ABG: Anything But God

[old Grump]

Posted on 12 December 2011.



What is it about a person making a public declaration of their faith in Christ that supposedly offends certain people? At least one professional baseball team has a “homosexual community night” at their ball park. Imagine you’re sitting in the stands surrounded by Barney’s and Frank’s who are holding hands, kissing, and whispering endearing pleasantries next to you and your family – if you are like me, when the announcement was made to have a homosexual night, you made a note to never again attend another Philadelphia Phillies game.

http://mychal-massie.com/premium/abg-anything-but-god/

I was having a similar conversation on this topic with my brother long distance and then I run across this. Seems like more and more of us have had it up to here with the government toadies bending over backwards for less than 10% of the population and punishing the rest of us for exercising our first amendment rights.

[LAGC]

Oh, those poor "oppressed" Christians!

Can't shove their religion in everyone's faces like they used to, so now they are all butt-hurt. Someone call a WAAAAAMBULANCE!



Sorry, but the First Amendment cuts both ways. You have a right to make an ass out of yourself and publicly declare your faith, but others have a right to ridicule you for being an ignorant dumb-ass just the same.

If ya can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen!

[Warthogg]

I don't believe in any of the prophets so I don't look favorably on those throwing Moe-hamid or Jay-sus in my face.


Wart

[Full Otto]

Grump, so far I'd say your point is being proven for you

[Warthogg]

Grump, so far I'd say your point is being proven for you

Read a little more carefully. old G's post title is: "ABG: Anything But God" which works just fine for me as I'm a deep believer in God. BUT he then posts "a public declaration of their faith in Christ".

For me God and Christ are not synonyms. Certainly old Guy has the right to offend me but I also have the right to be offended.


Wart

[Kadmos]

I wonder if it isn't as simple as it makes people uncomfortable.

For a lot of people who aren't Christians, and probably a lot who are, some guy just talking about Jesus outside of the context of a church comes off a bit like a person who is trying to tell you the "truth" about aliens or how the government is out to get you.

I'm not trying to equate those, but frankly a lot of those who talk about Jesus just a little much for my taste do come off as creepy and more than a little bit "off".

[Full Otto]

I read it just fine

[Broondog]

i am an atheist but i do enjoy all of the banter and emotion you all put into your arguments concerning certain books that you find to hold special meaning. it is really quite entertaining.

BUT, i am also an American who understands the wording of the First Amendment in which it states "freedom OF religion", not from it. and if someone starts spouting religious stuff at me and i'm not in the mood for it, i just walk away.

everyone getting all butt hurt about it is pure silliness IMO, and they should just get over themselves and move on to something more important like getting Barry out of office, or getting rid of the illegals.

hey wait...aren't those two missions one in the same?

[Sergis Bauer]

Sorry, but the First Amendment cuts both ways. You have a right to make an ass out of yourself... but others have a right to ridicule you for being an ignorant dumb-ass just the same.

You are a daily reminder of this.

[old Grump]

Why do I have the feeling nobody hit the link and read the rest of the article.

[rahatlakhoom]

To me, a faith is a practice of mindfulness.
It is a joy of service to others without having to say anything.

Making declarations in public is like saying that you are exempt and clear
of certain responsibilites just by siding with God's favor.

It simply does not work this way.
With freedom, comes respect, tolerance.
We are all spiritually equals, and precious beyond measure.

If there is a God, it cannot choose sides within a mental playground of
who's on 1st. It's incomprehensibly silly.

[Focused Gunfire]

People who support tyrannical central government no longer need Christians. It is a demographic they don’t think they can get back from their brothers with another name. The brother being the progressive Republicans by the way. So they employ their favored tactics of victimism, and Saul Alinsky.

It is all about control. They let you think its all rainbow flags until you are no longer needed, than comes the forced sterilization. Don’t forget the progressive’s history of eugenics.

[LAGC]

Why do I have the feeling nobody hit the link and read the rest of the article.

I read the whole thing, Grump.

Do you really believe a "a third grade little girl can't openly give thanks for her meal at lunch?" There's nothing stopping her. Certainly not the teachers. Granted, other kids might make fun of her for being so ritualistic, but teachers sure won't stop them. Kids form voluntary prayer groups all the time in practically every school out there. The only thing that is illegal is if schools sponsor said prayer groups.

