When Will There Be Guaranteed Freedom From Persecution To Be Religious

[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]

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

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.

[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!

[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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by ruffryder

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.

Originally Posted by ruffryder

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.

Originally Posted by ruffryder

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

See above.

Originally Posted by ruffryder

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.

Originally Posted by ruffryder

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

Originally Posted by ruffryder

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.

Originally Posted by ruffryder

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Normative monogamy, much?

Originally Posted by ruffryder

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.

Originally Posted by ruffryder

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.

Originally Posted by ruffryder

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

Originally Posted by ruffryder

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]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

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]

Originally Posted by ruffryder

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/...4/?from=sec431

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by 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 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.

[ArkansasPiscesGrrl]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Fenchurch

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.

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 ), 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.

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

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

Originally Posted by Fenchurch

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.

Originally Posted by Fenchurch

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.