Religon is dying,,. and that is a good thing
by ryan29August 4th, 2009 at 9:08 AM
Filed under: Philosophy & Religion
 |
|
I read this little blurb in the Chicago Sun Times on 26 July 2009 and thought I would share. According to Trinity College's American Religious Identification Survey "about 15 percent of American claim no religious affiliation, up from 8.2 percent in 1990". 15 percent, if my math is right, that's around 30 million Americans, not children, but people who make up their own minds have no use for religion. That's a huge voting block there, 30 million people, time to organize ourselves and make ourselves heard. Before you start lighting candles, I personally have nothing against religion, as long as a person isn't brainwashed and makes their own decisions regarding it. The 4 major religions all have good morals and examples in them, but all they are are stories, the same types of myths that belong in Greek or Roman mythology. Good stories but people this is the 21st century, we don't need myths to help us in our lives. It seems to me that if in almost 20 years, the number of people with no religious affiliation has nearly doubled, that says a lot about what direction our country is headed. Namely Americans are getting tired of these hypocritical religious leaders, and all the bullshit and contradictions of religion itself. Now I know there are a lot of people who without religion would be sad and empty because they are so close minded that cannot tolerate any other thoughts but their own brainwashed views that some priest or pastor or whatever has been shoving down their throats for ever, and probably molesting little kids in the process. That really bothers me, how so many people could continue to follow a religion that sweeps scandals under the rug. Anyone that follows the advice of a religion that covers up child molesting, there is something wrong with them and you. Islam is as bad if not worse. The use of terror under the pretext of God is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin. it is hardly surprising, Islam like Christianity was spread by the sword and it's followers are as warped as Christians. Look at the way it treats women for starters, your telling me that God (call him Allah, Jehovah,Krishna, it's all the same) doesn't see men and woman as equals? Sounds like the middle ages to me. Religious Fundamentalism is wrong, there is no honor in abusing the name of God. Finally, I think the main point that survey was trying to make is that, at least in America, there is a great number of people who are doing the best they can in this life, are concerned what they an get done now, not in some promised after life. You only get one life, why spend it in devotion to something that nobody knows will come true of not. Lack of Faith? for sure! Myself and others have faith in ourselves. Besides, which, the survey doesn't ask if people are spiritual, merely if they are religious or not. Being spiritual is not the same as being religious, it just means your a open minded person who has no use for ancient dogmas that are used to keep people in line. God is dying, his followers are killing him/her with their lies, deceit, and cover ups. Not to mention the thousands of years of persecution of people who didn't see it the way those in charge wanted it. As for me, I'm proud of the fact I belong in that 15% group. Peace and love always, Ryan the Great |
 |
Rate this Article
Submit a Critique
Critiques
Show Oldest First
To get somewhat back on topic, or summarize, I suppose, here is a piece of history that clearly explains why religion should not interfere with, or attempt to manipulate, the government of free people:
A U.S. Supreme Court case -- Torcaso v Watkins -- in 1961
Justice Black: "There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us - it sets up a religious test which [it] was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public 'office of profit or trust' in Maryland. The power and authority of the State of Maryland thus is put on the side of one particular sort of believers - those who are willing to say they believe in 'the existence of God.' It is true that there is much historical precedent for such laws. Indeed, it was largely to escape religious test oaths and declarations that a great many of the early colonists left Europe and came here hoping to worship in their own way. It soon developed, however, that many of those who had fled to escape religious test oaths turned out to be perfectly willing, when they had the power to do so, to force dissenters from their faith to take test oaths in conformity with that faith. This brought on a host of laws in the new Colonies imposing burdens and disabilities of various kinds upon varied beliefs depending largely upon what group happened to be politically strong enough to legislate in favor of its own beliefs. The effect of all this was the formal or practical 'establishment' of particular religious faiths in most of the Colonies, with consequent burdens imposed on the free exercise of the faiths of nonfavored believers....." When our [Federal] Constitution was adopted, the desire to put the people 'securely beyond the reach' of religious test oaths brought about the inclusion in Article VI of that document of a provision that 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States'....."
"This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States." Source
The religious right would seem to be in favor of repeating history, yet on an even larger scale, which is quite scary.
Although the clauses are null and void since the above Supreme Court decision, I think these states should remove the bigoted passages from their state constitutions. The act would be similar to the US Congress apologizing for slavery.
I really love how everything gets so off topic. it's amazing. not sure who to blame the left or the right.
I did a little research on the high school speech controversy being discussed (I'm assuming we're talking about the Lugo incident), and learned that the censoring of students and amending their speeches for “appropriateness” by administrators is actually quite common. An American high school is not really a bastion of freedom. Visiting one and looking around for 10 minutes will show you the rampant censorship and lack of first amendment rights students have. There are hundreds of rules and restrictions in place illustrating all the various rights you do not have once stepping foot on the premises. You can't wear any shirts that have references to drugs, alcohol, tobacco, swear words, or anything considered obscene or vulgar. The First Amendment is clearly out.
If you think about it for a minute, you will see that a high school, while portrayed as a center where free ideas are exchanged, is really just a sophisticated holding facility, with rules and regulations to keep order while the parents of the students are at work. Elementary and middle schools are as well. Schools serve a societal need to babysit kids so their parents can go to work and earn money.
That being said, I disagree with pretty much all of it. By denying students basic rights and freedoms at an early age, we are teaching them just how little we value these freedoms as a society. It is easier to keep order when students don't wear offensive messages on their clothes or write controversial speeches, but ultimately we are teaching them that its ok, even beneficial to be a hypocrite- is it any wonder why there are so many of them today? There is nothing inherently superior about an adult that they deserve freedom of speech while a minor does not.
Regarding the incident with the senior class president, did the principal, Susan Duval, prevent Lugo from speaking? Yes absolutely. Should she have a right to prevent a student from speaking? On one hand I can see Marc's point, that the principal is in charge of planning the graduation event and telling her who she can and can't choose to speak is tantamount to telling someone how to run their school. Were this a private school, I think this would be an open and shut case. But ths is a public school, paid for by the taxpayers. I can see Llano's point as well, that a school, of all places should be marketplace for ideas, and I agree.
It comes down to this: the principal is in charge of the event and is given power to decide at her discretion who to allow to speak and what they can say. Being invited to speak at a graduation ceremony, although a longstanding tradition in this case, is still a privilege, not a right. Is it legal for the principal to block this student from speaking? It has been upheld by the courts as legal before, but there is criticism that this type of speech is being singled out by such rulings. It is most likely legal. Is it moral? I'd have to say no; by rejecting the speech Duval did a disservice to the speaker as well as the audience that expected to hear her speak.. The grounds for disallowing the speech are prejudiced, but then again I don't think it's right to disallow any speech given by such a respected figure. If the speaker were to talk about timeshares and pyramid schemes, as in Marc's example, I would still allow it had I been principal (and let the audience judge how much they like the speech for themselves- they would likely boo such a speaker off the stage). But that's just what I would do, not a standard that all principals must follow. While immoral, the principal more than likely rejected the speech under pressure from the school board.
While some might say the class president “represents” the school, I feel that is an unfair label that some people will place on her. That doesn't mean there won't be idiots in the audience that view her as a spokesperson for the school, but that is not at all a reasonable expectation from her role. She goes to school there, not works there. If you had a school and a graduate made a slanderous comment about someone during a speech, do you think that person should have the right to sue you or your school?
As far as considering what the audience wants to hear, I agree with the separation of church and state, but it is a weak argument to say the audience is being mistreated as they have legs and can simply walk away at any point if they feel they are being exposed to too much religion. It becomes a bit more complex, however when you consider the students awaiting their diplomas. They are forced to sit in their assigned seats and have no option but to be present for the “religious” parts of the speech. This goes with what I was saying earlier that students should have more rights- any of them should be to walk away at any point during the graduation ceremony as well, if they so wish. This is high school, not prison.
In summary, the entire school system itself is broken and unfair, and the principal, under direction of the school board, used that to effectively censor a speech they did not want to see made. It's my opinion however, with the system the way it is and with the current rules that are in place (however skewed they are), that the principal acted within her legal rights. The way to prevent things like this from happening in the future is to take away some of the bloated powers of school administrators (smaller school government :)) and give more powers and rights to the students. This is accomplished by voting out any school board members who would oppose such a measure. The school board, much like the fereral government, should work for the people- not the other way around.
Let the record show that liberals are the ones who stomp down the free expression of peoples' thoughts and ideas and attempt to censor those with whom they disagree.
Let the record show that it is the liberals who foment chaos to prevent opposing views from being heard, as demonstrated in this clip by all of the champions of tolerance and free speech at Columbia who stormed the stage to prevent a conservative from giving his talk.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0VfLoCP2vw&feature=related)
Let the record show that liberals, not conservatives, have a long history of throwing pies in the faces of people they don't like to keep them from speaking:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPsU-kSBnwI)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS91gT3XT_A)
Let us all observe that the same liberals who protested so forcefully to keep Jeane Kirkpatrick from speaking at many universities around the country were hell-bent on defending Ahmadinejad's right to appear at Columbia. How noteworthy that fees for speakers who do not hate the United States have to be raised by college Republicans and conservative alumni who think that students ought to hear at least one alternative viewpoint in four years of college.
And let us gaze upon the irony that U.S. military recruiters and the ROTC were kicked off of Columbia's campus because of the military's policy concerning gays, but these same liberals went out of their way to support a crazed lunatic whose policy is to publicly execute homosexuals, and who repeatedly states not only that the holocaust never happened but that he wants to finish the job that Hitler left undone. And let us not forget the fact that this man is training and providing safe haven for terrorists, and supplying weapons that are killing U.S. troops.
Finally, the idea that the public square should be scrubbed clean of all references to religion, or that one has the right to be shielded from any exposure to an expression of faith while in public, is breathtaking in its ignorance our founding ideals and our individual rights.
If it's not church, then there should be no mention of religion in a public setting. There are just as many people who don't want to hear that dribble as those that do. fortunately, for those that do, they can go to CHURCH! it's not complicated. on a related note, I would be really angry of I had to hear that nonsense at my graduation.
I love how Christian and conservative bloggers state "it was a mere mention of God." Um, that's more than a mention for sure. Like I said from the beginning, it's like selling a timeshare. Anyone buying? Or are you already uncomfortable, irritated, and angry at the event planners?
I still fail to see where anybody said she was going to mention her faith. I love how you polarize things. If she is a Christian then she has to be a holy rolling Bible banger and is going to turn the graduation into a tent revival. Just because she is a person of faith, that automatically means she is going to deliver a sermon. I guess it’s ok to stereotype as long as it fits your agenda. What if it was a gay man and he professed how he couldn’t have done it without the support of his life partner. That is the equivalent of somebody giving thanks to God, Buda, Shiva, Allah, or Zeus for their success.
If it's not church, then there should be no mention of religion in a public setting. There are just as many people who don't want to hear that dribble as those that do. fortunately, for those that do, they can go to CHURCH! it's not complicated. on a related note, I would be really angry of I had to hear that nonsense at my graduation.
You struggled Marc and there's nothing wrong with that. What is important is that you tried. We can't always win and sometimes you have to be on the losing side to know exactly what you need to succeed to get to the top. If! The top is where you want to be. So, you opened the door to your heart for GOD and let him in. What a joy! You've grown wiser and now you can see the difference. To friends, because that's what you are to me...See that it was intended for all of us to be different. The test is, how do we appreciate eachother even with our differences. Are we going to be "good citizens"?
Former President George Washington said that.
Just skip me if you don't mind. Thanks, julita
Well, let's look at this differently...
What if we go ahead and have all the Brittany McCombs speak, despite what event planners and coordinators and stakeholders deem most appropriate for their institutions, and in that same vein, also have Reverend Wright host the graduations.
Everyone in favor?
Alright folks, just try to remember that you're at a graduation speech, not Britney McComb's church---
Do you remember those blocks? The ones that fit into cut-outs and teach you all the different shapes? The ones you played with before kindergarten, during the good old, no-grades, no-pressure preschool days? I find it funny how easily amused we are as children. Many of us would have sat on the story rug for hours with those blocks, trying to fit the circle into the square cut-out. Thank the Lord for patient teachers. As one of the valedictorians for our senior class, many might assume I caught on to which blocks fit into which cut-outs quickly. But, to be honest, it took me awhile. Up until my freshman year in high school, I continually filled certain voids with shapes that proved often peculiar and always too small. The main shape I wrestled with over the years remains my accomplishments. They defined my self-worth at a young age. I swam competitively throughout junior high and high school. If I took third in a competition rather than first, I found I missed the mark; I failed. But strangely enough, if I took first, I belittled my success, and even first place left me feeling empty. Either way, the shape entitled "accomplishments" proved too small to fill the void, constantly reminding me living means something more. Something more than me and what I do with my life, something more than my friends and what they do with their own lives. The summer after my freshman year, I quit swimming. I quit trying to fill the huge void in my soul with the meager accomplishments I obtained there. After quitting, this amazing sense of peace rushed over me and I noticed, after 15 years of sitting on the story-time rug, this teacher standing above me, trying to help me: God. I disregarded His guidance for years, and all the while, He sought to show me what shape fits into the cut-out in my soul. This hole gapes as a wide-open trench when filled with swimming, with friends, with family, with dating, with shopping, with partying, with drinking, with anything but God. But His love fits. His love is "that something more" we all desire. It's unprejudiced, it's merciful, it's free, it's real, it's huge and it's everlasting [audience cheering and applause]. God's love is so great that he gave His only son up . . .
[Microphone goes dead here.] Interestingly enough, the school officials knew what was coming next when they cut Brittany's mike -- they had read her speech beforehand and edited out references to God, to Christ, and the Bible. Brittany determined to deliver her speech unedited as an expression of her freedom of speech, but was prevented from doing so. Below is the rest of the speech Brittany planned to give. School officials called it proselytizing. Brittany says she was just attributing her success in school to Christ and introducing her classmates to the Person who had made the biggest difference in her life.
[His only son up . . .] to an excruciating death on a cross so His blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace. This is why Christ died. John 10:10 says He died so we no longer have to reach in vain for the magnificence of the stars and find we always fall short, so we can have life -- and life to the fullest. I now desire not my own will, but the will of God for my life -- however crazy and extravagant, or seemingly mundane and uneventful that might be. Strangely enough, surrendering my own will for the will of God, giving up control, gave me peace, gave me a calm I can't even begin to express with words. Four years ago, recognition as one of the valedictorians for our senior class would have been just another attempt to fit the circle into the square cut-out. But because my heart is so full of God's love, the honor of speaking today is just that: an honor. Without it, I would feel just as full and purposeful as I do at this moment. And I can guarantee, 100 percent, no doubt in my mind, that as I choose to fill myself with God's love rather than with the things society tells me will satisfy me, I will find success, I will always retain a sense of self-worth. I will thrive whether I attend a prestigious university next fall and become a successful career man or woman or begin a life-long manager position at McDonald's. Because the fact of the matter remains, man possesses an innate desire to take part in something greater than himself. That something is God's plan. And God's plan for each of our lives may not leave us with an impressive and extensive resume, but if we pursue His plan, He promises to fill us. Jeremiah 29:11 says, " 'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future.' " Trust me, this block fits.
Source
I love how Christian and conservative bloggers state "it was a mere mention of God." Um, that's more than a mention for sure. Like I said from the beginning, it's like selling a timeshare. Anyone buying? Or are you already uncomfortable, irritated, and angry at the event planners?
Should we force things just to prove a point, as Llano wishes for all to learn like s/he does, no matter the content, or do we want to be practical and keep the bigger audience in mind? Am I so wrong for agreeing with the practical side? Have you never been cornered by a telemarketer or pyramid-marketing advocate? Religious speeches make many people feel exactly this way. How many of you didn't answer the door when Jehovah's Witnesses knocked?
There are multiple issues here. The first, which I completely agree with, is that there should be no religious test for public office. The government should award no advantage nor impose any penalty upon a candidate for office due to matters of conscience. (Of course, the voters are under no such constraint. Plenty of people refused to vote for JFK because of his religion and plenty shunned Mitt Romney just last year for the same reason.)
The second issue is one I need to hear you talk about some more, and that is the statement that "religion" should not interfere with or attempt to manipulate the government. I'm not sure what you mean by that. The first amendment places constraints upon the government, not upon religion. It was intended to protect religion from the government, not the other way around. The law says that the government should keep its hands totally off with respect to establishment and also with respect to free exercise. We're good on the first one, we do not have a "Church of the United States" like they have a "Church of England", but the government has not kept its hands off with respect to free exercise. We have lost a great deal of our first liberty.
-Llano
(We were originally discussing the reasons for faith, and I would like to pick that back up.)