The reason "schools forbid teachers to have a nativity scene on their desk at Christmas" is because that would be a tacit endorsement of a particular religion by an authority figure who represents the school. If you want to see that kind of shit send your kids to a private religious school. Endorsements of particular religions don't belong in government schools. How would you like it if a Muslim teacher tried to push her religion on your kid in her classroom? It just doesn't belong there, not endorsed by authority figures.

And its a flat-out lie that "grade school children are forbidden to wear clothing that gives testimony to God." Kids wear religious shirts and chains all the time. Again, they might get heckled by other students, so negative peer-pressure might be there, but certainly nothing by the administration. When there is a violation of students' free speech rights, the ACLU has come to the defense of religious children expressing themselves time and time again. Even Christians.

Again, this is just more false claims of "persecution" by fundie Christians who want to be able to FORCE their religion on everyone like they used to get away with before more liberal Supreme Court justices stepped in and enforced the First Amendment.

By the way, what do you make of the second to last paragraph talking about only true Christians being "born again" Christians? Isn't that a slap against your Catholic faith?

You really ought to vet articles better before you post them there, Grump.

[Goodman]

Why do I have the feeling nobody hit the link and read the rest of the article.

The responses sure read that way

[old Grump]

You really ought to vet articles better before you post them there, Grump.

I just read your response, forgive me if I don't take you seriously.

[LAGC]

I just read your response, forgive me if I don't take you seriously.

Just tell me if anything I said isn't true. Do you have any evidence at all of religious students not being able to freely express themselves at school as that linked article suggests?

[weevil]

It is rather amazing how one young man praising God has caused such bitter resentment and controversy.


He's not the first athlete to thank Jesus, I seen boxers and even other football players do the same thing for years but no one ever seemed to get nearly as upset or offended by it.


Is it perhaps because he's had success when everyone predicted failure?


Is it they feel this is some sort of "cheating" by getting help from the Lord?


Or perhaps anger because it might be proof that living clean and thanking the Lord for your success does mean something.

[ltorlo64]

I read the whole thing, Grump.

Do you really believe a "a third grade little girl can't openly give thanks for her meal at lunch?" There's nothing stopping her. Certainly not the teachers. Granted, other kids might make fun of her for being so ritualistic, but teachers sure won't stop them. Kids form voluntary prayer groups all the time in practically every school out there. The only thing that is illegal is if schools sponsor said prayer groups.

Prayer and the pledge of allegiance in public schools remain controversial legal issues. Since the mid-twentieth century, the federal courts have placed limits upon state power to require or even permit these popular cultural practices. Two landmark Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s banned prayer in public school, and subsequent decisions have mostly strengthened the ban. By comparison, the courts have held since the 1940s that the pledge of allegiance is permissible, provided that it is voluntary. Massive public dissatisfaction with these constraints is ongoing.

http://www.enotes.com/education-refe...dge-allegiance

The reason "schools forbid teachers to have a nativity scene on their desk at Christmas" is because that would be a tacit endorsement of a particular religion by an authority figure who represents the school. If you want to see that kind of shit send your kids to a private religious school. Endorsements of particular religions don't belong in government schools. How would you like it if a Muslim teacher tried to push her religion on your kid in her classroom? It just doesn't belong there, not endorsed by authority figures.

If a teacher is openly homosexual, isn't that that endorsing homosexuality by an authority figure? What about an atheist? Same thing. The problem is, even if you remove all religious thoughts and references from school, all you have done is have government endorse secularism, which is another form or religion that replaces "God" with humans (or governments which is still human). You cannot divorce religion from teaching, you only change the religion.

And its a flat-out lie that "grade school children are forbidden to wear clothing that gives testimony to God." Kids wear religious shirts and chains all the time. Again, they might get heckled by other students, so negative peer-pressure might be there, but certainly nothing by the administration. When there is a violation of students' free speech rights, the ACLU has come to the defense of religious children expressing themselves time and time again. Even Christians.

As much as I hate to use the ACLU to prove your point wrong.

The ACLU of Texas (2011) opposed a public high school’s policy prohibiting students from wearing visible rosaries and crosses in the Brownsville Independent School District. http://www.aclutx.org/2011/11/18/acl...ses-at-school/

The ACLU of Nebraska (2011) opposed a policy at Fremont Public School that would prevent students from wearing Catholic rosaries to school.
http://www.aclunebraska.org/index.ph...etty-dangerous

There are more examples at http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-rel...and-expression. You could argue that these were successfully defended against. One of the points of the article was that it should not be necessary in our country, with freedom of religion, to have to defend against any attacks on religious expression. Especially one as simple as wearing a cross or a christian saying on a t-shirt.

