This may seem like a silly question...
Offline I was reading up on the Cobb County School story, which I had lost track of, and found that the upper court ruled against the religious followers. The stickers/stamps were not allowed/removed in the books. Small win for my side.
I then watched some videos (pro and con) from other areas of the country and discovered a new way of looking at things; though I'm betting most of you already thought of this viewpoint.
What I saw was a hypocrisy between religious views and their opinions on founding fathers.
They talk about how this country was founded by christians as if it was the reason why this country was founded. They never mention that those leaders who left other countries were being persecuted. They never mentioned that ALL religions are to be accepted here; that this is a melting pot of a country.
They talk about how their religion should be taught in tax payer schools but they never consider teaching Hindu, Buddhism or any other form of religion. It's always a "ME ME ME ME ME" attitude. This "christians" never consider others and their beliefs or their feelings.
As I watched a debate over the stickers in books in Cobb County, I was amazed at these people who stood at the microphone and said "I'm a christian...".
It was the first words out of their mouth but it was the last thing in their hearts.
I'm baffled by the logic of these parents. Sure I understand that they want to teach their children the beliefs that they believe. Yet, if they believe they are being slighted they must imagine that all religions are being slighted. All religions, all beliefs then must be taught and not as a required course.
I'm not going to bother with "it's a public school, so no religions". I'm focusing on how these people fight their own founding fathers and the beliefs that all religions and all beliefs should be accepted.
- Login to post comments
You know if truth were to be told, I had NOT thought about it from that perspective Digital. That is actually a good debating point. These people are so quick to invoke the "founding fathers" when in fact, there downright push for a borderline theocracy flies in the face of their founding fathers.
But generally, the rebuttal that I get from Christians on this one is "Freedom to practice religion" argument. Where they claim that this nation is supposed to be a Christian nation that was free for Christians to practice and that the "freedom from religion" argument does not apply. They generally use this same type of logic about those outside of Christianity, like Buddhists and such. In other words, a lot of them can look you dead in the face and say that the Freedom was only intended for Christians.
I am never am sure what the best "quick" rebuttal to that one is. The reason that I say quick rebuttal, is because I often times despise having to give these people in depth explanations to something that needs to be summed up in a few sentences.
If truth were to be told, I damned near avoid debating with a lot of theists these days because I find some people's willful ignorance to be downright painful. However, when confronted, I am generally answer because I refuse to let some things slide.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I prefer not to debate because usually it isn't a debate I get myself tied up with; it's a one sided arguement.
I forget who said this, but in order to truly debate one must first remove the notion that they are right.
Here is some stuff that I found:
"…whence came all these people? They are a mixture of English, Scotch, Irish, French, Dutch, Germans, and Swedes... What, then, is the American, this new man? He is either an European or the descendant of an European; hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. . . . The Americans were once scattered all over Europe; here they are incorporated into one of the finest systems of population which has ever appeared." − J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur, Letters from an American Farmer 1782.
"The fusing process goes on as in a blast-furnace; one generation, a single year even-- transforms the English, the German, the Irish emigrant into an American. Uniform institutions, ideas, language, the influence of the majority, bring us soon to a similar complexion; the individuality of the immigrant, almost even his traits of race and religion, fuse down in the democratic alembic like chips of brass thrown into the melting pot." -Ralph Waldo Emerson 1845
In my research I found some thing very interesting.
Whereas multiculturalists tend to view the melting-pot theory as oppressive, assimilationists view it as advantageous to both a government and its people. Some tend to favor controlled levels of immigration—enough to benefit society economically, but not enough to profoundly alter it. Assimilationists tend to be opposed to programs that, in their view, give out special privileges to minorities at the expense of the majority.
Assimilationists tend to believe that their nation has reached its present state of development because it has been able to forge one national identity. They argue that separating citizens by ethnicity or race and providing immigrant groups "special privileges" can harm the very groups they are intended to help. By calling attention to differences between these groups and the majority, the government may foster resentment towards them by the majority and, in turn, cause the immigrant group to turn inward and shun mainstream culture. Assimilationists suggest that if a society makes a full effort to incorporate immigrants into the mainstream, immigrants will then naturally work to reciprocate the gesture and adopt new customs. Through this process, it is argued, national unity is retained.
Assimilationists also argue that the multiculturalist policy of freer immigration is unworkable in an era in which the supply of immigrants from third world countries seems limitless. With immigrants often coming from multiple points of origin, it may be excessively expensive to meet their needs. From an employment perspective, they note that job markets are often tight to begin with and that expecting large amounts of newcomers to find work each year is unrealistic. Allowing high levels of immigration, it is argued, will inevitably lead to widespread poverty and other forms of disadvantage among immigrants. The melting-pot theory works best, in their view, when the "ingredients" are added in modest increments, so that they can be properly absorbed into the whole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_pot#Melting_pot_and_cultural_pluralism
While this view point goes deeper than needed, the "Assimilationists" seem to be the same christian people who spoke about this country being "christian" and that is what our founding fathers wanted; thus adding any other cultures would dilute their own beliefs.
to be honest, i've never cared much about the opinions of our founding fathers, other than what's contained in the constitution. their thoughts or words do not bind us in how we govern ourselves today, nor should they. there were some founding fathers who were fanatical christians, like patrick henry. there were others who were not, like the oft-touted thomas jefferson. their opinions were as varied as ours, with more or less the same ratio of ignorance and brilliance.
i think christianity is one of the only religions that demands to be taught to all people in all places because it is one of the world's only exclusive religions (the other one being islam). a typical hindu, for example, would be rather bewildered as to why any non-indian would want to study their religion at all ("hindu" just being another word for "indian"). buddhists would be mildly pleased, i guess, because buddhism is, in theory anyway, a proselytizing religion, but they would hardly consider it necessary. christians and muslims are the only ones insisting you only have one short life to determine your eternal fate.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Religious types always try to rewrite history. But then most people in power seem to have that as a goal. For some reason they're all stupid enough to think there won't be someone else who does the same thing to their bullshit as soon as they can't stop them. And none of them comprehend the fact that rewriting history does nothing for their cause. Often there's enough evidence of the truth that it actually hurts them. Gone are the days where you can burn a library and erase a dozen cultures in one fell swoop.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.