus was a culturally important philosopher who paid rather too high a price for suggesting that we might all want to be nice to one another now and again. But I don't need to believe in a sky-god to share that philosophy.

[SoNotHer]

"Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble."

-Joseph Campbell

[Apocalipstic]

I subscribed to a certain degree of skepticism about Jesus' existence at one time, but it seems to me that there are really quite a few sources that confirm his place as an historical figure. Of course, I do not believe that he was the son of any sort of god. What I do believe is that Jesus was a culturally important philosopher who paid rather too high a price for suggesting that we might all want to be nice to one another now and again. But I don't need to believe in a sky-god to share that philosophy.

Are there really? Sources outside of the Bible, I mean.

I am not saying Jesus did not exist, or that I don't think he is a culturally important, or that I don't agree with you overall. Just the actual proof seems flimsy at best. Zero actual eye wittness accounts, zero artifacts......

[Estella]

Are there really? Sources outside of the Bible, I mean.

I am not saying Jesus did not exist, or that I don't think he is a culturally important, or that I don't agree with you overall. Just the actual proof seems flimsy at best. Zero actual eye wittness accounts, zero artifacts......

Actually, the sources I tend to trust most are non-christian Roman historians. Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius all would have been contemporaries of Jesus, and all mentioned him in their writings, mostly to talk about what a nuisance the Jews were becoming.

None mention anything about his supernatural affiliations.

[Cin]

I actually know people who think Atheists kill children. :|


Well, that's not exactly right. Most of us eat them.

They are delicious breaded and deep fried. And maybe a little ketchup.

[Cin]

Even in a thread about persecution for not being religious, we are falling into discussing it all from a Christian standpoint and using Christian language.


It's probably all the morality talk that causes it. I know i have this crazy idea that people should walk the walk and not just talk a good game. So I want all these moral god fearing political leaders to take responsibility for their immoral actions.

But there are other things to talk about surely.

[ArkansasPiscesGrrl]

While I do agree things seem better for Atheists since...say 1963...It seems idiotic to me that in a nation which supposedly stands for religious freedom, the freedom FROM religion seems like such a stretch.

I am not sure how the issue of Miss Tick's acceptance of her own moral compass came into question?

Something I have noticed in conversations with really conservative friends and acquaintances is that they look to not angering God as the basis of how they act, not on just doing the right thing just becasue it is right. Seems fear driven.

Religion itself is fear driven, and a means of keeping people "in line" with a certain self expressed and imposed dogma.

Been there done that on being a member of organized religion. I consider myself a spiritual being now, and am quite content.

I appreciated the point about the US Constitution's precise wording. I am frankly dumbfounded as to why no one hasn't brought suit yet to force the issue.

[Apocalipstic]

Actually, the sources I tend to trust most are non-christian Roman historians. Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius all would have been contemporaries of Jesus, and all mentioned him in their writings, mostly to talk about what a nuisance the Jews were becoming.

None mention anything about his supernatural affiliations.

Not really comtemporaries..they were slightly later. But it really does not matter, I agree with you on the metaphorical value of religious writings as opposed to believing whatever God dictated said religious document and that it should ve followed verbatim.

It's probably all the morality talk that causes it. I know i have this crazy idea that people should walk the walk and not just talk a good game. So I want all these moral god fearing political leaders to take responsibility for their immoral actions.

But there are other things to talk about surely.

All the morality talk by the Right makes me want to scream too. I agree that before leaders point finges at sayyyy....Gay Marriage....they might wanna look at their own stuff and do what is right.

Don't even get me started on war, the death penalty, blowing up abortion clinics, bullying.....all in the name of religion.....

[EnderD_503]

Even in a thread about persecution for not being religious, we are falling into discussing it all from a Christian standpoint and using Christian language.

Our calendar, holidays, tv programing....so much of our culture. It KILLS me when I turn on the History Channel and they use the Bible as a historical textbook. Christian bias is definitely there in media.

Oh yeah, for sure. The kicker is that the calendar/holidays themselves are largely heathen-derived. Christmas (Jul/Yule), Easter (from the Germanic goddess of spring/fertility Eostre/Ostara), saints days (for example, St. Brigid's feast coinciding with Imbolc, St. John the Baptist's Day with northern European midsummer celebrations lest we forget those wonderful bonfires :p), not to mention holiday figures like Santa Claus and their root in the Wild Hunt of northern Europe.

You'd think people would clue in that christianity is a mythology like any other, and one that adopted the practices of other religions to gain followers. Yet people still whine that saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas is an attack on christians...yet the holiday itself isn't even originally christian.

Have faith in it if you'd like, but there's hardly any logic to pursuing the idea that christians/religious people bear any kind of moral/behavioural high ground. The entire history of christianity tends to counter that logic.

We don't actually know definitely and concretely that Jesus ever even existed.


I subscribed to a certain degree of skepticism about Jesus' existence at one time, but it seems to me that there are really quite a few sources that confirm his place as an historical figure. Of course, I do not believe that he was the son of any sort of god. What I do believe is that Jesus was a culturally important philosopher who paid rather too high a price for suggesting that we might all want to be nice to one another now and again. But I don't need to believe in a sky-god to share that philosophy.

Mostly every prof. I've had on the subject has subscribed to the view that there was very likely a historical figure named Jesus. The thing is that we know very little about him, though what little non-christian evidence exists points to him as being a likely illiterate political rebel both involved in the revolt against Roman occupation as well as trying to reform judaism for the purpose of rebellion against the Empire. Religion and rebellion were very much connected during the period. From what we can see, his message was most specifically directed toward the Jews and was a rallying call to fight occupation and reform judaism as an accommodation.

Anything else written about his life is pretty much pure speculation. Highly unlikely that he was a philosopher of any kind. In the Greco-Roman and medieval Jewish tradition, this would have required literacy and he was likely not literate. Additionally, there is no evidence about his own beliefs, and much of the moral code later attributed to christianity was likely inspired by judaism or created after his death since the New Testament was pieced together over centuries also after his death.

It would have been unlikely that the Romans would have recorded much about his religious leanings. Christianity at that point wouldn't have been called christianity and would have been among a number of other cults present throughout the Roman Empire. Jesus himself would not have called it "christianity." Additionally, the supernatural factors within his life were added later, and were largely inspired directly by Mesopotamian mythology.

Actually, the sources I tend to trust most are non-christian Roman historians. Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius all would have been contemporaries of Jesus, and all mentioned him in their writings, mostly to talk about what a nuisance the Jews were becoming.

None mention anything about his supernatural affiliations.

We still need to be careful when citing scholars like Tacitus in particular. Tacitus' works largely copies or his own versions of previous works rather than original material. They are useful in so far as they they've managed to preserve many works that would have been otherwise lost (Germania, Agricola etc.) He along with Pliny and Suetonius would have been moreso writing in the Roman tradition than recording what was ever known for certain. Remember that the Greco-Roman world had different ideas on truth, history and historical accuracy than we do today.

But their writings do suggest that at one point there was a Jesus of some sorts involved in the Jewish revolt against Roman occupation.