Freedom of Religion or Freedom From Religion

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

So the American Atheists are only upset because there's only a cross and if they added a Star of David and a Crescent or two they'd be cool with the religious symbols on display? Suuuuurrrreeee. This group has always been a rabble rousing, Christmas tree suing bunch.

Atheism is such a waste of time anyway. Hey guys, lets create a religion (Dogma included) where we don't believe in religion!!!

Why do people love to claim this? Atheists make up a small percent of society and for the most part are not an organized group of people. It's not a religion. Their is no "dogma" and no great leader determining what all atheists must believe. A very few are vocal and politically active, and this seems to stick in the craw of some Christians. I think that these critics really think that accusing atheists of having their own religion is some sort of insult...but isn't that insulting yourself?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Why do people love to claim this? Atheists make up a small percent of society and for the most part are not an organized group of people. It's not a religion. Their is no "dogma" and no great leader determining what all atheists must believe. A very few are vocal and politically active, and this seems to stick in the craw of some Christians.

I tend to think of those people as fundamentalist atheists, and some of them annoy almost as much as do some fundamentalist Christians.

Atheism certainly can be a religion, depending on how one defines religion. (And of course, to the degree it is, it is a very disorganized and individualized religion.) And I have known atheists who can be just as dogmatic about their belief system as the most dogmatic Christian.

But that's no reason to use such a broad brush in painting all atheists, anymore than it would be reason to use a broad brush in painting all Christians. Life is much more nuanced than that.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

But that's no reason to use such a broad brush in painting all atheists, anymore than it would be reason to use a broad brush in painting all Christians. Life is much more nuanced than that.

This. My wife's an atheist and most folks don't even know it. She's gone to mass with me, she used to go to a Baptist church in her home town just to be social, but she never got the whole God thing.

Folks should also not be so hot to blame atheists for not wanting religious displays paid for on the public dime.

Publicly paid for religious displays could very well be the camel's nose under the tent in terms of religious-government participation. Never in the history of the world has a partnership between religion and government worked out very well at all, least of all in a country like ours.

Best to keep the secular and holy separated--and when someone crosses the line, sue.

[AnotherKD]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Why do people love to claim this? Atheists make up a small percent of society and for the most part are not an organized group of people. It's not a religion. Their is no "dogma" and no great leader determining what all atheists must believe. A very few are vocal and politically active, and this seems to stick in the craw of some Christians. I think that these critics really think that accusing atheists of having their own religion is some sort of insult...but isn't that insulting yourself?

True.

I'm somewhere between an Atheist and an Agnostic (depends on the day, I guess) and it's not like I'm a card-carrying member or something. I don't go to meetings a few times a month and do "whatever-it-is-those-Atheists-do". While I'm sure that specific beliefs are different within those in any sort of religious community, so they are with myself and others.

That being said, someone wrote in to a paper I read online (@IL, if you check out SR.com, you'll see it) where a guy is all upset and wants to call the ACLU because he saw a group from a church sponsoring a 3-on-3 basketball event one afternoon at a local park. I don't understand how someone can get so offended by this! I may be a little more laid-back than others, but I just say to each their own.

[IrishLake]

Originally Posted by AnotherKD

That being said, someone wrote in to a paper I read online (@IL, if you check out SR.com, you'll see it) where a guy is all upset and wants to call the ACLU because he saw a group from a church sponsoring a 3-on-3 basketball event one afternoon at a local park. I don't understand how someone can get so offended by this! I may be a little more laid-back than others, but I just say to each their own.

I did read that yesterday AKD, and thought of this thread. Did you see the one the day before about someone complaining about the church signs and wondering if they had the proper permits?

That being said... I'm Catholic (yes, we are Christian), and I have no problem with atheist or agnostic views. Exactly, to each their own. If someone someday comes to the conclusion that they don't want to be atheist, evangelical, wiccan, or whatever anymore, then it is up to them to decide what to do with their spiritual lives next. I will never push my thoughts on religion on others. I will never degrade someone because of their religious or spiritual views. Now the yin to my yang is I expect others to do the same concerning me. Don't push your religious beliefs on me. Don't preach to me. Don't tell me how wrong I am, or how Catholics aren't "real" christians. I have no problem with a church group doing something at a local park, or a cross being displayed on municipal property. I would also have no problem with a Star of David, or any other religious display that is just quietly sitting there.

