Religion's role

[Keith Wilson]

Seems to me anyone can call themselves a Christian. Who gets to decide if they are or not?

Not my call. 'Christians' have believed all sorts of wildly divergent things over the past 2000 years, and it's not for me to decide. Anyone who calls himself a 'Christian' is one, as far as I'm concerned.

[TomF]

What I'm arguing about the performative religiosity of Christo-Nationalist politicians ... is that it's performative, not genuine. I think the same is true for a huge number of people who are in the Trumpist movement.

I mean, people describe their religious affiliations to Pew and etc. in a manner not unlike how they describe their ethnicity. Scots-Irish on my maternal grandparents' side, but 3 generations in Canada. So while I may have wistful thoughts when some poor bastard plays a low whistle, I'm nothing like a Scot or Irish. I'm a Canadian of mixed European extraction. But don't ask me to describe the intricacies of Scots politics or history, or point out any location in Ireland on a map.

I think that most of the alleged Christianity among the White Nationalists is like people drinking green beer and wearing massive glinting shamrocks on St. Patrick's day. It's embarrassing, a bastardization of the actual article.

I mean, don't take my word for it. From one end to the other, the Bible is littered with cautions to not take on face value when someone proclaims their allegedly devout Faith. From the prophet Amos (man, he didn't hold back!) through various psalmists, other prophets, then Jesus, then Paul ... all of them said variations of "the litmus test is whether they treat people with kindness and compassion."

I'm with Jesus on this. I frankly don't care if someone "cries 'Lord, Lord'", protesting their deep faith. If they don't feed the hungry, care for the sick, for the widows and orphans and refugees ... instead finding platforms to beat their breasts and draw attention to their religiosity ... well, Jesus didn't mince words.

[David G]

Not my call. 'Christians' have believed all sorts of wildly divergent things over the past 2000 years, and it's not for me to decide. Anyone who calls himself a 'Christian' is one, as far as I'm concerned.

How about instead, "Anyone who honestly believes themseves to be a Christian..."

Which speaks to Tom's point. There are people feigning Christian beliefs that aren't sincere. They do so to garner votes, or gain other advantage. I would not call them Christians. In another context, it's known as 'stolen valor'... and is just as slimy.

[Keith Wilson]

How about instead, "Anyone who honestly believes themselves to be a Christian..." . . . There are people feigning Christian beliefs that aren't sincere. They do so to garner votes, or gain other advantage. I would not call them Christians.

OK, sure; fair enough. There are plenty of people who pretend. My point was that Martin Luther King Jr. and Tomás de Torquemada were both sincere Christians.

[Breakaway]

Had a conversation at lunch with a guy who's anti-gay and really anti-trans. His argument: Not what God intended. How is his efforts to prevent trans surgeries or deny gays any rights NOT religion being forced, if the can, on others?

Because you could have got up and left the lunch date at any time.

Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Gerarddm]

It astounds me this has gone on for 17 pages. The positions pro and con religion have been well established for many, many years. You either believe it's complete nonsense ( me, and others ) or you believe ( others, and others ).

[David G]

OK, sure; fair enough. There are plenty of people who pretend. My point was that Martin Luther King Jr. and Tomás de Torquemada were both sincere Christians.

Yes... it's quite a range. All legitimately calling themselves Christians.

[John Smith]

What I'm arguing about the performative religiosity of Christo-Nationalist politicians ... is that it's performative, not genuine. I think the same is true for a huge number of people who are in the Trumpist movement.

I mean, people describe their religious affiliations to Pew and etc. in a manner not unlike how they describe their ethnicity. Scots-Irish on my maternal grandparents' side, but 3 generations in Canada. So while I may have wistful thoughts when some poor bastard plays a low whistle, I'm nothing like a Scot or Irish. I'm a Canadian of mixed European extraction. But don't ask me to describe the intricacies of Scots politics or history, or point out any location in Ireland on a map.

I think that most of the alleged Christianity among the White Nationalists is like people drinking green beer and wearing massive glinting shamrocks on St. Patrick's day. It's embarrassing, a bastardization of the actual article.

I mean, don't take my word for it. From one end to the other, the Bible is littered with cautions to not take on face value when someone proclaims their allegedly devout Faith. From the prophet Amos (man, he didn't hold back!) through various psalmists, other prophets, then Jesus, then Paul ... all of them said variations of "the litmus test is whether they treat people with kindness and compassion."

