The Religion Thread (I hate you guys)

[Andalusian girls]

insofar as Christian values are under attack in this country it is primarily a readjustment away from the historic Christian monopoly on culture, especially communal morality, to a more pluralistic society of competing value sets and as with any structurally advantaged peoples Christians now bemoan the loss (really the attenuation) of their privileged status and claim discrimination

do stand up comics remorselessly poke fun of earnest Christian beliefs? absolutely, but the nation is still 80% Christian and faith in Christ is one of the least malleable prerequisites for public office, hate crimes directed against Jews and Muslims are an order of magnitude larger than hate crimes directed against Catholics and Protestants, and atheists are about as trusted as child molesters. American society as a whole is becoming increasingly secular and tolerant but there remains a dominant, favored religious class and it is the one that complains most often and most loudly about persecution

[Tarage]

What's becoming more and more apparent is that a lot of people think that this country has a 'strong Christian foundation' and that there is nothing wrong with it being a Christian nation.

These people are fucking wrong, but I'm not sure how you combat that viewpoint. It's one thing to say "You are being a hypocrite", but this is a deeply ingrained belief. Those are a bitch and a half to change.

[Sho]

What's becoming more and more apparent is that a lot of people think that this country has a 'strong Christian foundation' and that there is nothing wrong with it being a Christian nation.

These people are fucking wrong, but I'm not sure how you combat that viewpoint. It's one thing to say "You are being a hypocrite", but this is a deeply ingrained belief. Those are a bitch and a half to change.

Unchangeable really. You're not going to change a religious fervor, ever. This is exactly the problem with combatting ISIS as well. They will believe what they will and that's that. It's a much larger problem however when it conflicts with the day to day of government. The Law of the Land is such for a reason, and any person who truly loves this country should follow the law, especially if they serve the state.

If you think about it it goes even further than right wing nutters -- we will never see an atheist or a non-Christian in the highest offices in the US. We have a few Jews in Congress and thats about it. Christianity is a part of this nation, however cumbersome.

[Rooney]

do stand up comics remorselessly poke fun of earnest Christian beliefs? absolutely, but the nation is still 80% Christian and faith in Christ is one of the least malleable prerequisites for public office, hate crimes directed against Jews and Muslims are an order of magnitude larger than hate crimes directed against Catholics and Protestants, and atheists are about as trusted as child molesters. American society as a whole is becoming increasingly secular and tolerant but there remains a dominant, favored religious class and it is the one that complains most often and most loudly about persecution

Wish I could find it again, but read an article a while ago about this. Basically 80% of people *claim* to be Christian, but it's only something like 30-35% that go to church regularly and are active in their faith. From there you have a chunk that goes occasionally (every other week to like once/month), then only for major services (Christmas/Easter), then down to never going to church or being active in their faith (don't pray, read the bible, etc). Essentially, that 80% number is way too high. People claim to be Christian to avoid the headache of dealing the the Christians screaming bloody murder about persecution, moral decay, etc.

Sitting down and talking to someone one on one about their beliefs yields a far different picture, with a much higher mixture of atheism, agnostic, muslim, buddhism, etc. Put people in a group setting and suddenly a large chunk change to non-denominational Christian, they just "haven't found the right church". Society puts a lot of pressure on people to be Christian, because "that's how it's always been." Much like gay rights though, younger people are increasingly saying it's ok to be different.

[Tymon]

There's nothing wrong with having a 'strong christian foundation' because

a) it can't be changed, unless you have a time machine
b) it's just a foundation, in a time where >99% were religious people. unavoidable.

Saying there's nothing wrong with it being a christian nation, yes, of course this is a problem however.

[Wulfgang]

Christian "values" like keeping the gays from getting married are nothing but pure bigotry.

I still don't understand why marriage and its religious associations are even under the purview of the government given the theoretically required separation of church and state.

Step 1: The government confirms/issues civil unions for all couples regardless of sexual orientation, planet of origin, etc.
Step 2: There is a universal right to receive a civil union supported by the Bill of Rights (gay, trans, etc., come aboard)
Step 3: All benefits previously conferred by marriage (tax-related, workplace benefits, pensions, whatever) are shifted to civil unions
Step 4: Previously married couples are grandfathered in to the new civil union concept (having 100 million people inundate municipal offices for new union licenses is unnecessary)
Step 5: Marriages in the traditional sense can (and will) still be performed, but they are solely a religious ceremony

In the end, the "sacred institution of marriage" is protected for all the religious zealots, LGBT folks receive 100% equivalent rights from a secular point of view, and it's all rainbows and unicorns from here on out.