There is a new girl at work, been here less than 2 weeks, and 2 days ago she initiated a huge religious discussion and was extremely insulting. She is a very conservative christian, and would not shut up about how wrong other people were to not be like her. I wasn't really paying attention to their conversation, otherwise I would have gotten nasty. (It was really rediculous, it was the old "Taking the Bible literally, word for word" versus - not taking it literally.)

One of my project managers is also uber christian, and never once has he ever done something like this. He respects the right of others to form their own opinions, even if he doesn't see thigns in the same light. We can sit and have a civil religious based conversation (me Catholic, him super Christian, another girl we work with a former JW), without insulting or degrading. It's wonderful, and exposes my mind to different ways of thinking.

[MysticCat]

One of my favorite sites for religion-related news is GetReligion, which is essentially devoted to considering how the press covers stories of a religious nature or with religious connections or over/undertones. The general gist is that "the press doesn't get religion."

This article posted today is, I think, pertinent to some of what we've talked about: "Not all atheists are alike."

An excerpt:

The [ABC News] article ends with competing quotes. One is from the rescue worker who found the cross after digging three bodies out from the rubble of the collapsed Twin Towers. He says he was overwhelmed upon its discovery and believes it’s a beautiful symbol of faith and freedom. He argues that it’s a “natural artifact” from Ground Zero. The other quote comes from the communications director for the American Atheists who says she can’t visit the memorial so long as there’s a cross there.

The article is fine but I wonder if it wouldn’t have been improved by including the voices of atheists who are not fans of this lawsuit. Otherwise it gives the impression that all atheists think lawsuits against featuring the remnant beam from the World Trade Center are a good idea.

Originally Posted by IrishLake

I'm Catholic (yes, we are Christian) . . . .


There is a new girl at work, been here less than 2 weeks, and 2 days ago she initiated a huge religious discussion and was extremely insulting. She is a very conservative christian, and would not shut up about how wrong other people were to not be like her. I wasn't really paying attention to their conversation, otherwise I would have gotten nasty. (It was really rediculous, it was the old "Taking the Bible literally, word for word" versus - not taking it literally.)

Oh man, I really do hope that you tell her that, as a Catholic, you're glad to know that she takes it literally where Jesus said "This is my body; this is my blood."

[Little Dragon]

Having read all that has been said so far, I want to share an idea that makes reference to the title of the thread. In the US, we have freedom OF religion, not FROM religion. It should be clear, but sometimes people don't seem to get it. The government cannot sponsor or favor any religion over others. That's it. That is freedom of religion, and that is the extent of separating government and church. The government cannot tell churches what to teach or preach. That been said, a Christian government official at a Christian event can be in official business and say God Bless. Same for Muslims and Jews and any other believer. His or her words are not the government's, but that of the person, even though acting in official capacity.

I give the example of Germany, which has had a very specific history, but can share some lights. In public schools, they teach religion. Teachers are government officials teaching religions. The kid (or the kid's parent) choose which religion they learn, but it is in a public space. Theology is taught in many public universities, same as philosophy or mathematics. Religion is present, though the government doesn't force anybody to believe or not believe in anything.

A government building in a Christian populated area has a cross. Should it have it? Only if government buildings in Muslim populated areas have the Crescent Moon or in Non-religious areas, have nothing. Government, as elected, represents its people.

Public display depends on the people being governed. I don't want to look, I don't look.

Another thing is passing laws favoring certain religious views. Then, we have an imposition. I don't want to follow, but then again, I could go to jail or pay a fine. That is wrong.

Atheist: I don't want my money to go into a cross in an official building.
Christian: I don't want my money to go into paying for an abortion under the healthcare reform.
Poor: I don't want my money to go into the rich's pockets.
Rich: I don't want my money to go into paying services that I don't use.

