|
I can't quote cause my phone won't let me...
But when you say "they" all the time, it's lumping every atheist into your same category, which isn't fair. Just cause some people talk about it all the time and have a website, so what? So do conspiracy theorists, trekkies, and people that have feet fetishes. Doesn't mean that's a great representation of the entire population. My belief that there is nothing up there, that you simply become a dead body when you die, and that things aren't in someone else's hands, that's it for me. There is no "humanist" ideal that that lack of belief comes with. Just my $.02. |
Quote:
I also did state that I have read Dawkins and Hitchens. Last time I checked, most people have a belief system. It's their belief system, but that doesn't make it universal. I don't think you have to dump all belief systems under the term religion. Buddhism doesn't necessarily fit the bill, and the Buddhists I know don't consider it a religion. It's not the end of the world what I think, and I don't throw it in their face that they are or are not a REAL religion. All of this stems back from your original sweeping statement. Now that you have tried to amend it to just the American Atheists...rant all you want. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Also, to answer how our gov't supports christiantity. Um, Presidents are sworn in the Bible, most president end their speeches with "may God bless America" There are National days of Prary which are generally attended by Christian pastors. Christmas is a federal holiday. The entire issue of rights deprived of Homosexuals is completely based on a religious foundation yet it has been encoded in our laws. There are many ways in which or gov't does express a Christian bent. |
I'm not going to quote the wall of text earlier, but the distinction between "Freedom of Religion" versus "Freedom from Religion" is as close to spurious as can be without going over (which is the Price is Right Corollary, of course).
The entire concept of "no state-sponsored religion, no state sponsoring of one religion over others" can be taken, at a high level, to exclude essentially any religion or religious action on the part of the state. Since it would be impossible to be all-inclusive, the state is de facto secular as a result. NOTE: this is in the ideal; keep that in mind as you read. Of course, that does not exclude everything that could be construed as religious, as the change in your pocket would attest to, should it earn itself a brain and the ability to speak. (Particularly if you want to consider "atheism" a religion in and of itself, you've just steamed a poop onto the distinction yourself - congrats!) Also let's not compare nations that don't even operate under the same governing principles to the US situation - it's like saying that, although it was marred by things like the Black Sox in 1919, the World Series can be instructive on how to play contract bridge. EDITED because holy crap there are a lot of i's in "religious" |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I think the argument for freedom from religion is the issue of making law respecting the establishment of religion. It has been interpreted that the United States can't endorse one religion over another and through issues related to only invoking one "god" and only using one religious symbolism there is an argument that I believe is valid. Also, a belief system is not the same as a religion. We all have belief systems, but unless there is a specific dogma and unified rules it is not a religion. Therefore, just because athieists are vocal and may sue over their belief in how they view the constitution, that does not make them a religion any more than the NRA is a religion. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Not necessarily lawsuit worthy UNLESS other groups have tried to gain equal time/space and been rejected, IMO. But either way I think it's inappropriate. Oh and we could discuss the conservative christian culture in the military, particularly in the academies, or the discrimination against gay people based on things written in a religious text, or laws against selling alcohol on Sundays. Quote:
|
I am looking for the transcript - NPR had an segment some months back about military humanist chaplains.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
DISCLAIMER (CUZ APPARENTLY ITS NECESSARY)- You can buy alcohol on Sunday's in the places I've lived but not till after noon. Quote:
|
Perry's Day of Prayer - TX
Atheists' lawsuit thrown out due to lack of standing:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...w/7673962.html There's a great deal of debate related to the event. Apparently it was featured on a state website and official stationery was used for invitations - both of which can be construed as crossing the state/church line. It's a fine line - Perry should be able to attend a religious event, but it shouldn't come across as being state-sponsored. I loathe Rick Perry. His handling of the prayer event has been almost as heavy-fisted and bumbling as his handling of the governorship. |
Quote:
|
Here is a group called "Freedom From Religion" who have lost their lawsuit against Gov. Rick Perry and his "Prayer Day".
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...est=latestnews I think the groups name says it all. |
Quote:
* "Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion that embraces theological diversity; we welcome different beliefs and affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person." www.uua.org (Sorry, but I couldn't resist. :p) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
My understanding of military chaplains is that they provide worship services, and individual counseling to military members. I know, based on reports from gay and lesbian service members, that chaplains have preached, and continue to preach, against homosexuality within the units to which they're assigned. Please tell me where I'm wrong here. Particularly since some chaplains are freaking the fuck out about the DADT repeal. I have no problem saying that the chaplains should be required to have their speech in the role of chaplain, restricted or GTFO. That's part of being in the military and working on the behalf of the government. I only threw in the idea of a pacifist chaplain as a hypothetical. Regarding the 'black humanist chaplains' mentioned.. um.. 'cool' I guess? There's nothing wrong with that either, as long as they're not telling people that being religious is wrong. Although I question some of the validity of this since at least the Army's chaplain rules require being a clergy member, something most humanists don't have, except perhaps the UU I suppose. So, whatever. |
Quote:
|
Many religions believe homosexuality is a sin. Requiring all those chaplains to go against their religious beliefs would be government interference in religion - unless they are running up to random service members and yelling "You are going to hell!". But those reports (link, please?) from homosexual members make me wonder - if you are gay and know that a denomination or religion believe homosexuality is a sin, why would you a.) go to that denomination's service or b.) to that clergy member for counseling. To the best of my knowledge (and my friend who is a retired chaplain) those are the primary duties of a chaplain. No one is forced to attend services or seek counseling. Do you have a problem with those who regard adultery as a sin? Because I can guarantee there are adulterers in the armed forces. If you require all chaplains to essentially have no beliefs with which someone might disagree I think only UUs would be able to serve, and it is my understanding that they wouldn't be able to include those who will not accept the validity of all beliefs.
