General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI really don't care about which god/goddess you worship, but i wish religion would stay private
Last edited Tue Jun 17, 2014, 12:28 PM - Edit history (1)
I think public faith is one of those things that divide and I do not see the value of public faith.
(actually this should read: I really don't care about which god/goddess you worship or don't worship or maybe worship or think is ridiculous"
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)leftstreet
(36,201 posts)monmouth3
(3,871 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)just like those stupid American flag pins.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)JanMichael
(25,121 posts)btw, like your "icon."
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)i don't mean that books shouldn't be written or discussions be had, but it needs to be contained in areas that are relevant. at this point in america faith is literally everywhere, and it really should not be.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)but it is.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)part of their lives.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)I have friends and relatives who have known me for literally decades who have absolutely NO idea of what I do or don't believe.
If they ask, I'll tell them.
Until then, I don't need to advertise or shove it in their faces.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 17, 2014, 03:53 PM - Edit history (2)
JanMichael
(25,121 posts)the back window of our Subaru.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)For some reason "it" reminds me of the Kenny Roger's neon sign episode of Seinfeld. That episode was so funny!
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)i just don't think that in the public domain it needs to be announced (such as in government/military/politics).
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I understand how it can annoysome people. The religious right infurates me.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)there is no way to prevent it, if you want faith to be a public issue
malthaussen
(17,529 posts)Community worship (often enforced community worship) only makes sense when everyone in the community worships the same icon. Then it can serve as a cementing factor in the war of "us" against "them." It is rather diluted when religion is not state-imposed, since it serves to fragment the community rather than unify it. Keep in mind, however, that most religions require their members to meet communally and openly for worship. Though a custom honored often in the breach, it has a long history and simple inertia keeps it going.
-- Mal
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I understand it's not an option for Hillary, but I wish it was.
Bryant
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I don't want to hear about it.
I want to hear about how they plan to set public policy in regards to matters of state and nation.
Kali
(55,512 posts)religious views should not be part of the political discussion
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)I'm all for faith helping to build a better person if it can, but the endless, pompous posing sickens me. Church is not a qualification for office; at best it's a training ground for learning to serve.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Exposethefrauds
(531 posts)Because even that causes problems.
Religion needs to be banned, period; it causes more problems then what it is worth.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)and not a qualification for public office
Exposethefrauds
(531 posts)Yeah religion is a wonderful thing!
I know let's ask all the kids who were raped by priests if they think religion is good.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)progressoid
(50,432 posts)Exposethefrauds
(531 posts)Because they are all businesses in the business of taking money from their marks.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)LOL
alterfurz
(2,542 posts)...but for good people to do evil -- that takes religion." -- Steven Weinberg
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Religion is built upon proselytism - attempting to convert others. Ordinary churchgoers do not realise it but they are encouraged to speak about the positive effects they experience from their faith and that is then used when non-believers start to investigate this other faith.
Atheists, on the other hand are engaged in anti-proselytism ...
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)In fact if you try to convert, particularly absent a marriage to a Jewish spouse, its likely your first attempt will be met with some discouragement. Try it.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)There are reform Jews who believe in spreading the word both inside and outside Judaeism, equally there are Haredi who attempt to win over Othodox and others into their interpretation of the faith.
TexasProgresive
(12,244 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)TexasProgresive
(12,244 posts)I was not referring to religion but speech.
How can speech about religion or lack of be suppressed except by law? In my youth people avoided talking about religion by custom-they just keep quiet about it-but now a days people run off at the mouth about everything- posting on Facebook that they had a blueberry muffin for breakfast and removed all the berries to eat separately while beating the children with a wooden spoon.
It is not going to happen.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You do it, people don't vote for you.
Then, candidates will stop.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)because had i said that, your comment would be justified. short of that, your comment is just nonsensical.
TexasProgresive
(12,244 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)that people shouldn't wear crosses, or ask a blessing over a restaurant meal? Can't understand why something so trivial as how a person practices his/her faith should be so offensive to you.
hamsterjill
(15,435 posts)I'm a Christian, and I don't like to witness a public blessing of a meal in a restaurant. To me, it's just awkward. Is everyone in the restaurant supposed to stop what they are doing and give a moment of respectful silence for this blessing? And if so, what if that occurs twenty times at twenty tables in the restaurant?
