Skip to content

The Religion and Philosophy Thread

17810121326

Comments

  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694
    edited January 2019
    Balrog99 said:

    This has become the battleground of choice for the anti-religious. They seem to believe that any display of a religious nature is some kind of affront to their non-beliefs and apparently will cause non-adherents to that faith to either fall on their knees and convert or become so intimidated by the very presence of those displays into subverting their own beliefs. I personally think they're mostly egomaniacs who think that everybody who doesn't (non)believe as they do are ignorant sheep...

    No. It's a display on Public land. Allowing such religious displays on Public land qualify as an establishment of religion expressly forbidden by the Constitution. If your display is on land owned by a church. It's fine. Displays on land you own is also fine. Again, displays on Publically-owned lands? Not allowed.

    The only time it's allowed is when the display is not there for a religious purpose, and it must be funded by a non-religious entity. These are two things which must be considered.
    See here: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/are-religious-displays-on-public-property-such-as-ten-commandments-in-historical-documents-exhibits-legal/

    AND, you cannot discriminate. So if a Christian person wants a creche on Pubic Property, you cannot prevent another religion (or non-religion) from putting up a similar display. This is why, if there is a creche on Public Land, the Town/City or whatever, must allow anyone else, even if it's Satanists, someone who wants to put up a Festivus Pole, A Wiccan Yule display, etc. the right to do the same. That's because all religions and non-religions have the same rights under the law.
    FinneousPJsemiticgoddessGrammarsalad
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    LadyRhian said:

    Balrog99 said:

    This has become the battleground of choice for the anti-religious. They seem to believe that any display of a religious nature is some kind of affront to their non-beliefs and apparently will cause non-adherents to that faith to either fall on their knees and convert or become so intimidated by the very presence of those displays into subverting their own beliefs. I personally think they're mostly egomaniacs who think that everybody who doesn't (non)believe as they do are ignorant sheep...

    No. It's a display on Public land. Allowing such religious displays on Public land qualify as an establishment of religion expressly forbidden by the Constitution. If your display is on land owned by a church. It's fine. Displays on land you own is also fine. Again, displays on Publically-owned lands? Not allowed.

    The only time it's allowed is when the display is not there for a religious purpose, and it must be funded by a non-religious entity. These are two things which must be considered.
    See here: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/are-religious-displays-on-public-property-such-as-ten-commandments-in-historical-documents-exhibits-legal/

    AND, you cannot discriminate. So if a Christian person wants a creche on Pubic Property, you cannot prevent another religion (or non-religion) from putting up a similar display. This is why, if there is a creche on Public Land, the Town/City or whatever, must allow anyone else, even if it's Satanists, someone who wants to put up a Festivus Pole, A Wiccan Yule display, etc. the right to do the same. That's because all religions and non-religions have the same rights under the law.
    Yep, still a wah-wah I don't like your religion thing so my minority should have my way! The very same behaviour they condemn IMHO.
    ThacoBell
  • JLeeJLee Member Posts: 650
    @BelgarathMTH What you wrote reminds me of this quite by Rumi, "I have been a seeker and I still am, but I stopped asking the books and the stars. I started listening to the teaching of my soul."

    Buddhism is so helpful in understanding the human condition and mind process, but it still contains dogma and beliefs and of course much politics amongst followers. In the end I think it is best to just go off uncharted and explore it all on your own. It is a great place to get started but eventually you may have to leave it behind.

    I read somewhere that God does not make copies, only originals. Buddha may have sat under a tree, Jesus may have gone off to the desert, but you have to discover it all brand new yourself in your own way. (I think I may have used that analogy before in this thread, if so, apologies! I still like it apparently!)

    BelgarathMTH
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367

    Balrog99 said:

    LadyRhian said:

    Balrog99 said:

    This has become the battleground of choice for the anti-religious. They seem to believe that any display of a religious nature is some kind of affront to their non-beliefs and apparently will cause non-adherents to that faith to either fall on their knees and convert or become so intimidated by the very presence of those displays into subverting their own beliefs. I personally think they're mostly egomaniacs who think that everybody who doesn't (non)believe as they do are ignorant sheep...

    No. It's a display on Public land. Allowing such religious displays on Public land qualify as an establishment of religion expressly forbidden by the Constitution. If your display is on land owned by a church. It's fine. Displays on land you own is also fine. Again, displays on Publically-owned lands? Not allowed.

