God and the US

[El Brujo]

I cannot accuse anyone individually of bigotry, not knowing much about you...

Yet you did it anyway.

You are revising history to fit your, perhaps unintentional, bigotry against our religion.

Should Christians be allowed to integrate religious imagery into our government? No. Should Jews be allowed to integrate religious imagery into our government? No. The same for Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, Scientologists, Jedi Knights and Satanists.

This does in any way infringe on the rights of any of these groups to practice their faith.

If you're arguing that Christians should be excepted because they're in the majority, you're going to have to find away around the Fourteenth Amendment, not the First.

 

[Kelly B]

Allah is only on the side of good and justice, and not on the side of any one nation.

 

[Danhalen]

The same way the OT uses God to justify genocide. History is written by the victor, we get to add in what ever we want by force of might.

More nonsense. Israel was like SO defeated many times. Why don't we worship the God of the Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans?

If Christianity had not spawned from Judaism, you would not know any of the Judaic stories. It is Christianity that has been the victor, not Judaism. It is Christianity that has carried th history of the God approved Jewish wars, not the Jews. Maybe you should look at the bigger picture rather than pointing out the fault. I spew no bull, it is true that the victor writes history, and Christianity (so far) has been the victor. Try again.

 

[Hadron]

If Christianity had not spawned from Judaism, you would not know any of the Judaic stories. It is Christianity that has been the victor, not Judaism. It is Christianity that has carried th history of the God approved Jewish wars, not the Jews. Maybe you should look at the bigger picture rather than pointing out the fault. I spew no bull, it is true that the victor writes history, and Christianity (so far) has been the victor. Try again.

Really? Why did the Greeks in Alexandria have the Old Testament translated into the Septuagint 300 years before Christianity?
By your logic, Judaism should have never survived past the Assyrian conquest, nor the Greek conquest, nor the Roman conquest and hence, Christianity should have never existed. Yet today, it thrives.
Judaism survives. The stories from Judaism survived not just because the Jews are excellent record keepers with an astounding accuracy, but because the victors, in fact, do not succeed in rewriting history.
I think you can try again, now.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

. . . but many atheists in our country would like to restrict our free exercise of religion, which includes our faith informing our decisions regarding politics and public life in general.

This is quite ridiculous. As an atheist, I in no way wish to restrict you or any other person of any other faith from being able to practice your faith. I have no doubt that many people in public office use their faith as a source of "inspiration" in their decision making. The fact that they are public servants, however, should restrict them in their public actions so that their expression of faith does not in any way infringe on anyone else's right to free exercise of religion. They must also not act in ways which would be intimidating toward people of other faiths (a la Roy Moore). There is a duty that goes along with all public servants to act in good conscience toward the good of all citizens, without prejudice.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the US is becoming an atheistic country.

If you object to any symbol of our faith being integrated into our government then you are bigotted against Christians. I think everyone of whatever faith should be allowed to exercise their religion limited only by laws regarding public safely and human rights.

Basil

We should not have any religious symbols integrated into our government. Again, their absence does not equal discrimination or bigotry. It simply means we all equally do not have the right to promote our particular version of religion as public officials. I have no problems with people wearing cross necklaces or personal expressions such as that, but when judges start putting the ten commandments on their robes, a line hasn't just been crossed--it's been erased.

Should we have "under god" in the pledge or "in god we trust" on our money? Absolutely not. They were inserted into both, not by the founding fathers (the pledge didn't even exist), but well after the country was founded and in response to the prevailing political climate of the day. Not having them in no way infringes upon anyone's expression of his/her religion, yet it does send a message to those who don't believe in the Christian god (and both are refering to the Judeo-Christian god) that they are less than full members of society. I also believe these are relatively small problems in US society at the moment, and there are far more pressing problems to spend our energy on.

 

[FullyAmbivalent]

I don't believe God is endorsing the American government. I think God generally stays out of the affairs of human politics unless there is something He wants to accomplish through the use of governments. Much of the American population is Christian. The U.S. is also very wealthy and powerful. I think that many people will put the two together and assume that God is rewarding the Americans for their faith. Perhaps God has favored America because of it's strong Christian faith but God certainly does not support evil of any kind, including in the U.S. and it's government.


God Bless!

I would suggest that the very fact that most American christians are so wealthy and power might mean that they are in fact, not so much Christian. Wealth and power are not a reward from God... no, rather wealth and power are of this world, and Master Jesus warned against it many times.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

To all those that claim restricting one's religion in public is discrimination and bigotry, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, right?

Mathew 6:1 "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven."

 

[kemaldohak]

hope peace of religions

 

[vanshan]

Should Christians be allowed to integrate religious imagery into our government? No. Should Jews be allowed to integrate religious imagery into our government? No. The same for Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, Scientologists, Jedi Knights and Satanists.

This does in any way infringe on the rights of any of these groups to practice their faith.

How does this protect the free exercise of religion?

