Politics, Religion, and World Events

In response to MOEN 1305"S QUESTION; every man has to decide for hinself if their is a GOD, I don't want the people in power to determine for me what I am supposed to believe! I believe that man created their own Religions to back up their particular beliefs,I believe that their is a SUPREME Being since I find the theory of chaos hard to swallow.People want to believe that there is a reward at the end of life so that their efforts on earth are not just transitory.Did man invent GOD????? I don't know the answer to that.I dont think that I would comprehend the meaning of life,even if it were explained to me.I do know;however that people are afraid of death'and their beliefs help them face the end.As Frank Zappa once said;" religion is a dangerous thing" Government and religion are like oil; they don't mix.

 

Look in the Bible...

Craig

 

Do you suppose that most Evangelicals would agree that it is ok for their kids to be forced to say the Hail Mary prayer?

 

No I don't suppose. The only people who might want that are Catholic.

 

Do you think it is right for a religiouse leader to tell you how to live your life? and for you to be compeled to follow his teachings?

De Orc

 

I can say as an Evangelical that I am opposed to mandatory prayer. Prayer is a faithful response to God's action, not a mandatory human action.

But you still failed to answer my question. What would you do IF he wasn't opposed to using the Hail Mary? If you are basing your opposition to mandatory prayer on the fact that some in the Evangelical community (just like there are different kinds of Democrats, there are different kinds of Evangelicals) are in favor of it, what would you do if they weren't in favor of it? Support mandatory prayer? If you're going to be opposed to it, be opposed to it for your own reasons, not somebody else's.

 

We all have our religion, our faith systems. Some people call it being Christian, others Muslim, and others being secular. If we don't have individual faith systems, we don't have moral absolutes. You clearly do. Why is your faith system allowed to be united with the state, while mine cannot? (Not that I'm advocating a union for my faith and the state - see my next response)

My theology says that religion and the state are two seperate entities. With seperate roles. Overlapping to be sure (both my religious faith and the state are against theft, for example). As I perceive it, your faith system denies any role outside of the four walls of the church for my faith system, while mine, at least in theory (I can admit practitioners of mine - myself included - fail), offers yours a role. And yet I'm the stupid bigot. As a wise man once said, "Physician, heal thyself."

This doesn't make sense. If your zealots aren't pushing their belief system, than they're not really zealots. Pushing beliefs (which we're both doing right now) is the very definition of zealotry. So I ask you again, "If they're zealots, how are they any different than 'mine?'"

I've tried to be thoughtful about my responses, nor have I ever, in this forum or anywhere else, advocated having your belief system outlawed. Yet you've called me names, impugned my integrity, and questioned my intelligence. Which one of us has the "deer-in-the-headlights" look?

 

I am opposed to mandatory prayer for the very reason that you cited. I just think that it is useful (as a catalyst for self reflection) to bring up the Hail Mary because it may give some dogmatic fundamentalists the opportunity to "figure it out" for themselves.

 

KLJ you may be able to stretch and argue that Christianity is a sort of de facto state religion but that is certainly not what Jesus wanted. Jesus wants Ceasar things separate from the things of God.

 

I believe that anyone can have moral absolutes but having moral standards against which moral questions can be judged isn't asking the right question. The right question is whose morals? I would hardly say that my "faith system" is allowed to be untied with the state. It wasn't enacted solely for my benefit or the benefit of an organization I belong to. A basic public morals system exists so that a complex society may function without tearing itself apart. Parts of your belief system are allowed to be united with the state and do overlap with the state as do many other belief systems. The problem as I see it is that some of the belief systems out there want to be a bigger share of the pie even though other belief systems such as mine believe that they already have enough pie. Welcome to class struggle 101 all.