    The only time it's allowed is when the display is not there for a religious purpose, and it must be funded by a non-religious entity. These are two things which must be considered.
    See here: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/are-religious-displays-on-public-property-such-as-ten-commandments-in-historical-documents-exhibits-legal/

    AND, you cannot discriminate. So if a Christian person wants a creche on Pubic Property, you cannot prevent another religion (or non-religion) from putting up a similar display. This is why, if there is a creche on Public Land, the Town/City or whatever, must allow anyone else, even if it's Satanists, someone who wants to put up a Festivus Pole, A Wiccan Yule display, etc. the right to do the same. That's because all religions and non-religions have the same rights under the law.
    Yep, still a wah-wah I don't like your religion thing so my minority should have my way! The very same behaviour they condemn IMHO.
    This is a very reductive interpretation of the issue. You're misinterpreting the goal because you find the tone of the argument unpleasant.

    If it was an "I don't like your religion thing" and nothing more, then the atheist in question would be opposed to nativity scenes posted on private property. But that's not what's under debate. This person isn't trying to remove a nativity scene from a church or someone's front yard.

    These controversies only come up when religious displays are erected on public property, which is unconstitutional per legal precedent. The idea behind the separation of church and state is to keep the government from favoring one religion over another. There is a theory that the separation of church and state isn't that absolute, and that the government can show preference to one religion provided that the government isn't flat-out establishing or recognizing a state church, but that's not the traditional view. The traditional view is that the government cannot show any preference for any particular religion, as a matter of principle.

    The argument isn't "The average Joe shouldn't post religious symbols like the nativity scene." The argument is "It's unconstitutional to post religious symbols on government grounds."

    The reason people sometimes try to post sarcastic anti-religious scenes or facetious symbols in response is because the only legal argument against that is that it's also unconstitutional. If you don't want the Flying Spaghetti Monster posted on public grounds, then saying "I don't like it" would not be a valid argument by itself--the valid argument against it would be "It's not constitutional." Once you agree that it's not constitutional, you must also extend the same reasoning to a conventional religious scene.

    There are only three possible viewpoints on this issue:

    1. The separation of church and state is not absolute. Government officials can show some level of preference for one religion; Congress just isn't allowed to create a state church.

    2. Both a traditional nativity scene and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are equally acceptable, legally speaking, to post on public grounds.

    3. Neither a traditional nativity nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster belong on public grounds, as the government is not supposed to show preference towards religion.

    The third view is the long-standing legal precedent in the United States.
    My view is obviously #1.
    ThacoBell
  • ArtonaArtona Member Posts: 1,077
    @Balrog99 - do you have any specific church in mind, or are you okay with this principle in general?
    Grammarsalad
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    It depends. I can see legitimate grievances if someone were to, say, put up a cross or a full on crucifix on public land. But targeting a nativity scene is ridiculous and petty for one big reason. A nativity scene is not solely religious. Its a major decoration associated with Christmas, nearly on par with the Christmas tree. It even falls short as a religious symbol, being inaccurate with scripture anyway.
    Grond0Balrog99semiticgoddess
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    edited January 2019

    Neither a traditional nativity nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster belong on public grounds, as the government is not supposed to show preference towards religion.

    The third view is the long-standing legal precedent in the United States.

    @semiticgod Superb post, I think you covered all the bases. I also have been lead to understand the third option is the standing precedent, but couldn't be arsed to put it into so many words given I'm not even in the US. It's a good principle, one I wish we had here in Finland. (We kind of do but perhaps not so explicit)
    JLeeGrond0
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    @FinneousPJ I think @Balrog99 is the one who posted the part of the quote you have here. The forum's quote system is messed up.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    Artona said:

    @Balrog99 - do you have any specific church in mind, or are you okay with this principle in general?

    When in Rome do as the Romans do. Less dumb conflict over nothing that way...
  • ArtonaArtona Member Posts: 1,077
    Balrog99 said:

    Artona said:

    @Balrog99 - do you have any specific church in mind, or are you okay with this principle in general?