Not saying it's perfect, but it makes sense to me. There's still the issue of religious (say Catholic) LGBT folks who want a traditional marriage, but they're going to have to take it up with the Pope. Frankly, if I were gay, I sure as hell would renounce Catholicism and move to greener pastures.

[Xantavia]

Apparently, Catholics aren't Christians according to Baptists. So, don't expect them to grasp the good works mindset of the "heathens."

I do hate to bash other religions, since I am religious, but I have zero patience for a Christian sect who thinks I am going to Hell and spend more time pointing fingers at everyone than staring in the mirror.

Based on personal experience, I can think of two other Christian religions that do this. A co-worker who is an extremely conservative Catholic is always using "protestant" like it is some kind of slur, since they don't practice the right religion. And both sets of grandparents were Missouri-Synod Lutheran. They were devastated when my parents began attending an ELCA church and having us kids baptized and confirmed in it. So even though we were all Lutheran, my immediate family was the "wrong" type and am going to go to hell because of it.

[Thunder]

There's nothing wrong with having a 'strong christian foundation' because

a) it can't be changed, unless you have a time machine
b) it's just a foundation, in a time where >99% were religious people. unavoidable.

Saying there's nothing wrong with it being a christian nation, yes, of course this is a problem however.

Feel it relevant to point out even though all the founding fathers might as well be christian/whatever they were all basically atheists when it came to science/politics

Saying religion is stronger in america today than it was 300 years ago wouldn't be that crazy a thing to say. It goes beyond whatever "foundation" was set long ago, imo

[Tyrath]

It most certainly goes beyond whatever foundation the forefathers laid out for the government. They wanted religion completely out of politics.

[Thunder]

Yeah.. which is why any talk invoking "christian foundations" should just be thrown right out because it's bullshit

Idk why so many people here are entertaining it. Guys were able to get a secular government set up up over the most hardcore religious people and they did it 300 years ago. It isn't impossible. Setting up nationwide healthcare in the US, the anti-communism country for the last century, is probably harder to do than that

[Tymon]

Simply put, it was "one nation under God" because the founding fathers were God fearing men.

The constitution was put in place not under God's rule, but by their belief that if they didn't create a fair, just system of government for the people that God would be sure to make them pay for it after they passed on.

I think that saying it's stronger today than then might be a little bit of an exaggeration though.

Back then, and probably until about 50-60 years ago, religious groups could get stuff passed by majority opinion. You could absolutely have a consumer/religious revolt over something undesirable and end up with the government acquiescing to their demands.

Now, they're just loud. I just see a bunch of peabrained politicians supporting them in hope for votes. They won't actually accomplish anything other than being loud. That's the difference.

[Blubbartron]

Simply put, it was "one nation under God" because the founding fathers were God fearing men.

The constitution was put in place not under God's rule, but by their belief that if they didn't create a fair, just system of government for the people that God would be sure to make them pay for it after they passed on.

I think that saying it's stronger today than then might be a little bit of an exaggeration though.

Back then, and probably until about 50-60 years ago, religious groups could get stuff passed by majority opinion. You could absolutely have a consumer/religious revolt over something undesirable and end up with the government acquiescing to their demands.

Now, they're just loud. I just see a bunch of peabrained politicians supporting them in hope for votes. They won't actually accomplish anything other than being loud. That's the difference.

Are you referencing the "one nation under god" from the pledge of allegiance?

[Tyrath]

Are you referencing the "one nation under god" from the pledge of allegiance?

I know you're just waiting for the layup but I'll just say it now. One nation under god was added on in the 50s to distringuish ourselves from the godless commies. Honestly, the whole religion getting stronger in politics thing can probably be traced back to those times.

[Tymon]

Are you referencing the "one nation under god" from the pledge of allegiance?

As a metaphor, yes. Itself as a reference to those who argue in favor of the Constitution being a theocratic (is this a word? regardless, influenced by God) document because of a misplaced quote, hence the quotation marks that were probably not obvious.

That in itself, while not my point, is actually another entry in a long list of instances where religious zealots tried to make revisionist history of the Constitutional Convention.

The point being that the assumption (well, they will sooner say it is undeniable fact) is that the Constitution is literally "under God." If it was really under God I fathom it'd be pretty different. You know, with legalized stonings and the lack of virtually every civil rights and women's suffrage addendum ever.

[Blubbartron]

I know you're just waiting for the layup but I'll just say it now. One nation under god was added on in the 50s to distringuish ourselves from the godless commies. Honestly, the whole religion getting stronger in politics thing can probably be traced back to those times.

