Suppression of Christianity in America-the Truth?
77Is Christianity being Suppressed in America
I find this to be an amazing subject, the suppression of Christianity in the United States. As if this were in truth happening on any scale. That some Christians might believe that it is happening I can understand however, in truth I believe that a more pragmatic view of this subject is required. I believe that this should be asked as a question rather than claimed as a fact. Is Christianity being suppressed in the United States? Is there any proof to the claims that Christianity is being suppressed? I don't believe that this is the case, but let's look at the claims.
First, we have to understand that most Christians ignore the foundations of this country and the Constitution along with the Bill of Rights. Most Christians have blinders on when it comes to our history, failing to acknowledge the reality that "One Nation Under God" was not part of our Pledge until the 1950's; "In God we Trust" was not on our original currency; and the founding fathers intended that this country be a one of free men and women not one burdened with a single church. We are a secular nation of free people with the right to worship as we choose without interference. So now that we have established the framework of our nation lets look at the claims of suppression.
Removal of prayer in public schools, is this a matter of Christian suppression? I don't think it is since all prayer is removed not just Christian prayer. The fact is public schools are funded by tax dollars and must serve all of the public not just some of the public. Unless public schools are prepared to accommodate all religious ideologies at prayer time, they must remove prayer entirely. This is the only fair and equitable solution. Some schools have introduced a moment of silence and the courts have upheld this approach as it does not cross the line into religious ideologies and treats all students equally.
Other points of reference on the idea of suppression have been the suggestion that Christians are being jailed for speaking their beliefs in public forums. I am not aware of this except for a single instance, Fred Phelps and other members of the Westboro Church. If there are any members of the a legitimate Christian church that support this lunatic and his message than I am sorry for you and hope you are some day literate enough to read the Bible that you pretend to follow. Suppression, yes this nutcase and his inbred group of followers require it. They are a plague with a message filled with hate and contrary to every teaching of the Christian doctrine I am aware of.
Suppression is a strange word to use in this situation really. Consider that for the past eight years our President has regularly claimed his belief and stand on Christianity and has guided our country into war based on these beliefs. One of the current frontrunners for the Republican Party is heavily reliant upon his evangelical Christian beliefs and background. Christianity is the only Religion with its own television broadcasting station, Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN); which had net assets in excess of $183 million in 2007.
Suppression of Christianity in the United States, no I don't think so. I think what is happening is a balancing of the field. Others are claiming their right to exist within a country that has always assured them of those rights based upon the legal documents that were written and codified over 200 years ago. Christians have every right to exist and worship as they choose. What they do not have the right to do is force others to worship as they do. What they do not have the right to do is force their beliefs into the boardrooms, public buildings, public schools, and private lives of others. What is amazing is that most Christians cannot even agree among themselves what the Bible says or upon the correct form of worship, or for that matter on the fundamentals of Christianity. Yet they want the rest of us to set aside our moral agreements with our beliefs and with God to accept without question "Christianity".
Suppression? No this is not suppression this is simply the natural correction of what has two long been an imbalance. Christians you may certainly speak about God and The Christ within the confines of your own homes and Churches. There is no one who would think to take this right away from you. All reasonable and right thinking people will stand up for your right to do so. What you may not do is continue to force your beliefs down the unwilling throats of others or use public monies to advance your agendas. This is not suppression. Christians have exactly the same rights as all other Americans. What you do not have is more rights. What you must get beyond is the belief that the United States of America is a nation founded as a Christian Nation, it was not ever intended to be so. Read history!
CommentsLoading...
wow...what a breath of fresh air...nice to discover a parallel thinker...i do not understand "nuts" wanting to inject their worship into government facilities...(schools, etc.) is it not clear that if the government furnishes facilities to worship in, that they(government) would have to regulate the "when", "where", "how much", "contents", etc.....ned's first readers would surely realize that rule...thanks for hubbing some "sense" on this matter...just a personal thought on one of the common issues...pylos26
The entire subject of whether we are "supposed" to be a Christian nation and have fallen is interesting. It is one of my pet subjects or rants.