    When in Rome do as the Romans do. Less dumb conflict over nothing that way...
    So... worship the emperor? Romans were pretty strict with people who refused to do that.
    GrammarsaladThacoBell
  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,582
    Balrog99 said:

    Balrog99 said:

    LadyRhian said:

    Balrog99 said:

    This has become the battleground of choice for the anti-religious. They seem to believe that any display of a religious nature is some kind of affront to their non-beliefs and apparently will cause non-adherents to that faith to either fall on their knees and convert or become so intimidated by the very presence of those displays into subverting their own beliefs. I personally think they're mostly egomaniacs who think that everybody who doesn't (non)believe as they do are ignorant sheep...

    No. It's a display on Public land. Allowing such religious displays on Public land qualify as an establishment of religion expressly forbidden by the Constitution. If your display is on land owned by a church. It's fine. Displays on land you own is also fine. Again, displays on Publically-owned lands? Not allowed.

    The only time it's allowed is when the display is not there for a religious purpose, and it must be funded by a non-religious entity. These are two things which must be considered.
    See here: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/are-religious-displays-on-public-property-such-as-ten-commandments-in-historical-documents-exhibits-legal/

    AND, you cannot discriminate. So if a Christian person wants a creche on Pubic Property, you cannot prevent another religion (or non-religion) from putting up a similar display. This is why, if there is a creche on Public Land, the Town/City or whatever, must allow anyone else, even if it's Satanists, someone who wants to put up a Festivus Pole, A Wiccan Yule display, etc. the right to do the same. That's because all religions and non-religions have the same rights under the law.
    Yep, still a wah-wah I don't like your religion thing so my minority should have my way! The very same behaviour they condemn IMHO.
    This is a very reductive interpretation of the issue. You're misinterpreting the goal because you find the tone of the argument unpleasant.

    If it was an "I don't like your religion thing" and nothing more, then the atheist in question would be opposed to nativity scenes posted on private property. But that's not what's under debate. This person isn't trying to remove a nativity scene from a church or someone's front yard.

    These controversies only come up when religious displays are erected on public property, which is unconstitutional per legal precedent. The idea behind the separation of church and state is to keep the government from favoring one religion over another. There is a theory that the separation of church and state isn't that absolute, and that the government can show preference to one religion provided that the government isn't flat-out establishing or recognizing a state church, but that's not the traditional view. The traditional view is that the government cannot show any preference for any particular religion, as a matter of principle.

    The argument isn't "The average Joe shouldn't post religious symbols like the nativity scene." The argument is "It's unconstitutional to post religious symbols on government grounds."

    The reason people sometimes try to post sarcastic anti-religious scenes or facetious symbols in response is because the only legal argument against that is that it's also unconstitutional. If you don't want the Flying Spaghetti Monster posted on public grounds, then saying "I don't like it" would not be a valid argument by itself--the valid argument against it would be "It's not constitutional." Once you agree that it's not constitutional, you must also extend the same reasoning to a conventional religious scene.

    There are only three possible viewpoints on this issue:

    1. The separation of church and state is not absolute. Government officials can show some level of preference for one religion; Congress just isn't allowed to create a state church.

    2. Both a traditional nativity scene and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are equally acceptable, legally speaking, to post on public grounds.

    3. Neither a traditional nativity nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster belong on public grounds, as the government is not supposed to show preference towards religion.

    The third view is the long-standing legal precedent in the United States.
    My view is obviously #1.
    Don't stop there.

    Which institution, and why? How much favor can the government show? What would be considered to be overstep? If we are to keep on topic, we need to get into the specific arguments
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,870
    Artona said:

    So... worship the emperor? Romans were pretty strict with people who refused to do that.

    Eh, still better than worshipping asian idol girl groups. At least the empresses and emperors of old didn't go all "uguu~" on their fans.

    That being said, worshipping living deities actually tended to make more sense than for bodiless concept deities. It's easier to vote for a person you actually can "see" than for someone you merely heard of through word-of-mouth after all. Whenever they were actual gods or not however is a different debate altogether.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367

    Balrog99 said:

    Balrog99 said:

    LadyRhian said:

    Balrog99 said:

    This has become the battleground of choice for the anti-religious. They seem to believe that any display of a religious nature is some kind of affront to their non-beliefs and apparently will cause non-adherents to that faith to either fall on their knees and convert or become so intimidated by the very presence of those displays into subverting their own beliefs. I personally think they're mostly egomaniacs who think that everybody who doesn't (non)believe as they do are ignorant sheep...

