Freedom of Religion or Freedom From Religion

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I got into a discussion about this somewhat recently.

I always ask if the people who say "just get over it" would say the same thing if they were not members of the dominant religion. There was a shitstorm when the Muslim prayer center was announced, so how is this different?

That being said -- is this site somehow government related? Isn't the WTC owned by a private company? If so, they should be able to display whatever they want.

To answer your question - I am perfectly happy with a Muslim memorial, a Jewish memorial, a Hindu memorial, a Wiccan memorial, should those groups wish to have one - all are a-ok with me. Should the government pay for them? No. The government should not impose a particular religion on anyone but they should also NOT prevent someone from practicing their religion.

Here in Houston we've just recently had a problem with the VA and the funeral services of veterans. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/7583145.html
Could there be anything more riduclous than forbidding people from saying "God bless you" at a funeral?

It's ridiculous the way people get "offended" by others practicing their religion. Here's an idea -how about, if someone gives a prayer which does not reflect your beliefs you don't say "amen"? How about you respect their right to pray however they wish, and not assume that it somehow an infringement of your rights if you don't agree with the religious beliefs of the speaker?

[KDMafia]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Here in Houston we've just recently had a problem with the VA and the funeral services of veterans. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/7583145.html
Could there be anything more riduclous than forbidding people from saying "God bless you" at a funeral?

I am confused, the way I read the article was that the issueswas to keep a Memorial Day prayer as non-denominational as possible with the understanding that not all Solider's are Christian and the Minister wanted to end with Jesus Christ as the one savior. That's way different than someone saying "God bless you" at a funeral.

I am Christian but I don't see this as being easily offended, I see it as not wanting to feel like your religion is second class and/or you're not blessed if you don't believe a certain way. I can see how it can be alienating for people, especially at group memorials where people have died. It can send an implicit message that certain people are saved/remembered while others aren't.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by KDMafia

I am confused, the way I read the article was that the issueswas to keep a Memorial Day prayer as non-denominational as possible with the understanding that not all Solider's are Christian and the Minister wanted to end with Jesus Christ as the one savior. That's way different than someone saying "God bless you" at a funeral.

I am Christian but I don't see this as being easily offended, I see it as not wanting to feel like your religion is second class and/or you're not blessed if you don't believe a certain way. I can see how it can be alienating for people, especially at group memorials where people have died. It can send an implicit message that certain people are saved/remembered while others aren't.

I don't even see anything in the article about not saying "God bless you" at a funeral. I haven't ever heard of an athiest/agnostic arguing that individuals can express their religious thoughts openly. Their problem would be the expression coming from an official, government sanctioned source, ie. the VA. The majority usually doesn't see how others might have a problem with this...until they see another religion "threatening" theirs. (Islam anyone?)

[SWTXBelle]

Sorry - wrong article.
Here you go!

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/7630537.html

PRIVATE religious speech shouldn't be subject to governmental censorship - ANY private religious speech.

And again, if I went to a service and any other religious leader wanted to pray and invoke his/her deity - I wouldn't be "offended", or think my religion was being relegated to a second class status. I'd think he/she had a different religious tradition and I would be respectful.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Sorry - wrong article.
Here you go!

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/7630537.html

PRIVATE religious speech shouldn't be subject to governmental censorship - ANY private religious speech.

I agree that if what is alleged in this article is true, this is ridiculous. If a family wishes to have a religious ceremony, they shouldn't have to have the ceremony pre-approved by the VA. The attendants should be able to say "God Bless You"...unless the bereaved are non-religious, then they should keep their traps shut. The funneral isn't about them, it's about the dead service member and their family. I bet you ten bucks, though, that this is more about a bureaucrat "following" the rules rather than an atheist laying down the law on separation of church and state. You see this type of crap in VA hospitals all the time with lifetime employees who can't be fired.

[KDMafia]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Sorry - wrong article.
Here you go!

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/7630537.html

PRIVATE religious speech shouldn't be subject to governmental censorship - ANY private religious speech.

And again, if I went to a service and any other religious leader wanted to pray and invoke his/her deity - I wouldn't be "offended", or think my religion was being relegated to a second class status. I'd think he/she had a different religious tradition and I would be respectful.

Hmm this one is different although I think it depends. It sounds like, based on the quote that the text should be approved by the family, that they are not stopping private religious ceremonies, but instead telling different volunteer groups who have contact with many individuals that they cannot use one specific religion. I do think the "god bless you" is pretty innocent but if they are working as a representative as the VA and it is considered a gov't agency I can understand their concern. Although, like I said, in terms of religious expression it doesn't seem too worrisome.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

To answer your question - I am perfectly happy with a Muslim memorial, a Jewish memorial, a Hindu memorial, a Wiccan memorial, should those groups wish to have one - all are a-ok with me. Should the government pay for them? No. The government should not impose a particular religion on anyone but they should also NOT prevent someone from practicing their religion.

You may be OK with it, but apparently, the masses weren't happy with the idea of the Muslim center opening up nearby (not even on the premises).