As for the Pledge, I wrote a hub that you might find interesting.
http://hubpages.com/hub/The-History-of-The-Pledge-
Great hub!
Cheers, Chef Jeff
Welcome to Hub Pages, Valentine!
I think there may be some legitimate confusion as to our country's philosophical roots, because even the most secular Colonials almost invariably belonged to a church and often quoted from the Bible. It was more of a "social Christianity" than a truly passionate faith. That said, the secular origin of our nation is no state secret, but that fact is under-taught in our schools.
What I find confounding is the notion of certain individuals that, if their personal brand of religion is not written into our laws, then the rights of those individuals have been violated and their means of religious expression has been cruelly suppressed. It's not so much the self-serving statements themselves, it's the fact that these folks seem to genuinely believe this ... this ... what they're saying!
Great Hubs. Am looking forward to many more.
Thanks for your comments Marian. I try never to cloud the issues with the personal beliefs of the Founding Fathers or for that matter others of that time. The issue is not with their personal beliefs, although with many their writings are readily available and give great insight. The issue is not and will remain, should the religious beliefs of any person be allowed to be legislated? The answer, at least for me is not. I heard someone say recently that America was founded as a "White Christian Nation and must be led always by a White Christian". After I was done being amazed and dumbfounded and was then ready to do battle.
So long as we have people who believe as this person believes those of us who know otherwise must be prepared to defend the Constitution and the truth of our history. Otherwise our future is surely at risk.
Valentine, isn't it amazing how we can all read the same books and still get the "facts" wrong? Our history is better defined by what we fail to find in our textbooks - very little about Jewish, Catholic, Native and African inputs to the nation. Yet all these people were here, functioning against the odds, and freedom and dignity was often denied them simoly because of those "White Christians" who thought it was their right to treat people like animals.
Where in any textbnook our 8th graders read does it mention the hard, dangerous and totally uncompensated work done by people in slavery to build this nation? Now Causasians from Scotland, England and Ireland did a lot of indentured servant work, which is close enough to slavery, except that at the end of the indentured service the person was freed, given things to start a new life and sent on his or her way.
With slavery, the names of the people in bondage were often anonymous, or worse yet, changed from the birth names given in Africa to some ridiculous names the slave owner decided were good enough.
America is indeed the world's best hope, but unless we are willing to meet our past as it REALLY was, we will remain forever a spoiled child of a nation, forever blaming others for all our misfortunes.
Great hub!
Cheers!
Chef Jeff
Hear, hear! Great hub!
Thanks Kerry. It is one of my pet peeves so hopefully my passion for the subject comes through.
Suppression is the silencing of freedom of speech, and stopping the right to peacefully exercise my beliefs at any time and place for ones owns agenda, which is what is happening today. Most anti-Christian actions today are done under the idea of separation of church and state. While this isn't in either the constitution or bill of right, on the other hand a idea that is in the Constitution is:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
And like I have said to a similar post:
It was never the founding father intent to silence one belief or the right to exercise that belief over another. Many people today have distorted the idea of separation of church and state to mean the banning of any act of faith on public property or in public forums. Instead of what it really means, which is the preventing of organized beliefs from using government to enforce their belief over another. i.e. atheist over Christian or even scientific theory over faith. All beliefs are suppose to have equal protections and rights to exercise that belief in public or in congress if they so choose and we cant stop it. What we can stop is laws that mandate a particular belief system or doctrine. Yet it doesn't mean we cant make laws based on our beliefs, just that our beliefs can not be established through laws.