There are differences between actions of government that I may not like (including actions involving religions) and laws that impose religions or its practices on me.

If you can do something about it (not watching, not attending, keeping quiet) there is no imposition. If you can't or if something is expected from you, then everything is wrong with it.

Added:
BTW. As a Christian living in Spain (mostly secular society with reigning atheism), I know what it is to live in the minority. My positions stays the same.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Little Dragon

That been said, a Christian government official at a Christian event can be in official business and say God Bless. Same for Muslims and Jews and any other believer. His or her words are not the government's, but that of the person, even though acting in official capacity.

If that person is acting as a government agent, s/he is giving off the impression that the religion is the "right" one and is backed by the government.

If this person is making a speech at, say, a block party and decides to say a prayer and end with God Bless, s/he has every right to.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

If that person is acting as a government agent, s/he is giving off the impression that the religion is the "right" one and is backed by the government.

Maybe, maybe not. Simply because you assume certain employment doesn't really mean that you give your all your rights. I think people who work for the government have to be careful obviously because they run the risk of making it seem that the government has established a particular religion, but the flip side of the 1st amendment is that the government cannot make laws to restrict the free exercise of religion either.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Maybe, maybe not. Simply because you assume certain employment doesn't really mean that you give your all your rights. I think people who work for the government have to be careful obviously because they run the risk of making it seem that the government has established a particular religion, but the flip side of the 1st amendment is that the government cannot make laws to restrict the free exercise of religion either.

I think military chaplains pose a particular challenge, a very fine line to walk.

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.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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/

They sure do. All of the installations that I know of have peer support (enlisted for enlisted) groups as well as unit first sergeants so you can get help and a sympathetic ear with out the creepy religious undertones. Also loling at atheists wanting atheist chaplains hmmmm......

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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.

Right? If you get offended by religious sermons........GTFO of church.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The accounts I've read include things like, the only way to not have duty/other obligations is to attend religious service, and your service is run by THE chaplain, not by the chaplain of the religion of your choice. There are other stories where it was very 'encouraged' to attend, even in the face of not technically being required or forced. If I can find the title of the books I've read I'll share as well. But for now, I'm back to the gaming con with the people dressed as comic book characters and steampunk awesomesauce

(Thanks for the patience on the sources)

I've never heard of nor seen service members receiving additional duties as punishment for not attending service. There are circumstances due to mission requirements that you have to work on holidays/weekends. I've seen people leave the shop/office for an hour or two on a Sunday to attend services while us heathens stayed behind. I can see how that could be misconstrued as preferential treatment but at the same time nothing ever stopped me from tagging along (other than my personal beliefs).

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I think military chaplains pose a particular challenge, a very fine line to walk.

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.

Pretty spot on description of the role a chaplain plays in the military.

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.

[AnotherKD]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AnotherKD

But when you say "they" all the time, it's lumping every atheist into your same category, which isn't fair.

I think this is racism against atheism. Which I'm certain is called "raetheism".

[KDMafia]

Once again, I'm not talking about some random guy who doesn't go to church or believe in a higher power. I'm talking about organized atheism here, and they LOVE to talk about and share their beliefs with others.

Maybe it's me but I don't see why this is listed as a bad thing. No one is saying that on their own time religious organizations can't promote their views. Hell I have had way more religious pamphlets handed to me than anything for atheism. The issue was based on freedom of religion. You can practice what you like but there is no reason that the gov't should support one religion at the exclusion of others or should make assumptions based on religion (I think this gets especially dicey at places that deal with memorials in light of different views of the afterlife and what it takes to get there).

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.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by KDMafia

Maybe it's me but I don't see why this is listed as a bad thing. No one is saying that on their own time religious organizations can't promote their views. Hell I have had way more religious pamphlets handed to me than anything for atheism. The issue was based on freedom of religion. You can practice what you like but there is no reason that the gov't should support one religion at the exclusion of others or should make assumptions based on religion (I think this gets especially dicey at places that deal with memorials in light of different views of the afterlife and what it takes to get there).

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.

Which brings us back to the title of this thread and what LittleDragon posted, freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion.