Forcing your beliefs on others

[christalee4]

The only example I can of anyone "forcing" Christianity on anyone would be a potential situation of regular Christian prayer, deliberately invoking Jesus Christ, to a captive audience in a public school of young kids. Other kids who are Jewish, non-religious, or Muslim, would probably feel socially pressured to either participate, or be scorned by their fellow classmates. They wouldn't be "forced", but they may feel shunned, and experience religious discrimination.

Here is an example that allegedly occurred in a Delaware school district:
http://www.jewsonfirst.org/06b/indianriver.html

 

[selfinflikted]

Here's what gets me about the whole ordeal. Say, for instance, we have a christian guy in one corner, and a satanist in the other. Mr. Christian wants to put a statue of jesus on display in a public forum. Mr. Satanist argues that Mr. Christian shouldn't be able to display any religious symbols in a public place. Mr. Christian argues that its his constitutional freedom to express his religion, and that if Mr. Satanist doesn't like the statue, he can simply not look at it.

I have found that this is the attitude of a lot of the christians here. However, if Mr. Satanist were to display an inverted cross in a public place, Mr. Christian would rally The Folks and say that this display goes against his constitutional rights and that the inverted cross should be removed immediately. What's the difference here? Why couldn't the christians simply "look the other way" if they didn't care for the display? There's a huge double standard with religious types on this sort of topic IMO.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Here's what gets me about the whole ordeal. Say, for instance, we have a christian guy in one corner, and a satanist in the other. Mr. Christian wants to put a statue of jesus on display in a public forum. Mr. Satanist argues that Mr. Christian shouldn't be able to display any religious symbols in a public place. Mr. Christian argues that its his constitutional freedom to express his religion, and that if Mr. Satanist doesn't like the statue, he can simply not look at it.

I have found that this is the attitude of a lot of the christians here. However, if Mr. Satanist were to display an inverted cross in a public place, Mr. Christian would rally The Folks and say that this display goes against his constitutional rights and that the inverted cross should be removed immediately. What's the difference here? Why couldn't the christians simply "look the other way" if they didn't care for the display? There's a huge double standard with religious types on this sort of topic IMO.

Well, to split hairs, one is a religious symbol and one is a symbol of evil.

But fortunately, the Consitution does not bar displays of religious nature in a public area, or else public museums could not put King Tut's coffin on display. Furthermore, Congress passed a motion for George Washington to declare Thanksgiving Day a day of prayer, and they even bought Bibles for the US, to encourage Christianity. So . . . I guess it's up to the people, eh?

 

[christalee4]

Here's what gets me about the whole ordeal. Say, for instance, we have a christian guy in one corner, and a satanist in the other. Mr. Christian wants to put a statue of jesus on display in a public forum. Mr. Satanist argues that Mr. Christian shouldn't be able to display any religious symbols in a public place. Mr. Christian argues that its his constitutional freedom to express his religion, and that if Mr. Satanist doesn't like the statue, he can simply not look at it.

I have found that this is the attitude of a lot of the christians here. However, if Mr. Satanist were to display an inverted cross in a public place, Mr. Christian would rally The Folks and say that this display goes against his constitutional rights and that the inverted cross should be removed immediately. What's the difference here? Why couldn't the christians simply "look the other way" if they didn't care for the display? There's a huge double standard with religious types on this sort of topic IMO.

Most of my non Christian friends don't get overly wound up over Christmas creches and crosses. But I guess there aren't enough pagans or non Christians who want to bother putting up their symbols everywhere, and I think they should be allowed to do so.

The only example I saw recently was a very vocal and obnoxious protest by a Rev. Neal Dozier who was against a mosque moving into a mostly black, "Christian" neighborhood, as the Rev. Dozier claimed.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/special_packages/blackhistory/15016878.htm

Meanwhile, churches sprout up all over the place without protest; there isn't any danger of anti-Christian discrimination, it seems.