Thus if we use the courts and congress to limit someone ability to freely exercise their beliefs, then we are suppressing them. If laws punish people for expressing a belief, such saying Merry Christmas, or God Bless you we are suppressing them. If we ban Christmas plays, Nativity scenes, and prayer we are limited the right to exercise their freedom afforded to them by the Constitution thus we are suppressing them. So call it what you must to make you feel ok with it, but just remember the poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Rob I am not sure I understand your point. As an American I don't want Christian prayer in my public schools. I vote to ensure that this is the case so that all American children are educated in a manner that is free of bias, that is in a manner that is Secular. As an American I want what our Founding Fathers wanted a Secular Government. Read their papers, read their writings, read history. I want Christians to be able to practice their religion just not in my front lawn or in my schools, that is on my private property or in the public property that my tax dollars pay for. Why is this difficult for you to understand?
I want those of other faiths to have equal access to practice their faiths. I want all faiths to be treated fairly and with equity under the law. I don't personally care if you say Merry Christmas. I do care if you demand I take an oath on a book that has no meaning to me. I care that our pledge includes a prayer. I care that our money includes language that wasn't there originally and that is "Christian" inclusive. I care that Christians believe they have greater rights than others and attempt to enforce those rights through laws upon those who disagree with their religious beliefs.
Any law that is based upon religious beliefs and does not serve the greater community is a bad law.
It is not a question of what you want or what I want but it is a question having the ability to have all points of view openly expressed without having to conform to someone beliefs or "no beliefs". (Which is a point I believe both of us tax payers can agree upon.)
But instead trying to find a way to reasonably find middle ground, People have turn there efforts toward using the government to build a "no religion zone" or what could be coined a atheists society which in it own right is a government established belief system. Which is what you are arguing is bad idea. Call it secular or whatever it is still using government to establish a national belief system. Of course many will argue that it isn't because privately you can practice whatever you like, as long you don't ask or tell.
Any law that does not inherently support liberty, justice, and freedom is a bad law.
I will agree that no belief system should use the law to force others to believe as they do but i disagree that people should not use their belief to explain why they agree or disagree with a national policy or law. We are nation built on the backs of many ideas, cultures, and beliefs thus we are going to struggle and disagree but that why we are a democracy. A country where we can debate freely and express our ideas, and yes disagree.
Just because Christians don't support abortion, or gay marriage, or whatever does not mean their opinions are not worth hearing nor is it justification to try to eliminate their influence on society. And the same hold true for all the other points of view.
It is easy to try to put Christians in a box and say that we all are x or y but it is not true. We are literate, educated, and have the ability to reason. I have read my history, The Bill of Rights, the Constitution and much much more. Yet I don't see it as black and white as you do, maybe it is perspective thing but it is not as you seem to suggest a education issue.
Speaking of education, what happens when you limit perspective from education? You get a limited education, by being absolutely opposed to religious or other perspectives you are limiting your education and the creative thoughts that perspective brings. Plus a secular only education environment give education a secular bias which is not a bias free education. In fact it downgrades my cultural, moral, aesthetic perspectives which is imparted to my children without a single consideration of the impact it is having on that and other segment of the American population.
Everything is relative based on culture and beliefs,should children be forced to pray or practice a belief no, but they also should not be forced to hide their beliefs either. Which is what is happening, not only to Christian cultures but to others as well. We say we want a equal and open society, but are actions say we want equal and open as long as it relates to our view points, which is wrong. So are we going to continue to argue, over your perspective versus mine or are you we going to find a way accept that we are different and work together to find a solution that does not suppress your beliefs or mine?
Rob
Ah, now I understand what you are saying. Thank you for that. I actually have no issue at all with religion being taught in public schools just so long as it is inclusive and not exclusive. I would be fully in favor in age appropriate comparative religious studies in public schools. I have always supported the idea that young people should be able to form private clubs, including religious based clubs and use school property after or before school for their meetings. I simply don't believe school activities such as games or class should start with a prayer. Those are examples.
I agree with you that debate should not disregard the framework of our disagreements, including those that are based upon our religious frameworks. I simply do not want to see our freedoms limited by religious fanaticism, it is a fine line sometimes but one that exists.
