Religious Oppression?

[Sukerkin]

I confess that, altho I did (and do) get a regular frisson of a clue from interacting with some members here at MT, I sometimes used to forget that certain areas of the USA have a far more 'Christian bias' than others. For someone who grew up in Britain, where, despite having religious leaders in the Upper House, religions influence over peoples lives and decisions is purely voluntary, it it is a surprise, at times, to hear entrenched religious attitudes come out in discourse.

Because, believe it or not {:lol:} I don't take pleasure in upsetting people, I have had to learn to take an extra moment to reconsider my response on certain topics so as not to genuinely offend some of my fellow members here. That, on occasion means that I either decline to take part in certain discussions or do not express the full extent of my thoughts on a matter. On the one hand {again as an Englishman } that is simple good manners and I am quite used to sitting on my opinions when talking to someone for whom my views would be offensive. On the other hand, tho', that is a form of oppression, or at least suppression, that has it's roots in the religious indoctrination of everyone who lives in certain parts of America.

Because that 'quelling' faith is Christianity and so well known to me (even if I decided in my 'teens that it was an unlikely explanation for the universe) I tend to overlook the implications of it. This short video by a couple of young people, who have day-to-day contact with the pervasive natural assumption of the dominance-by-right of the various Christian denominations, made me ponder more than usual on those implications. It also made me think that maybe a little digging into the, admittedly short, history of the States might be enlightening in determining how the current circumstance came to be seem as 'okay' when it seems to be against the spirit of the Constitution upon which the nation was founded.

[video=youtube_share;ScrNFYYACp8]http://youtu.be/ScrNFYYACp8[/video]

I don't want this thread to be used to abuse or ridicule those of religious persuasion or to incite those with religious views into feeling defensive and therefore not taking part or reacting hostilely. Leave aside whether religion is right and wrong in itself and think on whether the present state of play, with one faith allowed acculturated pre-eminence over all others, is really the way things should be in the sort of nation the Founders had in mind.

 

[DennisBreene]

An interesting, and refreshing, video to my way of thinking. I don't know if the propensity for religious proselytizing is as common in other countries, but it is a common US phenomenon. I have had personal experience with the invasiveness that can occur. Specifically, a good friend who was a born again Christian who was terribly concerned that my heart disease would lead to my demise while I was still a professed agnostic; and I would be damned to Hell. While I enjoy lively debate about things philosophical and religious, it was a wearying process to be accosted on a frequent basis by the religious fervor of my friend and to have to disabuse her of her concepts of the afterlife. I share the anecdote as an illustration of the intrusiveness of some peoples beliefs. Her intentions and concerns were heartfelt and meant to help me. Her doctrine required that she attempt to "save" me. I think that this adoption of a doctrine that requires followers of certain groups (by no means the majority) to actively and aggressively promote the tenets of their faith is the root of the problem. They believe that they are inadequately serving their faith if they do not try to convert others and are intruding on the beliefs of others in the process. However well intentioned the behavior; it feels like an invasion into my private philosophies and beliefs. As long as politely explaining that I don't follow their tenets and am comfortable with my "faith" is enough to cause them to desist, I have no concerns. The infrequent individual who persists in promoting their agenda in spite of this makes me feel as though they have stepped into the realm of overt aggression and I see no reason to allow their behavior to interfere with my life. I also feel that ending such conflicts of world view should be done as kindly as possible. I absolutely don't wish to see someone's religious agenda made into law.

 

[billc]

Of course they always forget the other part of the 1st Amendment...the one about the free excercise of religion. I have no problem with people leaving each other alone, especially in public schools, but our country wasn't set up to exclude religion from the public sphere either. The atheists go crazy during christmas, and when people want to say a short prayer before graduations, so extremism can come from the secular humanists as well...ask Germany, and Russia as well as China about that. People shouldn't be required to pray, but should be polite when others do, for example the coach example they gave. If the coach is a muslim, then the christians should say their own prayer on their own, since he is the coach and he is the boss, they should respect his beliefs. Of course they already go out of their way to respect muslim beliefs with football, because I have heard of many instances of high school football teams holding practice at extremely early hours of the day to allow their muslim players to observe Ramadan.

It would also be nice if students who are religious, and the valedictorian can give a brief prayer as part of their commencment address without being hassled by the school administration.

As to how the "seperation of church and state," came to be, this video should help...

http://www.prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/The-Separation-of-Church-and-State.html

 

[Janina]

I am a Buddhist Practitioner, and haven´t ever had any problems with believes of other persons. Neither do I care much what they think about Buddhism. I personally see religion as ones personal issue and try not to get anybody to adopt my beliefs or views. My personal opinion is that everybody should be treated equally in the area of religion so you can study your religion (or none religion at all if that´s the choice) in schools, football teams or other social environments as long as they don´t try to convert others to believe their one right view on reality.

Though I am a Buddhist myself, I believe in scientific education for children on schools and kindergardens. Religion is something personal, something everybody can adopt by their own believes, but on common level it is more useful to give everybody same science based education and then give them change to decide themselves what to believe.