I realize I'm being overzealous here, but that's done to make my point. I think blessings over a meal are fine at home or in a setting where everyone is participating in the blessing. I don't feel they are appropriate in a public restaurant.
Just my opinion, of course.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)blessing everyone's food!! I just mean, if someone, at his/her own table chooses to bow his/her head and give thanks, either silently, or quietly, they are stll doing it in a "public place," but that should be their right. If it is important to them (as part of their faith) to give thanks for their food, then it shouldn't bother anyone else. I am Christian, and I choose not to do it, but I have friends who NEVER allow unblessed food to cross their lips.
hamsterjill
(15,435 posts)I have friends who insist on doing it if we go out to eat. And they do it quietly. But it makes me uncomfortable every time. It is impossible in a restaurant setting for the people next to you NOT to notice that a blessing (prayer) is being said. Most people, out of respect, will stop what they are doing and remain quiet, at least, while the blessing is being said. I simply think it's awkward.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)so there is a little more privacy.
I don't feel uncomfortable about it. If anyone should feel uncomfortable about what they are doing it's the people gossiping at the next table! I think there are a whole lot more destructive things that people do than pray over their own food.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)to cleanse the area of negative energy?
Not really, but that is how they would behave were they like christians. Christians love public spectacle as well as proselytization.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)when they do pray in public? Jesus was very detailed, said people who pray in public do so for themselves and to pray he said people need to go home, go to the most private room, close the door and then pray.
So how is praying in public a part of a faith whose object of worship said never pray in public? Can you explain that to me?
haele
(13,226 posts)A Sectarian government, no matter how "inclusive" the religion claims to be, is still sectarian. Meaning that wearing your particular type of cross or saying grace over your meal at a restaurant in a manner different than the sect that is in charge can get you in trouble.
Just google "The Troubles" and you can see out what happens when two different "Christian" sects vye for public power. That's when you find out that the cross that you wear or the grace you say over your meal can get you killed when Religion is placed over Law in a society.
The separation between Church and State is not to keep God out of the State, it's to protect the different religious sects from eating each other. The separation between Church and State allow you to follow whatever religious practice you want so long as you don't break the law, cause a public nuisance or harass others; and you are able to wear whatever religious accoutrement that does not create a public danger in public places freely without having to worry about being harassed with impunity by those with different beliefs or non-believers. In a Secular country, you have the same legal protections to religious practice as others do, no matter what you believe (or don't).
Logically, in a country that is not Sectarian, a person running for office should not make a big deal about their personal religiosity, even if it is a major driver of their personal code of ethics and action. By making their religion "the reason" why they're a better person than their opponent, it only proves that they are willing to exclude or pay less attention to people who do not belong to their religious viewpoints.
I guess that's why in times of stress and religious hysteria, too many politicians hypocritically pull the "good church-goers/true believers cred" card to make it seem that more they're "just honest folks". Makes them more appealing to the majority of a hurried, stressed out electorate who are voting "gut check/quick fix"; looking for someone to believe in, rather than being able to take their time and look for someone whose actions have shown them to be more trustworthy in keeping to the overall public good.
Haele
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)dawg
(10,696 posts)If I meet someone who worships "His Porky Eminence - The Ham Sandwich", I will treat his beliefs with respect and show him kindness. Then, when I get home, I'll go into my private place and laugh and laugh and laugh.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)dawg
(10,696 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Like it or not, the public square is public.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)keeping religion out of politics and the public sphere is a cultural issue, not a free speech issue.
rug
(82,333 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Even the KKK can legally demonstrate. So can the Westboro Baptist Church. You know who also has freedom of speech. Those who oppose those ideas. Whenever the KKK or Westboro Church demonstrate there are most often more people demonstrating against them. But let me ask you this question. If agnostic and atheist politicians talked openly about their lack of faith would they stand a chance of being elected? How about a Muslim? That is the real problem. Not that people talk about their faith, but that there is a litmus test for political office. People of different faiths and of no faith are punished while those of Christian faith are rewarded for openly talking about their faith. That is a real and serious problem.
rug
(82,333 posts)But until people start talking openly about their views, and why, the situation will not change. That applies equally to religious views.
The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissent in Abrams v. United States (1919).
People are smart enough to recognize pandering, and to act accordingly.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Why do you think politicians get away with campaign promises only to break them when they get elected? They know all they have to do is say what the people want to hear and they know there is no consequence for not following through with it. And these are suppose to be religious people?