I am not opposed to religion. I am opposed to exclusion. I am strongly opposed to those who demand that I believe as they do, scream at me and my children that we are going to hell if I do not. I am strongly opposed to violence in the name of religion, any religion. I am strongly opposed to religion that would limit the civil rights of another group simply because they are born different whether by race, gender, or sexual orientation. We can have the discussions and should but at the end of the day we have to find a way to live together without disenfranchising others within the community that do not think or believe in the same way.
Agreed, and respected.
I have never agreed with those extremist who say they represent me and my beliefs, just as I am learning that you seem, not to believe in those extremist who seem to be the rally heads of "your side". To often these minority groups seem to try to represent what us the majority have never thought in the first place. Thus bringing our society to a place of knee jerk reactions, name calling, and saber rattling.
My faith teaches me to love the person not what I believe is the sin, which is not what is being represented. Also my faith teaches me to hold those of my faith to our shared standards, not those who don't believe, because how can they be held to a standard they haven't accepted. My faith is about loving, and acting out of love which includes sharing but not forcefully converting. We can not and should not force people to believe, our model (Jesus) never did that nor would he teach that. With that understanding I hope you would see that I am not about forcing my view on you either, and I am open to find a way to coexist in manner that beneficial to all.
Yes, I will do and say things that may be strange to you, but that is me being me just as you will do and say things that from my prospective is equally strange but it doesn't mean we should trash each other about until one side is the winner for no one wins in conflict only in open discussion and compromise do we gain. And if we listen as we have here, we may find that we have much more in common then we have been lead to believe by those who seek our conflict.
Rob
I wonder what would happen if I stood up in an Evangelical church and started preaching the ancient Norse religion? You know; Thor, Odin, Valkyries, etc. Or if I started preaching Algebra? I perhaps have the freedom to do so, but would I be allowed to? Would my attempt to teach my message in someone else's church be allowed by the Constitution? Would it be welcomed?
I guess I believe the same thing for any religion being preached in school, be it Christian or what ever. And if Christian, then what flavor? Catholicism? Lutheranism? Baptist? Methodist. Latter Day Saints? Jehovah's Witnesses?
All of these groups consider themselves to be Christian, yet I doubt, for example, that a member of a Catholic Church deems Jehovah's Witnesses or Latter Day Saints to be worthy of the title Christian. The same might be true of any other denomination out there. Baptists, for example, most likely do not recognize the Christianity of some, all or any of the other religious groups that exist.
To say we should have prayer in public schools, as you so wisely pointed out in your hub, does not limit the kind of prayer to what was seen 50 or 60 years ago, when it was simply assumed that a prayer had to be a certain way but would cover all believers. Just 50 or 60 years ago prayer in public school was an attempt to covert and also to figuratively poke Jewish students in the eye. I remember one Jewish friend who had to repeat the words of a purely Chrsitian prayer or spend time after school for disobedience. Even pleas from his parents did not allow him to sit it out. He simply was forced to pray a Christian prayer against his will.
Also, you are spot on with your analysis of why a state religion was not put into place. First of all, it could not be done since colonists and American citizens were not in agreement on which of the many religious ideas would be best suited. Yet even further, no one wanted one religion to cover all beliefs or non-beliefs.
I had a good discussion with someone who really did not know that In God We Trust was not on early American currency, and that the paper money we use today was not known at the start of this nation. He simply assumed that a dollar bill was then as it is now. Amazing how some people must have slept during their classes! Or maybe they were praying for snow so they could stay home.
Excellent hub!
Cheers!
Chef Jeff
From a Christian perspective, the problem I see is this. Christianity represents the TRUTH. Now, sure, some people might disagree with this, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is. By extension, suppression of Christianity is therefore a suppression of the truth.
So, let’s say for argument’s sake, there are 100 answers and 99 of them are wrong or partially wrong, and there is one correct answer. Is it fair that the 99 wrong answers take up 99% of the energy?
For example, in science you wouldn’t spend time teaching bogus theories. Some science is better than other science, and would therefore be given more think time. It’s the same for religions, is it not?
It’s not about giving fair play to all religions. It’s about giving the truth a chance to be heard with the voice it deserves. With that in mind, yes, Christianity is being suppressed.