I understand your perception perfectly while you fail to understand mine or at least you frame mine in absolute terms. I certainly never called you or implied that you were a stupid bigot. I did say generally that people of a certain category were short-sighted and don't consider the deeper questions.
Again, it isn't that the government offers my belief system a role and not yours. I just don't think your belief system has any right to a larger share of the freedom than any of the other belief systems out there. If you feel that you have the right to pressure your government to adopt more of the morals your group believes in thus restricting my freedoms, you of course have the right to vocalize your position. If I don't want my freedoms to be restrained by the morals your group is espousing, such as abortion restrictions, stem cell research restrictions, etc., I have the same right to vocalize my position. That certainly doesn’t make the government united in my beliefs. By saying that you want the same right I already have to unite my belief system with the government you are presenting twisted logic and avoiding the fact that your group wishes to use the government to curtail my freedoms by adopting your moral belief system.

BINGO!

I used the word zealot because of the religious overtones. Maybe I should just say advocates. Feel better?

Well, as a matter of fact you said in you first post addressing me, "You might want to take a few minutes to get your head out of Das Kapital to actually read that Constitution." Kind sucks that moral high ground right out of your bone marrow doesn't it?

 

KLJ by having mandetory prayers in school then you are taking away the freedom of choice from those who do not believe in god (any god) do you think this is right? I for one would like to be given a choice?

De Orc

 

True but by not allowing a non-religious prayer in public schools we are taking away the students right to prayer. Perhaps a public prayer before they eat at lunch that is optional yet taken seriously like God is great, God is good, we thank the lord for our food.

After all we discuss straight and gay sex in the schools and the students can buy drugs in the schools, maybe we should start bringing character trait skills back into the schools to give the kids another type of choice to think of.

Just something to think about for the prayer would just be the corner stone to make our children more educated to make decisions of lifestyle and substance usage by knowing values where now they are just being exposed to hedonism.

 

I have not advocated not allowing Prayer in School IMHO it should be a personal decision, I'm neither for or against it LOL As a child we had maditory assemply which included morning prayer in school and I saw nothing wrong with it until we had a Jewish girl join the school and she had to sit outside during the service, I felt so sorry for her it slightly soured me towards organised religion to see that we coudnt even make a atrempt to include her.
Can I ask why you say prayer would 'make our children more educated to make decisions of lifestyle and substance usage'


De Orc

 

How dare you Andy! Bite your tongue! Off with his head! You had better hope no one in the NEA reads this post and can find a way of tracking down the author.

 

School Prayer should be non-religious so no one feels isolated from it and it should not be manatory but it should be offered for any one who wishes to join.

I feel that public prayer with character trait skill teaching would offer our children the change to have a moral base to base future decisions on. Right now western society is taking god and morality out of the picture and leaving a void. What will fill that void? Now practicing Jewish people are big believers of Character Traits. After all isn't that what the Ten Commandments really are? I am sure if it is done correctly, and I repeat correctly with no one religion being pushed then I would think that no group would feel slighted.

OldDan, I find your comments funny but sadly true. The NEA seems to forget that schools are meant for the kids and not for adults pushing agendas.

 

Andy I could and would quite happily subscribe to that view with a proviso for those who do not belive in anything other than McD's LOL I think I was about 13 when the incident happend and have to say it affected my view on organised religion quite strongly :smile

De Orc :kewl:

 

What do you mean by "Non-religious school prayer" ? I await the answer to this one with baited breath.

 

Baited breath. Does that mean your mouth smells like little dead fish or worms?

I understand the question for if one is praying to god then one believes in god but that belief does not have to be based upon any individual religion. Which was the point I was trying to communicate. Simple voluntary prayers like before lunch, "God is great, God is good, we thank the lord for our food" would be an example.
If we have to have a committee to come up with new generic prayers then so be it for this issue should be resolved by individual communities and what they want for their kids within Federal guidelines based upon the Consitution.

 

Lets see over here it is called a Blessing, might be different your side of the pond

De Orc

 

I don't really see the difference. A prayer IS religious. The state isn't so much supporting any single religion over another but it would still be supporting religion and Christianity in general. I think the idea that there is some kind of non-religious prayer is goofy. If someone out there believes as Andy does and can explain it better, please do.