 

[Tgace]

Besides the odd Jehovah's Witness coming to the door (rare) I cant remember the last time anyone tried to proselytize to me.

 

[Sukerkin]

To restate, my query on this is how does the notion of an over-ridingly dominant faith, overtly and covertly, displacing and suppressing other faith-based points of view sit with the Constitution? It happens to be Christianity in the picture right now but it could easily change with the ebb and flow of population movements, so try not to get too caught up on it being 'your' religion (if it is) and think through the implications dispassionately. Particularly, perhaps, when it comes to pressuring law-makers to favour positions based upon religion rather than practicality or a broader morality.

 

[ballen0351]

To restate, my query on this is how does the notion of an over-ridingly dominant faith, overtly and covertly, displacing and suppressing other faith-based points of view sit with the Constitution? It happens to be Christianity in the picture right now but it could easily change with the ebb and flow of population movements, so try not to get too caught up on it being 'your' religion (if it is) and think through the implications dispassionately. Particularly, perhaps, when it comes to pressuring law-makers to favour positions based upon religion rather than practicality or a broader morality.

Simple answer is it doesn't I think we go above and beyond to make sure the dominate faith in the US doesn't oppress other religions. Now someone will in turn post example of where this doesn't happen but that's not the norm its the exception. In fact in my opinion to prove we are so "tolerant" we push back on Christianity harder then we would other religions just to appear fair.

 

[Sukerkin]

I can only tell you that that is not what it looks like from this side of the Pond, my friend.

From here it looks all too much like the Christian churches are pretty involved in the political processes and are far from shy about shutting out those that don't agree with them. From what I have seen and read, I would be most unwilling to come and live in some parts of the USA because I fear that my lack of belief in the Christian god (or any other) would lead to nothing but grief in those communities.

Again, to try and keep this on track and not let it devolve into attack and defence of Christianity (which is not the point of this), how does that impression compare with what the 'freedom of religion' enshrined in the Constitution intended?

 

[ballen0351]

I can only tell you that that is not what it looks like from this side of the Pond, my friend.

From here it looks all too much like the Christian churches are pretty involved in the political processes and are far from shy about shutting out those that don't agree with them. From what I have seen and read, I would be most unwilling to come and live in some parts of the USA because I fear that my lack of belief in the Christian god (or any other) would lead to nothing but grief in those communities.

Again, to try and keep this on track and not let it devolve into attack and defence of Christianity (which is not the point of this), how does that impression compare with what the 'freedom of religion' enshrined in the Constitution intended?

I guess its hard to respond to your question without examples of what your referencing. They have done a pretty complete job of stripping religion from almost all public places.

As for politics and religion I think that's the nature of allowing people to vote. If I base my beliefs on a certain religion then its to be expected that I'll vote that way as well. I don't think its a concentrated effort by the "church". Its more of I believe like this so I'm voting like this if enough people agree with me I win.

 

[arnisador]

The atheists go crazy during christmas, and when people want to say a short prayer before graduations

Repeatedly ruled unconstitutional. Weren't you in favor of following the Constitution?

so extremism can come from the secular humanists as well...ask Germany

Extremism from German secular humanists? Who? (You do know that atheism and secular humanism aren't the same thing, right?) The Germans have a recent past riddled with religious extremism but atheist extremism?

 

[Tgace]

http://www.thestarpress.com/article...22/Graduation-prayer-Fighting-over-lost-cause

School officials in Lake City, Ark., have come up with a novel solution to the fight over prayer at graduation:No prayer, no graduation.


On May 6, the school board voted to cancel sixth-grade graduation at Lake City’s two elementary schools. The action came soon after the district received a complaint letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) objecting to prayers at previous graduations.


Rather than drop the prayers, the district opted to drop the entire ceremony.

The decision appears to be popular in the community. For many Christians in the predominantly Christian community, no graduation is better than graduation without prayers.

A group of Christian parents have come up with plan B: Privatize graduation by organizing a graduation ceremony at a local church where participants can pray as much as they like.


No word yet on what parents and students of minority faiths or those with no religious affiliation will do on graduation day.

 

[Drasken]

Of course they always forget the other part of the 1st Amendment...the one about the free excercise of religion. I have no problem with people leaving each other alone, especially in public schools, but our country wasn't set up to exclude religion from the public sphere either. The atheists go crazy during christmas, and when people want to say a short prayer before graduations, so extremism can come from the secular humanists as well...ask Germany, and Russia as well as China about that. People shouldn't be required to pray, but should be polite when others do, for example the coach example they gave. If the coach is a muslim, then the christians should say their own prayer on their own, since he is the coach and he is the boss, they should respect his beliefs. Of course they already go out of their way to respect muslim beliefs with football, because I have heard of many instances of high school football teams holding practice at extremely early hours of the day to allow their muslim players to observe Ramadan.