Sorry Huckabilly, Christianity is only your truth. That is it just yours. It does not represent all truths for all people. It is not fact based. Were it so there would not be hundreds of Christian faith based churches preaching different standards. Until such time as there is only one Christian standard that is provable you cannot call it TRUTH.
Sorry, truth is not relative to an individual’s perception. If it was, then there would be thousands of truths and, by extension, no truth at all.
Also, there is more than enough evidence to validate Christianity as being true. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming. If there are different churches with different, as you say, ‘standards’ it simply proves that there are different churches with different standards. So what? Churches are corruptible because people are corruptible and have been since the beginning.
If a mathematician incorrectly teaches that 1+1=3, does that invalidate mathematics? Of course not, because 1+1=2 and it always will.
In the same way, Christianity and the Bible tell a true story about humanity and our relationship with our creator. Of course that is just the beginning of what it tells, a first truth, if you will -- that God created mankind in his own image. This is a fact. If this is not a fact, then I challenge you to prove that it is not a fact. Guess what? You can’t.
Again Hackabilly, your truth, your belief, your standard. Nothing more and nothing less. A Muslim has an entirely different truth and different belief which by the way is based on the same baseline, the Old Testament. A Jew also has different truth which is based on the same baseline, the Old Testament.
So here we have three 'TRUTHS' based on the same standard baseline the Old Testament Bible.
Christianity doesn't own the Bible, it is only owns the New Testament of the Christ. It only owns the interpretation of the life of the Christ. That is it. The truth of Christians doesn't change the truth of others.
This has nothing to do with perception. It is a simple FACT that Christianity is not the only standard of the world. It is estimated that only 30% of the worlds population identify themselves as Christian. Of this many do not identify with any formal religious group, but rather loosely identify as believing in God and Jesus.
Truth, as you term it is absolutely relative and a matter of individual perception. There are in fact thousands of "truths" especially with reference to Christianity. There is no proof whatsoever to validate Christianity, the very basis of faith would require you to believe without proof thus invalidating your argument of proof.
The Bible is a book written by man and tells many stories, mostly in contradiction to each other. While interesting in the English language it has no basis in truth either. It is not a 'FACT'. It is a book that has been rewritten thousands of times, by men.
Nothing in the Bible is factual or provable. There is nothing to prove. There is not any reason to attempt to do so.
Nice work Val. You were spot on.
Huckabilly, you said this:>>"From a Christian perspective, the problem I see is this. Christianity represents the TRUTH. Now, sure, some people might disagree with this, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is. By extension, suppression of Christianity is therefore a suppression of the truth."< And this>"Of course that is just the beginning of what it tells, a first truth, if you will -- that God created mankind in his own image. This is a fact. If this is not a fact, then I challenge you to prove that it is not a fact. Guess what? You can’t."<
I think you're missing something here. On the first statement you're saying the Christianity represents Truth. You then add "Sorry, truth is not relative to an individual’s perception." Ok, then it must be demonstrable. So demonstrate for me the truth of your claim. It must certainly be objectively demonstrable according to what you've said. So...demonstrate it for us. Now, more then likely you'll reference the Bible to try and do that since you seem to be saying "a first truth, if you will -- that God created mankind in his own image.This is a fact" Are you using the Bible to try to prove your claim? If you are, then what proves the Bible? What is it based upon? It cannot prove itself. That's a circular argument. You must be aware that circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. And it's an irrational position to take. You can't use the Bible as it's own source to prove itself. You are creating a
circular chain of reasoning like this one: “God exists.” “How do you know that God exists?”
“The Bible says so.” “Why should I believe the Bible?” “Because it’s the inspired word of God.” That's a circular argument bringing you back to the first assertion that is yet to be proven.