I think a major problem in this discussion is that the majority of people seem to view religion as an ethical sidebar they merely use as a compass to guide their decisions, rather than an all embracing belief that affects every aspect of their life. If I believe Christ was the Son of God, was raised from the dead, and is coming again to judge the living and the dead, which I do, then all my actions are guided by this belief. I cannot practice faith as merely a set of intellectual ideas. Many Christians, and adherents of other religions, want to create a society that supports and reflects their faith. In a Muslim country, I would have to be tolerant enough to accept a life ordered by their beliefs. I could expect respect, human rights, and freedom to exercise my religion, but I think it would be unfair to let any bigotry I might have against Islam restrict their free exercise of religion. In fact, religious differences are part of the cultural charm of visiting different countries. If a person of another religion lives in the U.S. they should be tolerant enough to accept the religious customs of those in the majority. Our faith defines our society and always has.

I am an Orthodox Christian, so the practice of many Chrisitians in the U.S. completely oppose my beliefs and the way I worship, but I have to be tolerant too.

Basil

 

[vanshan]

To all those that claim restricting one's religion in public is discrimination and bigotry, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, right?

Mathew 6:1 "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven."

Desiring to live by your faith is not the same as being a hypocrite and trying to live your faith before men as some sort of self-righteous show.

Does the same rule apply to all countries? Would you go to Afganistan and protest Islamic values being legislated by their lawmakers? (If you became a citizen of that nation). If you did, you'd simply be seen as an ethnocentric bigot. Free people have the right to live according to their faith.

Basil

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I think a major problem in this discussion is that the majority of people seem to view religion as an ethical sidebar they merely use as a compass to guide their decisions, rather than an all embracing belief that affects every aspect of their life. If I believe Christ was the Son of God, was raised from the dead, and is coming again to judge the living and the dead, which I do, then all my actions are guided by this belief. I cannot practice faith as merely a set of intellectual ideas.

I, as an atheist, have no problems with any person using whatever religion to guide their entire life. Public officials, however, while they may use their faith/religion to "inform" their decisions, they should not be acting/speaking in ways which denies religious freedom to any other group. If a president/senator/rep. wants to believe in revelation, there's nothing anyone can/should do about it. However, if s/he uses that belief to construct legislation that discriminates against a certain part of society, there's a problem.

 

[vanshan]

I, as an atheist, have no problems with any person using whatever religion to guide their entire life. Public officials, however, while they may use their faith/religion to "inform" their decisions, they should not be acting/speaking in ways which denies religious freedom to any other group. If a president/senator/rep. wants to believe in revelation, there's nothing anyone can/should do about it. However, if s/he uses that belief to construct legislation that discriminates against a certain part of society, there's a problem.

I 100% agree with you on all the above, unless you mean that some laws based on Christian morality would be considered "discrimination." For example, if the majority of people in a state decide that a modest dress code should be observed, and put laws in place banning skimpy clothes, this should be okay. It doesn't take away any human right, it merely lets the people of that state create a society that supports/reflects their values. This is based on majority opinion, which can shift, but as long as it's the overwhelming will of the people it should be okay, just as requiring women to wear headscarfs in Afganistan would be okay.

Basil

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Desiring to live by your faith is not the same as being a hypocrite and trying to live your faith before men as some sort of self-righteous show.

I didn't say it was. I'm just saying for all the people who feel, for example, that the 10 commandments should be in courtrooms, there's a bit of hypocrisy. And to further claim that not having them in courtrooms denies their expression of religion is ludicrous.

Does the same rule apply to all countries?

Nope. I was and am speaking specifically about the US.

Would you go to Afganistan and protest Islamic values being legislated by their lawmakers? (If you became a citizen of that nation).

No, I wouldn't go to that country simply because of the religious intolerance. I live in Japan and I find the almost complete lack of religion in daily life quite refreshing.

If you did, you'd simply be seen as an ethnocentric bigot. Free people have the right to live according to their faith.

Basil

I agree. Buy are they really free in Afghanistan? Of course we'd have to define that term.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I 100% agree with you on all the above, unless you mean that some laws based on Christian morality would be considered "discrimination." For example, if the majority of people in a state decide that a modest dress code should be observed, and put laws in place banning skimpy clothes, this should be okay. It doesn't take away any human right, it merely lets the people of that state create a society that supports/reflects their values. This is based on majority opinion, which can shift, but as long as it's the overwhelming will of the people it should be okay, just as requiring women to wear headscarfs in Afganistan would be okay.

Basil

When legislators make laws, they get their inspiration from many sources. I would hope most would use logic and reason first and foremost. The fact that the Bible says "Do not kill/murder" (depending on your translation), doesn't mean I would reject it as a valid moral and legal principal. The Bible also says if a man rapes a woman, he should marry her. I can reject this on both moral and legal prinicipal. I don't have any problems with legislators using their religion to inform their decisions. I do have problems when they start to infuse religious wording/preferential treatment into laws.

The rule of law is based on the opinion of the majority, but, at least in the US, there are supposed to be checks and balances to protect the rights of the minority. Thus, women can now vote, African-American can as well, and are no longer slaves, even though for a long time the majority opinion was against these things.

Even though the pledge and "in God we trust" is supported by the majority, it doesn't mean they will stand legally for all time. The judges in CA did they're job by not ruling according to the will of the majority, but according to the law. If they are eventually done away with, as they should be, it will not be a persecution of Xianity, but a validation of the separation of church and state (of course it won't be viewed that way by fundies).