    No. It's a display on Public land. Allowing such religious displays on Public land qualify as an establishment of religion expressly forbidden by the Constitution. If your display is on land owned by a church. It's fine. Displays on land you own is also fine. Again, displays on Publically-owned lands? Not allowed.

    The only time it's allowed is when the display is not there for a religious purpose, and it must be funded by a non-religious entity. These are two things which must be considered.
    See here: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/are-religious-displays-on-public-property-such-as-ten-commandments-in-historical-documents-exhibits-legal/

    AND, you cannot discriminate. So if a Christian person wants a creche on Pubic Property, you cannot prevent another religion (or non-religion) from putting up a similar display. This is why, if there is a creche on Public Land, the Town/City or whatever, must allow anyone else, even if it's Satanists, someone who wants to put up a Festivus Pole, A Wiccan Yule display, etc. the right to do the same. That's because all religions and non-religions have the same rights under the law.
    Yep, still a wah-wah I don't like your religion thing so my minority should have my way! The very same behaviour they condemn IMHO.
    This is a very reductive interpretation of the issue. You're misinterpreting the goal because you find the tone of the argument unpleasant.

    If it was an "I don't like your religion thing" and nothing more, then the atheist in question would be opposed to nativity scenes posted on private property. But that's not what's under debate. This person isn't trying to remove a nativity scene from a church or someone's front yard.

    These controversies only come up when religious displays are erected on public property, which is unconstitutional per legal precedent. The idea behind the separation of church and state is to keep the government from favoring one religion over another. There is a theory that the separation of church and state isn't that absolute, and that the government can show preference to one religion provided that the government isn't flat-out establishing or recognizing a state church, but that's not the traditional view. The traditional view is that the government cannot show any preference for any particular religion, as a matter of principle.

    The argument isn't "The average Joe shouldn't post religious symbols like the nativity scene." The argument is "It's unconstitutional to post religious symbols on government grounds."

    The reason people sometimes try to post sarcastic anti-religious scenes or facetious symbols in response is because the only legal argument against that is that it's also unconstitutional. If you don't want the Flying Spaghetti Monster posted on public grounds, then saying "I don't like it" would not be a valid argument by itself--the valid argument against it would be "It's not constitutional." Once you agree that it's not constitutional, you must also extend the same reasoning to a conventional religious scene.

    There are only three possible viewpoints on this issue:

    1. The separation of church and state is not absolute. Government officials can show some level of preference for one religion; Congress just isn't allowed to create a state church.

    2. Both a traditional nativity scene and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are equally acceptable, legally speaking, to post on public grounds.

    3. Neither a traditional nativity nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster belong on public grounds, as the government is not supposed to show preference towards religion.

    The third view is the long-standing legal precedent in the United States.
    My view is obviously #1.
    Don't stop there.

    Which institution, and why? How much favor can the government show? What would be considered to be overstep? If we are to keep on topic, we need to get into the specific arguments
    I'm a live and let live type. People who need specifics are too uptight. When did people get so easily offended anyway? I could see if people were still being crucified or something.

    Idiotic arguments about stuff like this lessens the legitimate claims of discrimination in my opinion. It actually fuels the rhetoric of the religious right for absolutely no gain except an ego-driven gotcha to Christians. Congratulations, hello Donald Trump...
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    Artona said:

    Balrog99 said:

    Artona said:

    @Balrog99 - do you have any specific church in mind, or are you okay with this principle in general?

    When in Rome do as the Romans do. Less dumb conflict over nothing that way...
    So... worship the emperor? Romans were pretty strict with people who refused to do that.
    If you're not religious there is no consequence for pretending that you are so who cares?
    mlnevese
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    I'd probably go with existing precedent and clear the public grounds of both types of religious imagery. The nativity scene does have primarily religious connotations--it's literally a scene from traditional Christian iconography, depicting Jesus himself--that Santa or a Christmas tree do not. Since there's no particular need for it to be on public grounds, we don't need to weigh constitutionality against some other priority that could theoretically be more important. I'd err on the side of caution and remove it, just so we're sure it's not unconstitutional.