As for your final words," If this is not a fact, then I challenge you to prove that it is not a fact. Guess what? You can’t." I don't think that you understand that since you are the person making the claim of something being factually true, the burden of proof lies with you. Nobody is required to prove a negative. You on the other hand ARE required to prove that your statement is factually True. If you can demonstrate it as objective Truth..then do it. If not, it's because it can't be done. Before you start calling me a relativist, let me assure you that I'm not. I do think that objective Truth is real. I just don't think that anybody can possess it. Including you.
Thank you Adagio. By the way arguing with people such as Huckabilly is a futile undertaking, note he did not come back to defend his position.
Oh I'm aware of that. There's no defense for them so..they do what they accuse others of doing. They cut and run. Beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind (usually the source of the belief in question) and this justification by an appropriate authority makes the belief either
rational, or if not rational, at least valid for the person who holds it. However this is a requirement that can never be adequetly met due to the problem of validation or the dilemma of infinite regress vs. dogmatism. In other words, what is the basis for the authority that is the source of the belief in the first place? It scares them to think about it. Huckabilly's big mistake is that he tries to prove something that is supposed to be taken on faith. That only proves that his faith is weak.
Founded as a christian nation. But be careful, some of these Christians might try to use that for their advantage, saying since it was founded as a christian nation, they have more rights. I think in the end that's why that makes them want to push their beliefs down people's throats even more. Because so many other people that are of different faiths usually are immigrants, I mean we're all immigrants, but you know what I mean. Because of that they claim since this is their turf they should be able to do these atrocities. I'm guessing that's how they feel. The other reason they're doing this is because most of Christians already have a foolish belief that they're way is the only way to God. That arrogance is what has led them to doing a lot of stupid things. Many of them even claim this country was founded on "Christian Values". That is so false, many of the founding fathers, if not all, weren't even Christians. Don't get me wrong, Christianity is a good religion, but they have violated a lot of rights already, and now claiming their rights are being violated.
Good HUB, I voted up.
Thank you, Thought-Provoking. Yes, we are having a difficult time right now with the Dominionist taking hold of the political process and the nation moving further to the right every day. Theocrats are a danger and when you combine them with Manifest Destiny and money you have nothing if not a combustible situation. I dread what is coming.
Thanks for the reply, and yes very much so. It's this type of thinking that has taken up hold in the U.S.A in the past few years, and it is because of these types of thinking that this country is heading for something dreadful, if we do not change these poor perspectives, We will continue to suffer on even bigger levels, such as economic and our politics will continue to get split up even more, so nothing Good, or that is necessary will ever be done, and we will inevitably collapse.
Anyone who thinks America was established as a "christian" based country has obviously never read the declaration of independence or the constitution of the united states.Or if they had they did not grasp the concept of the wording of either of those documents. Valentine i agree wholeheartedly on your thoughts on this matter and to those like Huckabilly and Rob Jr I have to say 2 things First, who decides the definiton of what a truth is? you or your diety? or society in general? after all your idea of truth is possibly different from anyone elses. and secondly ecveryone is entitled to thier opinions but remember they are opinions and like armpits we all have them and they all tend to stink to others. Yes banning prayer in schools os possibly a form of repression but it is not aimed at just the christians it is aimed at all believes . I am a reformed christian who is now very proud to shout to the world that I am a pagan. I respect others beliefs and wish others to accept mine especially when many are ignorant of what those beliefs are. Thank you Valentine for your uplifting and thought provoking hub
Thanks for stopping by Wulf Dreamwalker. You are right, respecting how each of us believe and being able to live side-by-side is what was intended but certainly not what is happening in the nation today.
Valentine--as I see it, the bedrock of Christianity is persecution. Without persecution Christianity is flat and listless.
Its' 'TRUTH' must eternally be pitted in battle against: Satan, Pagan gods, Romans, Unbelievers, Homosexuals and Spongebob Squarepants. Something has to take up the emotional slack of doubt. Persecution neatly serves that purpose.
That when those nagging little questions pop up--AH! SATAN! That never sleeping, foul imp with his ceaseless persecution of beleaguered Christian soldiers.
Persecution shores up the gates--it tightens the ranks.