It's ridiculous the way people get "offended" by others practicing their religion. Here's an idea -how about, if someone gives a prayer which does not reflect your beliefs you don't say "amen"? How about you respect their right to pray however they wish, and not assume that it somehow an infringement of your rights if you don't agree with the religious beliefs of the speaker?

If the speaker is acting as an agent of the government, then yes -- it can be offensive. It gives the impression that attendees who don't practice that religion are "less than."

A lot of people say to just sit back and wait out the prayer, but I can guarantee you that if someone broke out in a Muslim prayer at, say, a graduation, other attendees would raise hell.

[MysticCat]

The complaint can be read here. The allegations are not that the Museum and Memorial, a nonprofit corporation, is an agent of the government, but rather that the fact that it is on land leased from the Ports Authority and the fact that it is funded (partly) with government grants makes the Memorial and Museum "government action."

Establishment cases can be awfully hard to predict; even when the courts say they're applying a standard test, the test is often applied differently in different cases, so that the decisions are often very fact-specific.

That said, I don't think I'd be putting any money on the plaintiffs winning this one.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

You may be OK with it, but apparently, the masses weren't happy with the idea of the Muslim center opening up nearby (not even on the premises).



If the speaker is acting as an agent of the government, then yes -- it can be offensive. It gives the impression that attendees who don't practice that religion are "less than."

A lot of people say to just sit back and wait out the prayer, but I can guarantee you that if someone broke out in a Muslim prayer at, say, a graduation, other attendees would raise hell.

Apples/oranges. The Muslim center issue is not one of government speech (fwiw, I think the arguments against it are not logical or rational - the 9/11 terriorists are no more representative of Muslims than Anders Breivik is of Christians)- and I will go out on a limb and say you probably don't want military chaplains - agents of the government - to be restricted from practicing their religion.

As to those hypothetical attendees raising hell at a Muslim prayer - they would be as wrong as the atheists objecting to prayers at the VA cemetery. Just because you find something objectionable does not mean it is an example of government imposition of religion.

[33girl]

Didn't we have this discussion before? The titty bar is closer than the Muslim center.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

and I will go out on a limb and say you probably don't want military chaplains - agents of the government - to be restricted from practicing their religion.

Actually, I do want them restricted from preaching about the evils of homosexuality (which has consistently occurred) and if that's a problem they can resign. There are, I'm sure, many wonderful chaplains who provide counseling and support to the military men and women that they serve without discrimination for sexual orientation or religion, however there are some that do not.

When one is working for the government there is going to be some restriction. Would one support a military chaplain who was a pure pacifist?

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Actually, I do want them restricted from preaching about the evils of homosexuality (which has consistently occurred) and if that's a problem they can resign. There are, I'm sure, many wonderful chaplains who provide counseling and support to the military men and women that they serve without discrimination for sexual orientation or religion, however there are some that do not.

When one is working for the government there is going to be some restriction. Would one support a military chaplain who was a pure pacifist?

You mean like a Quaker? I wonder if there ARE Quaker chaplains?

[Drolefille]

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!!!

This may surprise you, but just like religious people, a-religious people are mostly quiet and keep to themselves. Nevertheless it is annoying to watch one's supposedly a-religious government supporting Christianity on a regular basis. Unsurprisingly most Christians don't notice/are OK with it.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

You mean like a Quaker? I wonder if there ARE Quaker chaplains?

Probably have been. Odds are they're not allowed to tell our soldiers to lay down their weapons and walk away (not that any particular Quaker would, I'm speaking in the hypotheticals.) Government employees and military personnel in particular have restrictions to their freedoms of speech. Ask state employees here who are restricted in the number of bumper stickers allowed on their cars, or political buttons they can wear.

Reality of anti LGBT sentiment among the chaplains who are supposed to be counseling

[PiKA2001]

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.

So? Why should/does this matter to you? Does a belief system need at least a 100 million followers for AOII Angel to consider it valid?

It's not a religion. Their is no "dogma" and no great leader determining what all atheists must believe.

I take it you're not familiar with the writings Dawkins or Hitchens but either way there are many religions without the Pope-like supreme leader. Don't even try to tell me that atheists don't proselytize either.

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?

I'm not calling atheism a religion to necessarily insult, but to call them out. They claim the desire to live free from having others religion thrown in their face yet they throw their religion around. As a non religious man myself, I find these atheism groups very ironic, as do many others.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

This may surprise you, but just like religious people, a-religious people are mostly quiet and keep to themselves. Nevertheless it is annoying to watch one's supposedly a-religious government supporting Christianity on a regular basis. Unsurprisingly most Christians don't notice/are OK with it.

Actually it doesn't. I know non-religious mostly keep to themselves but I was speaking of organized atheism (specifically AA) in my original post. Maybe I should have added a disclaimer

Also, can you point to some examples of how the government regularly supports Christianity?

Probably have been. Odds are they're not allowed to tell our soldiers to lay down their weapons and walk away (not that any particular Quaker would, I'm speaking in the hypotheticals.) Government employees and military personnel in particular have restrictions to their freedoms of speech. Ask state employees here who are restricted in the number of bumper stickers allowed on their cars, or political buttons they can wear.

Reality of anti LGBT sentiment among the chaplains who are supposed to be counseling

Two words for you- conscientious objector.