    If it's genuinely not that big of an issue, that would be the simplest way to resolve the matter.
    FinneousPJThacoBell
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    edited January 2019

    I'd probably go with existing precedent and clear the public grounds of both types of religious imagery. The nativity scene does have primarily religious connotations--it's literally a scene from traditional Christian iconography, depicting Jesus himself--that Santa or a Christmas tree do not. Since there's no particular need for it to be on public grounds, we don't need to weigh constitutionality against some other priority that could theoretically be more important. I'd err on the side of caution and remove it, just so we're sure it's not unconstitutional.

    If it's genuinely not that big of an issue, that would be the simplest way to resolve the matter.

    It's not a big deal to me. That doesn't mean it's not a big deal to everybody. People love democracy when they're the majority. When they aren't, not so much...
  • ArtonaArtona Member Posts: 1,077
    Balrog99 said:

    Artona said:

    Balrog99 said:

    Artona said:

    @Balrog99 - do you have any specific church in mind, or are you okay with this principle in general?

    When in Rome do as the Romans do. Less dumb conflict over nothing that way...
    So... worship the emperor? Romans were pretty strict with people who refused to do that.
    If you're not religious there is no consequence for pretending that you are so who cares?
    Why would you say that? Being non-religious doesn't mean that you don't mind dishonesty, or enjoy not speaking your mind. The consequence is being forced to lie or to pretend to like something you don't or to agree with something you don't agree.
    I see no reason to assume that forcing atheist to worship something they don't want to is okay - simply because they won't burn in hell for that.

    But it doesn't answer my initial question - is alliance of throne and altar right regardless of religion? Would you be okay, if, for example, satanist president would hang pentagrams all around and had statues of Baphomet in public? If he would talk in interviews how important it is for us to protect and defend satanism, because that believe is core of being American? If he would hang out with high priests of Satan?
    And if the next president turned out to be muslim and started founding mosques and promote sharia - would that be cool too?
    JLeeThacoBell
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    Artona said:

    Balrog99 said:

    Artona said:

    Balrog99 said:

    Artona said:

    @Balrog99 - do you have any specific church in mind, or are you okay with this principle in general?

    When in Rome do as the Romans do. Less dumb conflict over nothing that way...
    So... worship the emperor? Romans were pretty strict with people who refused to do that.
    If you're not religious there is no consequence for pretending that you are so who cares?
    Why would you say that? Being non-religious doesn't mean that you don't mind dishonesty, or enjoy not speaking your mind. The consequence is being forced to lie or to pretend to like something you don't or to agree with something you don't agree.
    I see no reason to assume that forcing atheist to worship something they don't want to is okay - simply because they won't burn in hell for that.

    But it doesn't answer my initial question - is alliance of throne and altar right regardless of religion? Would you be okay, if, for example, satanist president would hang pentagrams all around and had statues of Baphomet in public? If he would talk in interviews how important it is for us to protect and defend satanism, because that believe is core of being American? If he would hang out with high priests of Satan?
    And if the next president turned out to be muslim and started founding mosques and promote sharia - would that be cool too?
    Satanism is too nihilistic and chaotic to ever gain that kind of power so that's not really a good example. You need to refer to another major religion such as Islam or Buddhism or something for a fair comparison. The answer is that I don't think I would find it a big deal to pretend to be a certain religion. The only way I would pretend is if my life, family or work were affected, however. In the US I don't really have to pretend to be anything, so I don't.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited January 2019
    It's patently absurd to suggest Christianity doesn't already receive FAR more equal treatment in this country compared to any other religion. There is an actual law on the books in the state I live in that businesses can't open until noon on Sundays, and this is explicitly because of Christian church services and for NO other reason. The entire public debate around gay marriage uses so-called Christian morality as it's starting point, and is essentially the ONLY argument against it. Our biggest recognized national holiday is (ostensibly) a celebration of the birth of the key figure in the religion. The entire country basically shuts down for a week until New Year's because of it. So the idea that atheists and Satanists occasionally pull some stunt to try take it down a peg is sort of like firing a pebble out of a slingshot at an armored tank.
    ThacoBell
  • ArtonaArtona Member Posts: 1,077
    Balrog99 said:

    Satanism is too nihilistic and chaotic to ever gain that kind of power so that's not really a good example. You need to refer to another major religion such as Islam or Buddhism or something for a fair comparison. The answer is that I don't think I would find it a big deal to pretend to be a certain religion. The only way I would pretend is if my life, family or work were affected, however. In the US I don't really have to pretend to be anything, so I don't.

    Then you don't really stand for #1, but rather #1a - that is "separation of state and church is not absolute - unless it's some religion that I don't approve of". And those are two very different views on the matter.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    Artona said:

    Balrog99 said:

    Satanism is too nihilistic and chaotic to ever gain that kind of power so that's not really a good example. You need to refer to another major religion such as Islam or Buddhism or something for a fair comparison. The answer is that I don't think I would find it a big deal to pretend to be a certain religion. The only way I would pretend is if my life, family or work were affected, however. In the US I don't really have to pretend to be anything, so I don't.

    Then you don't really stand for #1, but rather #1a - that is "separation of state and church is not absolute - unless it's some religion that I don't approve of". And those are two very different views on the matter.
    My personal approval is irrelevant. Majority approval is what is relevant.
  • ArtonaArtona Member Posts: 1,077
    Balrog99 said:

    My personal approval is irrelevant. Majority approval is what is relevant.

    Well, you did say:
    Balrog99 said:

    My view is obviously #1.

    And if majority approval is all that is needed, then we need to say that religious persecution of Christians is alright.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    Artona said:

    Balrog99 said:

    My personal approval is irrelevant. Majority approval is what is relevant.

    Well, you did say:
    Balrog99 said:

    My view is obviously #1.

    And if majority approval is all that is needed, then we need to say that religious persecution of Christians is alright.
    How is a nativity scene persecution? It's not like you need to bow to it, or genuflect or well, anything really. You and I have a very different view of persecution apparently...
    ThacoBell
  • ArtonaArtona Member Posts: 1,077
    Balrog99 said:

    How is a nativity scene persecution? It's not like you need to bow to it, or genuflect or well, anything really. You and I have a very different view of persecution apparently...

    Well, first you say that "When in Rome do as the Romans do. Less dumb conflict over nothing that way...". Then I say that Romans demanded from people to worship emperors, whether they like it or not. You answer "If you're not religious there is no consequence for pretending that you are so who cares?". Then that "My personal approval is irrelevant. Majority approval is what is relevant.".
    So is it okay to impose someone religious views on public ground or not?
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    @Artona @Balrog99: We might be getting into semantics at this point. I think you've already established your key points and reasoning.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367

    @Artona @Balrog99: We might be getting into semantics at this point. I think you've already established your key points and reasoning.

    No worries mate! I don't take offense from good natured debate. I hope @Artona feels the same. From past conversations I'd be willing to bet he does. Religion & politics are passionate subjects with passionate debates. Don't come down too hard. There are more open minds on this forum than any I've yet encountered...
    semiticgoddessArtonaJLee
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    Artona said:

    Balrog99 said:

    How is a nativity scene persecution? It's not like you need to bow to it, or genuflect or well, anything really. You and I have a very different view of persecution apparently...

    Well, first you say that "When in Rome do as the Romans do. Less dumb conflict over nothing that way...". Then I say that Romans demanded from people to worship emperors, whether they like it or not. You answer "If you're not religious there is no consequence for pretending that you are so who cares?". Then that "My personal approval is irrelevant. Majority approval is what is relevant.".
    So is it okay to impose someone religious views on public ground or not?
    No, I don't if it leads to true persecution. I just don't think that a Nativity display is akin to persecution.
    mlnevese
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited January 2019
    Balrog99 said:

    Artona said:

    Balrog99 said:

    How is a nativity scene persecution? It's not like you need to bow to it, or genuflect or well, anything really. You and I have a very different view of persecution apparently...

    Well, first you say that "When in Rome do as the Romans do. Less dumb conflict over nothing that way...". Then I say that Romans demanded from people to worship emperors, whether they like it or not. You answer "If you're not religious there is no consequence for pretending that you are so who cares?". Then that "My personal approval is irrelevant. Majority approval is what is relevant.".
    So is it okay to impose someone religious views on public ground or not?
    No, I don't if it leads to true persecution. I just don't think that a Nativity display is akin to persecution.

    I don't think it's akin to persecution either. But what I do think is that Christmas is such an all-encompassing societal event that the idea that Nativity scenes would only be on private instead of public property a meaningless compromise on the part of Christians who actually give a shit about something like this. I simply do not understand how a Christian can live in this country and feel outnumbered or aggrieved. There are churches on every corner. Much of our public debate is centered around giving deference to this religion at the expense of almost all others. Much like being white is seen as the "default" way to be, so to is being raised in a Christian household and believing in it's basic theology.