I'm with Jesus on this. I frankly don't care if someone "cries 'Lord, Lord'", protesting their deep faith. If they don't feed the hungry, care for the sick, for the widows and orphans and refugees ... instead finding platforms to beat their breasts and draw attention to their religiosity ... well, Jesus didn't mince words.

Kindness and compassion are good things. I'd add tolerance. Patience. I'd not include telling others how to live, unless the way they live in some way harms others.

[John Smith]

Because you could have got up and left the lunch date at any time.

Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

It's not a question of whether or not I could leave. HE denies gays and trans rights because HE believes it violates God's will. How on earth it impacts his life if two men marry or simply live together I have no idea.

Some time, not all that long ago, religious folks wouldn't believe people are born left-handed. What's the difference?

[John Smith]

It astounds me this has gone on for 17 pages. The positions pro and con religion have been well established for many, many years. You either believe it's complete nonsense ( me, and others ) or you believe ( others, and others ).

Not my intention to start a debate of that nature, but to try to establish being tolerant of what others believe, or don't believe, and not forcing one's beliefs on others.

It's one thing to boycott a movie theater if you don't like the film it's showing. It's something else entirely to make efforts to prevent others from going in, and a picket line is an effort to intimidate would be theater goers.

[CWSmith]

It's one thing to boycott a movie theater if you don't like the film it's showing. It's something else entirely to make efforts to prevent others from going in, and a picket line is an effort to intimidate would be theater goers.

John, you keep coming back to this whole "picket line at the theater" problem and I can't remember a single once since I was a little kid.

Could you tell us where this is happening and whether there is any documented physical intervention that prevented a person from simply walking past the picket line and into the theater?

[Breakaway]

It's not a question of whether or not I could leave. HE denies gays and trans rights because HE believes it violates God's will. How on earth it impacts his life if two men marry or simply live together I have no idea.

Some time, not all that long ago, religious folks wouldn't believe people are born left-handed. What's the difference?

It is a question if whether you leave or not.

You asked stated your lunch mates conversation was forcing. Read:




And, if you spend time with that person again, and are again subjected to what you would rather not hear, it will be your fault, not his.

Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[skuthorp]

Ones sexual orientation has nothing to do with any hypothetical god in that it presumably OK'd it in the first place, being the all powerful creator………………
Religions OTOH are man made structures.

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

It astounds me this has gone on for 17 pages. ......

Really!?

We've been here many many times.

A discussion on the role of religion in society might be interesting, but this isn't it.

[Hallam]

It astounds me this has gone on for 17 pages. The positions pro and con religion have been well established for many, many years. You either believe it's complete nonsense ( me, and others ) or you believe ( others, and others ).

Agreed that it has gone on and on but has not progressed. The second part of your statement though does not hold water. If it's how you see it personally thats ok but others may be looking for more in this type of discussion.
I think it helps to be reminded from time to time about the nature of civil discourse.
My aim is to discuss in such a manner that i make known my position on the subject so others understand but not with the aim of seeking agreement I also seek to understand the how's and why's of the others position without needing to be expected to agree.
When this is not a major part to a discussion half the time people on both sides of a topic are arguing from a position of complete or partial misrepresentation of the others actual position. It becomes a waste of time.

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as causefor withdrawing from a friend." - Thomas Jefferson

[TomF]

Progress in a discussion depends on finding enough mutual respect to listen to what the other person is saying, not merely to what you think they're saying. You have to be willing to listen with enough engagement to potentially permit your own opinion to be modified as a result.

There has been some progress in this thread, I think, exactly because of that. And where there hasn't been progress, exactly because of its lack.

[John Smith]

John, you keep coming back to this whole "picket line at the theater" problem and I can't remember a single once since I was a little kid.

Could you tell us where this is happening and whether there is any documented physical intervention that prevented a person from simply walking past the picket line and into the theater?

The local Catholic church organized picket lines at the Bellevue Theater in Montclair for three films. One was "Last Tango in Paris". I forget the other two.

I'D LIKE TO GIVE A REAL LIFE SITUATION FROM WORK.

I was Chief Steward. Post Office where I worked was open Monday through Saturday. I got called into the office one day, as they hired a Seven Day Adventist whose religion prohibited from working on Saturday, and the could not decline to hire him because of his religion

New hires were Part time flexibles, and they all generally scheduled to work on Saturdays. Postmaster had to honor his religion and this gentleman would be hired and would never work Saturdays. I was called in to discuss/figure how this would work.

I took the position that he'd have to be 'charged' with whatever hours the other PTFs worked on Saturday. He could not make up that time by working more during the rest of the week. That would be unfair to the other PTF's who would like to have some Saturdays off. His not working any Saturday would make that more difficult.

Then came the question of what happens when he eventually makes regular and would have a 40 hour a week job with a definitive schedule. He would not have the seniority to get a Monday to Friday position. How would we handle that?

I'd like you all to give some thought as to how YOU would handle this situation. Either as a regular, or as a PTF, his not working any Saturday impacts those who do if they wish to have a Saturday off.

He didn't stay long enough to make regular, so I don't know what would have happened had he, but this is an example of his religion impacting others.

How would YOU have handled this?

[John Smith]

It is a question if whether you leave or not.

You asked stated your lunch mates conversation was forcing. Read:




And, if you spend time with that person again, and are again subjected to what you would rather not hear, it will be your fault, not his.

Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

It's not about spending time with that person; it's about that person wanting to put into law what he believes GOD wants. Many religiously inclined people oppose same sex marriage. The only thing religious about marriage is the state, who issues the license, issues the certificate, and grants the divorce, empowers the priest, rabbi, etc. to perform the ceremony. Marriage is a LEGAL contract between two people.

I could leave the table, but that wouldn't make this gentleman correct.

[John Smith]

Progress in a discussion depends on finding enough mutual respect to listen to what the other person is saying, not merely to what you think they're saying. You have to be willing to listen with enough engagement to potentially permit your own opinion to be modified as a result.

There has been some progress in this thread, I think, exactly because of that. And where there hasn't been progress, exactly because of its lack.

I'm a bit disappointed by some of the drift I had wished to avoid. I tried NOT to make this a thread as to the right or wrong of religious beliefs, or a debate on whether or not there's a God.

My intention was, I thought, simple. People hold many different faiths. Some hold no faith. As one of no faith, I am somewhat tolerant of those who hold faiths. I don't mind if someone at some event blesses the meal before we eat, but I appreciate being asked. I never object.

I was attempting to have a conversation about some simple tolerance for those who believe differently. I believe the example of picketing a theater because of a film (the picketers have likely not seen) is designed to intimidate those who wish to see that film. That is at least an attempt to force one's beliefs on others. IMO, that crosses the line. No pun intended.

[Sandlapper]

Since we have drifted, alot, I will restate my position.

Religion is not forcing views/ actions upon us.



Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Kevin,

My taxes support religious schools that indoctrinate a large portion of school children in views that I am opposed to. I have no choice in how that money is spent. The same people that are in favor of "charter" schools also control the public schools through the State Legislature and dictate the material that must be taught as well as what cannot be taught or even mentioned.

Its not as clear as you say.

[CWSmith]

The local Catholic church organized picket lines at the Bellevue Theater in Montclair for three films. One was "Last Tango in Paris". I forget the other two.

Wow! You're still worked up over something insignificant that happened in 1972? Tell me, John, did the picketers threaten you with guns? Did they charge you? Were you harmed? Or, did you just walk past them and into the theater? John, this is such a nothing burger! Go to the film, or don't go to the film. If you aren't Catholic, then what do you care? Seventeen pages and on every page you worry about people picketing movies, and now we learn that the last time it happened for you was 50 years ago and all you had to do was walk past a bunch of picketers and go into the movie? Geez, John.

[TomF]

I dunno, John, But probably there'd be a way to accommodate. I mean, what if you had an Olympic team member get hired in the same kind of probationary position, and he said that his coach required him to be at specific practices on Saturdays or he'd be off the Olympic team. Would you have found a way? If so, why would it have been different, in your mind?

After all, being an Olympic team member following your coach's dictates is every bit as voluntary a choice as wanting to follow your religious tradition's dictates. He coulda dropped off the team - was his choice, and it would have been unfair to treat him differently from other employees just because he's an elite athlete.

Maybe neither of them should have been hired in the first place in your workplace?

[John Smith]

Wow! You're still worked up over something insignificant that happened in 1972? Tell me, John, did the picketers threaten you with guns? Did they charge you? Were you harmed? Or, did you just walk past them and into the theater? John, this is such a nothing burger! Go to the film, or don't go to the film. If you aren't Catholic, then what do you care? Seventeen pages and on every page you worry about people picketing movies, and now we learn that the last time it happened for you was 50 years ago and all you had to do was walk past a bunch of picketers and go into the movie? Geez, John.

I stands as an example of the church trying to intimidate would be theater goers, and the the theater. Why not just not buy a ticket? Why make an effort to prevent others from seeing the film? You, and some others, like to suggest what the theater goers could do, but no one seems to want to suggest what the church could do, or why it needed to do anything.

If you don't like a product, don't buy it. Isn't that sufficient? Efforts to prevent others from buying it, IMO, is a step too far.

[John Smith]

I dunno, John, But probably there'd be a way to accommodate. I mean, what if you had an Olympic team member get hired in the same kind of probationary position, and he said that his coach required him to be at specific practices on Saturdays or he'd be off the Olympic team. Would you have found a way? If so, why would it have been different, in your mind?

After all, being an Olympic team member following your coach's dictates is every bit as voluntary a choice as wanting to follow your religious tradition's dictates. He coulda dropped off the team - was his choice, and it would have been unfair to treat him differently from other employees just because he's an elite athlete.

Maybe neither of them should have been hired in the first place in your workplace?

We found a way to handle it as a part time flex. He simply got charged with the average hours the other part timers worked on Saturday. In other words, he couldn't work more during the rest of the week to make up those hours. That would not be fair to the others, and he agreed to that.

Long term he'd make regular and any full time job he'd be able to get would require working on Saturday. I have no idea how we would have handled that, as he didn't stay long enough to make regular.

You would have to admit that his religious beliefs in this instance impacted others. We were automatically a man down on Saturday making it more difficult for any of the others to get a Saturday off if they wanted.

This wasn't an olympic team. This was a local Post Office. Work week began Sat. No work on Sunday. How do you accommodate his religious beliefs without it impacting the other employees in a negative way?

[Breakaway]

Kevin,

My taxes support religious schools that indoctrinate a large portion of school children in views that I am opposed to. I have no choice in how that money is spent. The same people that are in favor of "charter" schools also control the public schools through the State Legislature and dictate the material that must be taught as well as what cannot be taught or even mentioned.

Its not as clear as you say.

Are you opposed to no views proffered in public schools? Not one?

Certainly there are religious people, who also pay taxes, for whom some views in some schools are abhorrent. At the least, that evens the scale.

Put another way, these taxpayers are just as entitled as you are to have education options supported by taxes.

At any rate, elected officials actually make these things happen. As you say, the policies are executed through the state legislature.

Each of us has the same opportunity to vote and promote for those we hope will support out positions.

Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[John Smith]

Are you opposed to no views proffered in public schools? Not one?

At any rate, elected officials actually make these things happen. As you say, the policies are executed through the legislature.

Each of us has the same opportunity to vote and promote for those we hope will support out positions.

Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

When I was young, the class, every morning, said the Lord's prayer, led by the teacher. You don't think I should have had a problem with that?

Once I realized what it was, I didn't say it. I sat in silence. Then this practice stopped and the 'right' argued prayer was taken out of school. That was false. Anyone who wished could pray. I'm sure there were lots of prayers on exam day. The school COULD have had a pre-school prayer group in the gym for anyone who wished to participate.

I'm sure there were other non religious children, and likely some from different faiths. The teacher leading the prayer, IMO, was coercive. How could it not be?

[TomF]

We found a way to handle it as a part time flex. ....

Good, you found a way to accommodate. That's appropriate, or he shouldn't have been hired. There are some positions where that couldn't have been accommodated - and shouldn't have been hired.

This wasn't an olympic team. This was a local Post Office. Work week began Sat. No work on Sunday. How do you accommodate his religious beliefs without it impacting the other employees in a negative way?

You misunderstood me. I know it was a local Post Office.

I was asking how you, in a local Post Office, would have handled it if an Olympic team member in some sport was hired to work in your local Post Office. But that the guy said to you "Well, the only thing is I can't work Saturdays. Coach says that the Saturday practices are mandatory, and if any of us miss them we're cut from the Olympic team."

Would you have felt differently about trying to find a way to accommodate his voluntary choice to be on the Olympic team? Which would have impacted the other employees in precisely the same way as the religious guy you'd mentioned?

If you would have felt differently about it, why?

[John Smith]

Are you opposed to no views proffered in public schools? Not one?

Certainly there are religious people, who also pay taxes, for whom some views in some schools are abhorrent. At the least, that evens the scale.

Put another way, these taxpayers are just as entitled as you are to have education options supported by taxes.

At any rate, elected officials actually make these things happen. As you say, the policies are executed through the state legislature.

Each of us has the same opportunity to vote and promote for those we hope will support out positions.

Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Schools should teach facts. Among those facts could be a class on religions; one that teaches the tenants of various religions of the world. Policies ought to be based more on our constitution and less on the bible.

[John Smith]

Good, you found a way to accommodate. That's appropriate, or he shouldn't have been hired. There are some positions where that couldn't have been accommodated - and shouldn't have been hired.

You misunderstood me. I know it was a local Post Office.

I was asking how you, in a local Post Office, would have handled it if an Olympic team member in some sport was hired to work in your local Post Office. But that the guy said to you "Well, the only thing is I can't work Saturdays. Coach says that the Saturday practices are mandatory, and if any of us miss them we're cut from the Olympic team."

Would you have felt differently about trying to find a way to accommodate his voluntary choice to be on the Olympic team? Which would have impacted the other employees in precisely the same way as the religious guy you'd mentioned?

If you would have felt differently about it, why?

There would be no problem in not hiring him. They could not decline to hire based on religious beliefs. Anyone else who, for any other reason, said they could not work Saturday would simply not be hired. Religion is one of those areas where the company cannot discriminate.

[TomF]

You're not answering my question, John.

My question is this: if the Post Office had hired this guy, and then after a bit of time in the job he said "I can't work on Saturdays. I'll be kicked off the Olympic team if I miss Saturday practices" ... would your workplace have sought some way to accommodate him?

My guess is that your union and the management team would have worked something out. Collectively you'd have felt that it was a "good thing" to support America's Olympic efforts, and the commitment of the elite athlete. Even though there'd have been precisely the same negative impact on other staff.

My guess is also that you'd have felt pleased in finding a workaround which accommodated him, rather than irritated that you had to but were prevented from discrimination by a statute or policy.

[Osborne Russell]

Apparently this is the "force" that John says religious people are using against him -- they are "forcing" him to accomodate them. Which is unjust, as he does not force them to accomodate him. Except by not speaking of certain things, within his hearing. They shall not intrude into his consciousness.

[CWSmith]

I stands as an example of the church trying to intimidate would be theater goers, and the the theater. Why not just not buy a ticket? Why make an effort to prevent others from seeing the film? You, and some others, like to suggest what the theater goers could do, but no one seems to want to suggest what the church could do, or why it needed to do anything.

If you don't like a product, don't buy it. Isn't that sufficient? Efforts to prevent others from buying it, IMO, is a step too far.

John, they are making a public statement of their opinion, which is something that you and everyone else is entitled to do. If they are not directly limiting your access to the film, then you have nothing to complain about.

Really, John, you come off like a coward in this discussion. If you aren't adult enough to walk past a bunch of picketers, then you really should not be seeing films of a sexual nature.

[WI-Tom]

John, they are making a public statement of their opinion, which is something that you and everyone else is entitled to do. If they are not directly limiting your access to the film, then you have nothing to complain about.

Really, John, you come off like a coward in this discussion. If you aren't adult enough to walk past a bunch of picketers, then you really should not be seeing films of a sexual nature.

Would you say the same if it were a bunch of people picketing your church service, trying their best to convince the members of your congregation that religion is evil and they shouldn't go to church? Would such a protest discourage people from exercising their religious freedom? And if so--I think it's obvious many churchgoers might not be comfortable running a picket line to get to church--would you be OK with that?

Tom

[TomF]

It's happened. My dad got regular poison pen letters , occasionally got this or that event picketed . .. by members of other churches who felt his stands on things were the work of the devil.

Really.

[CWSmith]

Would you say the same if it were a bunch of people picketing your church service, trying their best to convince the members of your congregation that religion is evil and they shouldn't go to church? Would such a protest discourage people from exercising their religious freedom? And if so--I think it's obvious many churchgoers might not be comfortable running a picket line to get to church--would you be OK with that?

Tom

Yes, I would say the same thing. You see, I wear big-boy pants and I can walk past people who disagree with me to do what I think is right.

No, I don't think it would discourage people unless an employer illegally linked their attendance to their employment, but then that's what lawyers are for.

And then like I said, I would be fine with picketers. Most people would view it as an opportunity to educate, but like I said I wear my big-boy pants.