If there is to be prayer in public schools, then there should also be other religions' prayers as well. They could take turns with the days; Mondays could be Christian, Tuesdays Hindu, Wednesday's Torah reading, Thursdays something from the Hadith, and Friday's, because it's the weekend (yay!), a prayer to Gaia, or the Goddess.

 

[JesusWalks78]

You honestly believe that the last one is as important as the others? Or is it just easier?

The saving of a soul is at least as important as the rest.

 

[Lord_Marx]

Well, to split hairs, one is a religious symbol and one is a symbol of evil.

But fortunately, the Consitution does not bar displays of religious nature in a public area, or else public museums could not put King Tut's coffin on display. Furthermore, Congress passed a motion for George Washington to declare Thanksgiving Day a day of prayer, and they even bought Bibles for the US, to encourage Christianity. So . . . I guess it's up to the people, eh?

You sure about that? I heard that Thanksgiving wasn't even a national holiday until Lincoln made it one.

 

[Lord_Marx]

Just looked it up, it turns out that although Lincoln started Thanksgiving, "thanksgivings" (not on specific days) existed before hand.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

The saving of a soul is at least as important as the rest.

Well, it would be if there was such a thing as a soul.

 

[GregoryTurner]

Well, it would be if there was such a thing as a soul.

wow.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Well, to split hairs, one is a religious symbol and one is a symbol of evil.

Bogus and subjective argument. The symbol means whatever the practicioners say it does. They don't define your religious symbols. You don't define theirs.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

wow.

You claim the soul exists. I see no evidence it does. There is no evidence either way. What gives your opinion greater weight than mine?

 

[GregoryTurner]

God.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

God.

You claim god exists. I see no evidence he does. There is no evidence either way. What gives your opinion greater weight than mine?

 

[GregoryTurner]

Sir. I will not go that but will leave it up to God to reveal it to you. One day you will stand before Him just like me and I will pray that you find Him before that happens.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Sir. I will not go that

Of course you won't.

but will leave it up to God to reveal it to you. One day you will stand before Him just like me and I will pray that you find Him before that happens.

Please, we hear the "you're gonna be sorry" argument at least once every seventeen seconds in this forum.

 

[GregoryTurner]

Sir, Jesus loves you and so do I. I am sorry that I do not have a way online to prove it to you. Maybe someone will one day soon.

 

[TuxThePenguin]

Well, to split hairs, one is a religious symbol and one is a symbol of evil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_St._Peter

The Alexandrian scholar Origen is the first to report that St. Peter 'was crucified head downward, for he had asked that he might suffer in this way'. Some Catholics use this cross as a symbol of humility and unworthiness in comparison to Christ.

Humility is evil?

I Agree with selfinflikted. Your quoted post does nothing to refute his example.
You just define something as 'evil' and therefore believe it is imbued with some special properties. Symbols cannot be 'evil'. Someone professing to like said symbol can commit 'evil' acts but it is not the symbol's fault.
Timothy McVeigh commited acts I would consider evil. by your logic as a roman catholic their symbols are 'evil'

Remind me again why is a Crucifix of more value than A Cross of St. Peter?

 

[GregoryTurner]

Of course you won't.

Please, we hear the "you're gonna be sorry" argument at least once every seventeen seconds in this forum.

Sir, it is not you that will be sorry, it will be Jesus. For when He tells someone to depart because He did not know them, there will be great sadness and tears for them in His eyes.

 

[TuxThePenguin]

Sir, Jesus loves you and so do I. I am sorry that I do not have a way online to prove it to you. Maybe someone will one day soon.

The IPU and The FSM love you too. I find the condesention unpleasant.

You also invoke God and Jesus to avoid answering a simple question put to you.

"What gives your opinion greater weight than mine?"

 

[GregoryTurner]

The IPU and The FSM love you too. I find the condesention unpleasant.

You also invoke God and Jesus to avoid answering a simple question put to you.

You too will one day see. Sir, I do not have a response to that question... I am sorry.