Boo, you ruined it. It's so much fun pointing out the horrid ignorance of the average religious person when it comes to the history of this country. Most Christians would lose their goddamn minds if they knew a large portion of the big names in the founding of this country were outspoken deists. They simply can't accept the fact that they've been lied to by their religious leaders/parents, because it opens up a huge can of worms.

[Blubbartron]

As a metaphor, yes. Itself as a reference to those who argue in favor of the Constitution being a theocratic (is this a word? regardless, influenced by God) document because of a misplaced quote, hence the quotation marks that were probably not obvious.

That in itself, while not my point, is actually another entry in a long list of instances where religious zealots tried to make revisionist history of the Constitutional Convention.

The point being that the assumption (well, they will sooner say it is undeniable fact) is that the Constitution is literally "under God." If it was really under God I fathom it'd be pretty different. You know, with legalized stonings and the lack of virtually every civil rights and women's suffrage addendum ever.

Ignore me, I appear to have misunderstood which side you were arguing for. I take it about half of your posts are a pseudo-devil's advocate, but it's not really spelled out, and simply looks like you're arguing their talking points.

[Thunder]

As a metaphor, yes. Itself as a reference to those who argue in favor of the Constitution being a theocratic (is this a word? regardless, influenced by God) document because of a misplaced quote, hence the quotation marks that were probably not obvious.

That in itself, while not my point, is actually another entry in a long list of instances where religious zealots tried to make revisionist history of the Constitutional Convention.

The point being that the assumption (well, they will sooner say it is undeniable fact) is that the Constitution is literally "under God." If it was really under God I fathom it'd be pretty different. You know, with legalized stonings and the lack of virtually every civil rights and women's suffrage addendum ever.

the constitution is literally under god? What do you mean?

God, Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, are never mentioned in the constitution. You will, however, find in article 6

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Religion in any way affecting politics is bullshit, as in, it shouldn't be happening and it's a shame it is. Anyone quoting the inception of our nation to support it is full of shit when they do it, as in, they're wrong as fk.

Religion is undoubtedly stronger today in our politics than it was 300 years ago. And that's too bad

[Tymon]

Ignore me, I appear to have misunderstood which side you were arguing for. I take it about half of your posts are a pseudo-devil's advocate, but it's not really spelled out, and simply looks like you're arguing their talking points.

You would be correct. I'm bad at this. I'm an agnostic that was (and lives in) an extremely belligerent Christian family. I spend a lot of time trying to rationalize their insanity in my head because I want to help them. It bleeds into my posts.

the constitution is literally under god? What do you mean?

God, Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, are never mentioned in the constitution. You will, however, find in article 6

Religion in any way affecting politics is bullshit, as in, it shouldn't be happening and it's a shame it is. Anyone quoting the inception of our nation to support it is full of shit when they do it, as in, they're wrong as fk.

Religion is undoubtedly stronger today in our politics than it was 300 years ago. And that's too bad

It's not under anything. I'm referencing the terrifying number of people who have said it is literally under god that come out of the woodwork whenever "Christian values" are attacked.

The logical fallacy is this:

Claims are made that the Constitution was drafted with Christian laws involved.

But if this is the case, the founding fathers are hypocrites. A massive number of the original settlers came to North America to get away from the Anglican Church being horrible snoots. This is regurgitated in American History all over the place. If this is the truth and we are at the time of the Constitution not even 150 years removed from these events, why on earth would you do exactly was done that made you want to leave England? England at the time was about as close to being a nation under god as you can get without being a theocracy.

There's a bunch of references to Christianity in the early documents, because like I said, most of those men were deists or from various Christian religions. It's not a far fetched assumption to make that they would include some wording here and there to appease the more extreme end of the time's political spectrum, among other reasons. Anything further than that is absurdly illogical.

But this shouldn't be a surprise. If you want to see illogical, let me know. I'll mail you one of the "Christian History" books that made me demand to be taken out of homeschooling and put in public schools.

[Anoat]

I've always interpreted the founding fathers and their freedom of religion to simply be "freedom to be a Christian the way I want to", without even taking into account other religions of the world. There was never any concerted effort by the government to stop the forced conversion of Native Americans or African slaves to Christianity. I highly doubt the founding fathers were even considering Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc to be a thing worth concerning themselves with.

[Tyrath]

I've always interpreted the founding fathers and their freedom of religion to simply be "freedom to be a Christian the way I want to", without even taking into account other religions of the world. There was never any concerted effort by the government to stop the forced conversion of Native Americans or African slaves to Christianity. I highly doubt the founding fathers were even considering Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc to be a thing worth concerning themselves with.

Considering theres strong evidence many of the Founding Fathers were deists rather than Christian, I'm gonna go with a no on this one.