It conjures up gripping imagery of a tattered Jesus on the cross. It lets one climb right up there beside him and bemoan an earthly suffering for 'TRUTH'.
Currently, I am typing this comment from the Buckle of the Bible Belt. Just a simple glance outside--at the largest and most lavish building in my fair city will let you know Jesus wept....all the way to the bank.
--yo jones
Well there you go Yo, and the truth shall set you free or not. I can't disagree with your assessment only weep at its accuracy.
Yeah, ignore reality all you guys want, but when they were expelling students for praying over their lunch, they were suppressing their faith. When they fought against organizations like "See you at the Pole" when students would pray around the flag pole in the morning, they were suppressing their faith. When they were condemning students for openly speaking about Christ, they were suppressing their faith. When universities and colleges call christian groups under review because they won't allow gays or Muslims to become a part or to become leaders in their groups, they are suppressing their faith. When they insist that the Ten Commandments come down, they are suppressing the Christian faith.
Ours is supposed to be a nation of freedom of religion, not Atheism dominates all, not freedom from religion. We established our nation on the ideals of Democracy, the majority rules, the majority decision is always given more weight. So when a few individuals get politicians or judges to dictate against the majority, that is in direct violation of the ideal of Democracy.
There is a reason why the first amendment says what it says and not the clause. The clause favors Atheism above all faiths. The actual first amendment clarifies the reality that the state and faith does not have to be separate at all. We merely can't favor, nor infringe upon, nor infringe upon, nor infringe upon, I have to repeat that a few times for the Atheists, by law or legislation, any religion.
As it is right now, every law on the books as of late favors the religion of Atheism above all of the others.
When the time comes that there is a majority consensus that steps on the rights of the few, sure, something can be done, but it should not be at the sacrifice of all religious rights, save Atheism.
In this nation we seem to be satisfied with the first part of the first amendment, that law cannot favor any religion, although it clearly favors Atheism right now, but we forget the second part that says nor can we infringe upon any religion. When we infringe upon all religions, we favor Atheism, and we are still infringing upon other religions. It's like separate but equal, meant to be fair, but in reality ends up favoring. We infringe upon all religions, except Atheism, at the same time so that we can pretend we're being fair, but the reality is, it infringes upon theist religions, favors Atheism, and furthermore, it primarily infringes upon Christianity because those are the people that others target when they are looking to suppress the free faith speech of someone or an organization.
Like I said, you guys can pretend whatever you want, but the reality is, Christianity, above all other religions has the most attacks trying to suppress it.
Okay I'll give you this, maybe such attacks are not always successful, but enough of them are. And the most blatant suppressions of the Christian faith come from the sweeping legislation meant to cover all religions so that no one can say that any one is being targeted, and thus can pretend that the first amendment has been maintained. But the reality is, Atheism has been favored, thus the first amendment, by any argument has been violated by that fact alone.
And don't argue semantics, Atheism is a faith and it is a religion. Even Dawkins himself calls himself a "religious non-believer." I find it rather fascinating how a man at the top of the proliferation of Atheism totem pole who doesn't have to worry about the semantics of the first amendment has no reason to deny that his is a religion, but here in the U.S. you'll have many an Atheist try and argue how what they place on faith is different than what a theist places on faith.
Jenny in every example you gave you are talking about public (taxpayer) institutions.
No one prevents you from building a church.
No one prevents you from attending a church.
No one prevents you from prayer.
What is required however is that you do not demand of others they believe as you believe.
Not arguing semantics. The Constitution is based on defining a Secular Government that provides freedom for citizens. The Secular Government, the fact that there is indeed a separation between religion (of all kinds) and the Public Sector was further cemented by our Constitution with the requirement that no Religious test can be given to any elected official.
Christians are not a cohesive group they are many groups.
Your rant was interesting, but honestly quite meaningless. It just adds to what is already obvious to many, that you along with others like you believe you have the right to impose your beliefs on others.
stephanie 3 years ago
Could of not said it better myself! Rock on my sister! =)