Again, this is just more false claims of "persecution" by fundie Christians who want to be able to FORCE their religion on everyone like they used to get away with before more liberal Supreme Court justices stepped in and enforced the First Amendment.

How is discussing my religion, saying a prayer over my food, reading my Bible any different from the protected forms of speech like waving a rainbow flag, cursing like a sailor (and I know how sailors curse) or reading a book that insinuates (or worse) that people who believe in the Bible are mindless idoits? I do not force my beliefs on anyone, but my beliefs are part of me, part of what make me who I am and as such the color my speech, my answers to questions and the way I live. Just as your beliefs do the same for you. But in the case of someone who does not profess a belief in "God" this is considered freedom, in my case it is considered "forcing my religion on everyone".

[Warthogg]

I wonder if it isn't as simple as it makes people uncomfortable.

Yup.


Wart

[LAGC]

http://www.enotes.com/education-refe...dge-allegiance

That's a pretty informative link you posted there. It's true that back in the 19th Century, forced prayer was common in schools (as churches doubled as school-houses before separate public schools were created) -- but note that it wasn't non-believers who got rid of organized prayer in schools, it was rival religious groups who didn't approve of the particular mandatory prayers being forced on all students. Catholics were a big force behind the move, as they didn't approve of Protestant prayer, being told things like they had to be "saved" if they wanted to get to heaven. The Catholic Church teaches that attending church and honoring the sacraments is good enough to get into heaven, they didn't want Protestant teachers telling their children otherwise.

If a teacher is openly homosexual, isn't that that endorsing homosexuality by an authority figure?

What do you mean by "openly homosexual?" Unless the teacher is ACTING OUT sexually and touching the kids (which would be a pedophile, not a homosexual), what's the big deal? It's not like teachers are "recruiting kids into the homosexual lifestyle" as the fundies like to claim, you make it sound like just being a homosexual is a communicable disease that might somehow "rub off" on the students.



Does an African American teacher being "openly black" somehow make them unqualified to teach? I fail to see the outrage.

What about an atheist? Same thing.

If a "militant" atheist teacher was actually teaching kids that God doesn't exist, that might be a problem. But where is that happening? Maybe in a college philosophy class, but in grade school? It's unheard of.

The problem is, even if you remove all religious thoughts and references from school, all you have done is have government endorse secularism, which is another form or religion that replaces "God" with humans (or governments which is still human). You cannot divorce religion from teaching, you only change the religion.

Well the nice thing about secularism is its pretty neutral. I'm sure Muslim students would prefer Muslim prayers, Jewish students would prefer Jewish prayers, Christians would prefer Christian prayer, the only way to keep everyone happy is to just have no school-sponsored prayer at all, or else you end up infringing on others' rights.

As much as I hate to use the ACLU to prove your point wrong.

Uh, those examples you posted proved my point. The ACLU sided with the Christian students AGAINST the school districts who were in the wrong.

There are more examples at http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-rel...and-expression. You could argue that these were successfully defended against. One of the points of the article was that it should not be necessary in our country, with freedom of religion, to have to defend against any attacks on religious expression. Especially one as simple as wearing a cross or a christian saying on a t-shirt.

Well, that's what we have courts for. When a school district abuses its power and tells kids they can't wear a cross or rosary or religious T-shirt, kids can file suit and force the school to let them. It seems the system is working.

How is discussing my religion, saying a prayer over my food, reading my Bible any different from the protected forms of speech like waving a rainbow flag, cursing like a sailor (and I know how sailors curse) or reading a book that insinuates (or worse) that people who believe in the Bible are mindless idoits? I do not force my beliefs on anyone, but my beliefs are part of me, part of what make me who I am and as such the color my speech, my answers to questions and the way I live. Just as your beliefs do the same for you. But in the case of someone who does not profess a belief in "God" this is considered freedom, in my case it is considered "forcing my religion on everyone".

And you, and students, can do all of those things ON YOUR OWN TIME. Public schools are for educating kids about things like math, social studies, science, etc. Sectarian prayer is just an unnecessary distraction. I have no problem with a school-sponsored moment of silence for kids to reflect (or pray quietly to whatever gods they prefer), and neither does the ACLU. Just don't force your particular preferred prayer one everyone else by making the teacher recite it, or worse: over the P.A. system.