    For my entire time in high school (which in my small town was 7-12th grade), on the last day of school every year before Christmas break, there was a big party the entire afternoon in the gymnasium. But what always preceded it was some student being chosen to actually read out loud from the Bible the basic story of Jesus' birth into a microphone. It was always proceeded by a disclaimer (leave the gym if you are offended), but even as someone who still believed at the time, I couldn't help but view this practice as completely ridiculous. Why were we doing this in school?? Isn't this what church is for?? And let's say there WERE children who were offended or didn't want to participate (which there undoubtedly were). Who was going to be the one to walk out and risk being ostracized as the person who walked out of the baby Jesus story at the Christmas party for the entire rest of their teenage life?? Again, this was in the mid to late 90s, and I found it problematic every year I sat through it. The entire thing was just tainted with this general unease everyone in the crowd (teachers and students alike) felt until the damn thing was mercifully over and everyone could breath again. It was like we were putting 150 people through some bizarre ritual that served no actual purpose. Even thinking back I can distinctly feel the tension it caused in the gym. It was palpable. And this was in a community where nearly everyone was baptized and confirmed, and at least ostensibly believed in SOMETHING. It just seemed off and wrong. And if it hadn't, the disclaimer would have never been offered in the first place. This could never happen now, and I couldn't agree more with that reasoning.
    semiticgoddessJLeeBelgarathMTH
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367

    Balrog99 said:

    Artona said:

    Balrog99 said:

    How is a nativity scene persecution? It's not like you need to bow to it, or genuflect or well, anything really. You and I have a very different view of persecution apparently...

    Well, first you say that "When in Rome do as the Romans do. Less dumb conflict over nothing that way...". Then I say that Romans demanded from people to worship emperors, whether they like it or not. You answer "If you're not religious there is no consequence for pretending that you are so who cares?". Then that "My personal approval is irrelevant. Majority approval is what is relevant.".
    So is it okay to impose someone religious views on public ground or not?
    No, I don't if it leads to true persecution. I just don't think that a Nativity display is akin to persecution.

    I don't think it's akin to persecution either. But what I do think is that Christmas is such an all-encompassing societal event that the idea that Nativity scenes would only be on private instead of public property a meaningless compromise on the part of Christians who actually give a shit about something like this. I simply do not understand how a Christian can live in this country and feel outnumbered or aggrieved. There are churches on every corner. Much of our public debate is centered around giving deference to this religion at the expense of almost all others. Much like being white is seen as the "default" way to be, so to is being raised in a Christian household and believing in it's basic theology.

    For my entire time in high school (which in my small town was 7-12th grade), on the last day of school every year before Christmas break, there was a big party the entire afternoon in the gymnasium. But what always preceded it was some student being chosen to actually read out loud from the Bible the basic story of Jesus' birth into a microphone. It was always proceeded by a disclaimer (leave the gym if you are offended), but even as someone who still believed at the time, I couldn't help but view this practice as completely ridiculous. Why were we doing this in school?? Isn't this what church is for?? And let's say there WERE children who were offended or didn't want to participate (which there undoubtedly were). Who was going to be the one to walk out and risk being ostracized as the person who walked out of the baby Jesus story at the Christmas party for the entire rest of their teenage life?? Again, this was in the mid to late 90s, and I found it problematic every year I sat through it. The entire thing was just tainted with this general unease everyone in the crowd (teachers and studentse) felt until the damn thing was mercifully over and everyone could breath again. It was like we were putting 150 people through some bizarre ritual that served no actual purpose. Even thinking back I can distinctly feel the tension it caused in the gym. It was palpable. And this was in a community where nearly everyone was baptized and confirmed, and at least ostensibly believed in SOMETHING. It just seemed off and wrong. And if it hadn't, the disclaimer would have never been offered in the first place. This could never happen now, and I couldn't agree more with that reasoning.
    Christmas is mostly a hedonistic, commercialised ritual anymore, even to Christians. At least the Nativity scenes are symbolic for a less selfish meaning. Even if they're just symbols at least it's something better than what Christmas has become, a time of year for Wall Street to gauge the state of the economy...
    semiticgoddessThacoBell
Sign In or Register to comment.