Now if a chaplain were to rail against sin at, for example, a multi-denominational service that would be different. I am not comfortable with the idea of restricting religious belief or expression unless it violates the law. If the Flying Spaghetti Monster chaplain wants to preach against the evils of Alfredo sauce, he/she should be able to, even though I personally love the creamy richness, artery-clogging although it may be. I just won't go to his/her service. |
Quote:
|
Oh, I'll back 100% the right of any military member NOT to have to attend any services. THAT is completely wrong if it happens.
I assume you are saying it is debatable because some have claimed to have been forced - link? I would hope that everyone could agree that forcing someone to attend a service would be exactly what the founding fathers had in mind with the concept of no government instituted religion. |
Quote:
There's no "Mall of Chaplains" to choose from. If a guy wants spiritual guidance on how to deal with the death of a friend, or to clear his conscience should the unthinkable happen, he should be able to do so without someone railing against gays. And that's not "going against [the chaplain's] religion" - they don't have to be pro-gay or anything (that would be going against it). Just not anti-gay. There's a world of difference. |
Does the military not have non-religious counselors? They certainly should if they do not.
eta - found this: http://www.militaryatheists.org/chaplain.html and this http://www.disinfo.com/2011/05/athei...ary-chaplains/ I'd like to see something a little less fuzzy than "Christian beliefs pervade military culture, creating subtle pressures on non-Christians to convert." Subtle? How subtle? 70% of the military is Christian, so it's not surprising that Christian beliefs "pervade" - of course, WHICH beliefs would be an important thing to know, and the form that pervading takes is important, too. |
I have links, but I am out of town through Tuesday again, so if I have time not at a convention I'll update here.
I read a good book about the experiences of a now out former service member, and his experiences, along with those of the others he talks about in the book explain a lot. |
Thanks, Drole - I am interested in knowing the exact situations and whether or not it is a case of undue pressure being put on a service man/woman (unacceptable) or another case of "I regard all expressions of Christianity (insert religion of your choice here) as being a personal affront", which is the philosophy I object to - I also want to know whether or not it is a case of a few anecdotal experiences or something more widespread and documented.
Let me be clear - I would not want any service personnel to feel obligated to have to participate in any religious services. I also do not want the government to deny those who serve the right to continue to maintain their religious observances if at all possible (I could imagine scenarios when that might conflict with military operations). |
Quote:
(Thanks for the patience on the sources) |
Quote:
We could claim that all speak by government employees reflects government action, but we'd all probably have to acknowledge that's not true. Someone at the DMV talking about cute haircuts isn't establishing government haircut position. An individual, even giving an address, wouldn't have to be assumed to represent a state position, especially if the forum is open to others of various beliefs. |
Quote:
Yes, they are military officers, but their job is not to act for the military per se, it's to serve the members of the military. The theory involved is not that the military (government) needs the chaplains, nor that the government is supporting any particular religion, but rather that the government has an obligation to those in its service -- especially those in combat situations or otherwise away from home -- to make sure that spiritual needs are met, just as it must make sure that other needs are met. As you say, the Free Exercise Clause can come into play. Do we really want the government telling members of the clergy what can and can't be said in the context of religious services of worship or in the context of something like religious counseling? I'm not suggestion that Drolefille hasn't raised some very serious and valid concerns. But if the current problem is one of sometimes coming to close to establishment, or apparent establishment, the cure is not for the pendulum to swing too far the other way and infringe on Free Exercise rights. The cure is to deal with the underlying military culture, to make an effort to ensure that all military personal who want the services of a chaplain have such services available from a chaplain they can be comfortable with and to ensure that military life is not structured in such a way as to effectively penalize anyone for their choices regarding chaplains and religious life. I know there are challenges there -- there aren't enough chaplains to begin with, much less enough from the various traditions represented in the military. (Though many chaplains I have known of have been very aware of their obligations to those outside their own traditions and have tried very hard to be respectful to those outside their own traditions.) But that, I think, is where the answer has to be, not in telling chaplains what they can and can't talk about. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I can only speak for myself, but in my 6 years in the military I've never been made to attend services, or felt pressure to, or felt ostracized for not, or heard a chaplain preach anything. I'm not religious at all and the only time I've walked into a church was to attend either a baptism or wedding BUT I think it's ridiculous to even hint at the idea of the government interfering in a chaplains (and in turn the service members) right to practice their religion. There are a few current posters that have served in the military, hopefully they'll contribute their own experiences so we can get a more robust view instead of having to rely on one book written by someone with a strong bias and an axe to grind. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.