DrDan
(20,411 posts)a vote.
So how would you like our candidate(s) to handle that.
Say nothing so you are not bothered. Or issue a relevant statement for the others.
btw - I am not a person of faith. But I have no problem with those that believe - or even go so far as to state publicly that they are believers.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)There should not be a religious litmus test for political office.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)historylovr
(1,557 posts)This is exactly what it amounts to, and it needs to be taken out of the equation. No one person is more or less qualified than another because of his/her beliefs or the lack of them.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)K&R
Throd
(7,208 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)the USA is the most religious of the world's developed countries. Depending on which polls you look at, between 75 and 90 percent of Americans profess a belief in god; elsewhere in the developed world? That figure is more like 30-50%. The present leaders of two of the UK's major political parties (Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg) are atheists. That's something that's essentially unthinkable in the USA (Barney Frank, for instance, came out as gay while a sitting member of Congress; he didn't come out as an atheist until after he'd retired.)
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)i also want world peace and an end to rape, while we are at it.
raven mad
(4,940 posts)The first question asked was "What church do you belong to?"
I was stunned.
Peacetrain
(23,559 posts)If you want to share your belief system that is different.. that is your choice.. but in no way shape form or fashion should they be asking you that when you are making applications at a goverment office.. I am stunned with you.
raven mad
(4,940 posts)unless it's the outdoors in winter and on the back of a motorcycle in the summer. Then they questioned why we have a motorcycle..................duh, 65 mpg??? Gas at $4.19???
haele
(13,226 posts)Social services departments are often run or staffed by people who think that government is a tool of last resort for the lazy and the shiftless, and would rather those who really need help "turn to God for help" (and the corollary "get right with God and he'll bless you" before they turn to taxpayers for a handout.
If they could establish that you don't really need food assistance - that the Presbyterian or Baptist church down the street there can easily meet your food needs for the rest of the month, then you don't need to apply for aid.
Bootstraps and blessings, and all that simple thinking.
Haele
raven mad
(4,940 posts)so that one got us laughing (later). Having never done this before (two injuries inside of 2 months and only one of us working) - I was at a total loss.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Religion is presumably the most important thing in a person's life.
And you expect people to stay quiet about it? Further than that, you seem to demand that people be quiet about it?
Oddly enough though, as I say that, I look at my own life and realize that I DO keep quiet about it. For the most part.
I don't talk about it at work.
I don't talk about it much at DU. Other people may bring it up and I respond, but I don't make sharing my religion a priority here.
I didn't talk about it in any of my campaigns for public office either.
Maybe a little bit in my last campaign, since I did make a point of my service to the community.
But I also mostly live a secular life because I don't expect God to help my sports teams win or keep my car running and such.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Peacetrain
(23,559 posts)Never denied it, never will. I do not shove my beliefs down others throats, or demand they believe the way I do before we can communicate.. etc.. I have been told that I am not a part of the DU community, and should keep my posts in one room of the religion section.. Like that would happen
But I never deny who I am to be a part of any group.. If someone cannot tolerate me because I have a religious belief.. the issue is theirs not mine. I do not impose my beliefs on people, but I will not be told to hide who I am.. and not admit that I have a belief system..
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)website.
it's not exactly what i was talking about. i am not saying religious people need to go in the closet about their religion.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)the type of public arena that i am referring to.
precisely what i am saying is that people are responsible for the public welfare in the public arena, should not make their personal religion such a public affair. I am tired of religion being used interchangeably with morality or lack thereof.
private citizens on private websites are not exactly what i am referring to.
LostOne4Ever
(9,554 posts)Especially in real life and not just here, but its not going to happen.
Every day that I get or use money, I am exposed to it. When I was in school I was exposed to it every day via the pledge. Everyday, a friend or a family member of mine will make mention of it, and everyone once in a while they will talk/post/whatever about how persecuted Chrisitans are in this country and how things have gone to hell because we took god out our schools or the public square...implying that morality comes from a belief in god and indirectly calling me immoral for not believing.
They will say this without any concern of losing friends or being disowned by family or having any impact on their job....and I will be forced to be silent for fear of losing all those things. Meanwhile, on a anonymous message board, about the only place people like me can be open with our doubt and our criticism, we will be told that we should be silent here too, because what we think is offensive to the believers who can be open everywhere else in the country without any real life repercussions.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)There's PLENTY of room for religion, or lack there of.