It would also be nice if students who are religious, and the valedictorian can give a brief prayer as part of their commencment address without being hassled by the school administration.

As to how the "seperation of church and state," came to be, this video should help...

http://www.prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/The-Separation-of-Church-and-State.html

While I agree with you in principal, I must ask. Would you feel the same way if a Wiccan coach cast a circle and performed an invocation and prayer to the God and Goddess before a game? I see no problem with it, but it would likely make some Christians, and Muslims for that matter, extremely uncomfortable. The same happens when Atheists stand around while everyone else prays. Now I don't think it should be banned. That would be unconstitutional and immoral. However it is a personal thing and should be kept as such don't you think?

Personally I think religion should stay out of politics and politics should stay out of religion.

 

[Sukerkin]

That is a very poor decision in my view, TG. It is also part of the point that I was alluding to in the OP i.e. overt involvement in the affairs of all because of the religious beliefs of some, when that it is, in my understanding, precisely what the Constitution was designed to prevent.

Hence my questions and why I am interested in people setting aside their own upbringing for a minute, ignoring the fact that we are talking about the Christian religion and think about this dispassionately.

All my young adult life I had to deal with standing aside whilst religious practices I disapproved of (and, these days, find offensive, not to put too fine a point on it) were done with official sanction. It's not very comfortable to be the only person out of a thousand who will not pay homage to a divinity but I had to during my high school days, seeking dispensation to do so, as it was mandated into British law (I don't think it is any more). So I understand that it does not feel natural to set aside your emotions and what you have been inculcated with all your lives. But it is a necessary thing to ponder if you do not want your country to be seen as just the flip side of the extremist Islam coin; for that is what is happening in the eyes of those remote from you.

 

[billc]

Simple answer is it doesn't I think we go above and beyond to make sure the dominate faith in the US doesn't oppress other religions. Now someone will in turn post example of where this doesn't happen but that's not the norm its the exception. In fact in my opinion to prove we are so "tolerant" we push back on Christianity harder then we would other religions just to appear fair.

Good point...

I think if a wiccan wanted to make a circle and do his thing it would be hard to accept, but that is because it is a little known religion in the wider society...any "different," religion is going to get that treatment, and I would say he has that right and the other religious or atheists have the right to not participate...or if a boyfriend of a wiccan, who was Catholic, went to a wiccan ritual and wanted to say the Lords Prayer...I've known a lot of wiccans and tolerance isn't their strong point either...

The Costitution was meant to provide for the free excercise of religion without government coercion, that applies both ways. At a graduation they prevent private citizens from praying in their speeches, which would be against the "free excercise," bit...

 

[billc]

Repeatedly ruled unconstitutional. Weren't you in favor of following the Constitution?

I believe in the Constitution, but not the judges...after all they are people and a lot of the time not very smart or wise people and remember, seperate but equal was also ruled constitutional...until it wasn't, and the fugitive slave laws, the same...

 

[Sukerkin]

Interesting twist of viewpoint there, Bill :nods:. So you are saying it is okay for a majority to impose their beliefs on others as long as it is not government sanctioned? That's not meant to sound as accusatory as it does by the way .

 

[billc]

No, the Constitution is there to prevent that as well, but we do live in a representative republic, with checks and balances to deal with oppression by a majority. You can't have a minority holding the majority hostage either...it is a balancing act and it takes time to sort out.

 

[billc]

Hey Sukerkin, how much tolerance would a Catholic experience in a gathering of atheists...I imagine there would be no snickers or rude behavior? Everyone should learn to let other people do their thing, but we are people, and God gave us free will...and sometimes that can be tough to deal with...

 

[Sukerkin]

That is very true, I agree. Balancing points can take generations to appear sometimes.

 

[Sukerkin]

I think it's one of those things where there are differences between our countries and it would also depend on circumstances and context.

It is very easy for a 'group/gang ethos' to arise if it is a discoursive environment without adjudication - I have, for example, seen some fairly rude exchanges in a student setting between the young religious and the non-religious. I have in fact stepped in, in times gone by, to remind people that just because a persons beliefs seem ludicrous to us that is no reason to ridicule them for holding such beliefs {it seems I have ever been gobby (Brit-speak for having a big mouth)}.

A more up to date example is with BillM, who has sadly chosen to be no longer part of our 'family' because he took religious offence. I have said on many occasions that I absolutely disagree with his position on the existence of God and the worth of the Catholic church but, given that his stance is based on a sincere faith rather than disprovable logic, I will defend his right to think that way if he so wishes (with the caveat of "as long as it does not negatively impact upon the lives of others").

I think that the intolerant language that comes frothing to the top in confrontations between faith and reason often arises from simple frustration. I am no less guilty of that than anyone else, especially as I know in reasonable detail (from my previous career as a historian) the actual derivation of the holy books most of the major faiths are based on. But I try to keep my teeth together when I find myself about to lambast someone for something they believe that I find utterly unsupportable - I don't always succeed, to my shame.