|
|
| Re: nonsense about atheism (241353) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Aug 26 19:16:49 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by soton si on Sun Aug 26 18:54:36 2007. "how is it a myth, I see it here in the UK, first-hand"Actually, no, you don't. You feel threatened by your own misconceptions. It's a little like tripping over yourself. "the media and the culture not mentioning God. They don't see it as an important issue - the national religion is "we don't care". Actually, your national religion is the Church of England, and it is alive and well and on public display every day. "but likewise why should tax dollars be spent on enforcing a ban on religion?" What ban? There's no ban on religion. There's a ban on using public money to proselytize a particular religion in public school because people not sharing that religion paid for the school too. Thus, the school is neutral ground where any person can feel safe. "By not allowing full freedom of religion in public buildings - you have to be a practical atheist, not acknowledging God. " False statement.The state is neutral to religion, or existence of a deity. You as individual can believe anything you like. "Allowing prayer in schools isn't forcing Christianity, or anything else on people." False statement. The effect is to stigmatize people who do not participate and make them second class citizens. And since there are many religions and many denominations of religions, you cannot possibly accommodate all of them within a school day. This is why the Supreme court recognized that governments' being neutral is important - there are many places that are appropriate for open display of worship and a few places that are not. Many religious Chridstianss and Jews would actually be offended by your position. I have a close friend, an Orthodox Jew, who is a government lawyer. He is self-assured and believes fervently in his religion. He dovens and attends services and observes the Sabbath. But when he enters a courtroom he removes his Yarmulke. Why? Because the Yarmulke does not definer his Judaism; it is only an outer icon of it, and entirely unnecessary to his self-esteem. At the same time, he makes the statement that his purpose in Court is not to "be a Jew," though he is one. It is to represent the citizens of the United States, as an officer of the Court, and to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution has no religion, is not a religious symbol, yet represents our freedom to believe in whatever religion (or not) that we like. When he completes his trial day, he leaves the building, puts his Yarmulke back on, and goes about his life. When Iwas in school, individual students could wear a Yarmulke, cuoulkd doven, could put out a prayer mat at recess and pray to Mecca, or whatever. But a teacher could not lead an organized rayer, because that brings the State into the picture to endorse it. 'Surely if there was a supreme creator and judge of everything who is our beginning and end like mommy and daddy say, we'd be learning about him in school? Ad when you prove that there is one, we'll study it (it's not a provable or disprovable thing). As of now, it's purely a conjectural thing. If you choose to believe there is one, by all means believe in it. Public schools do not teach that there is or isn't one - you're free to believe as you like. If you want the schools to teach that there is one, you're free to enroll in a private religious school. |
|
|
|