Fuck! I'm really in the Bible belt now

[entitled]

Yep. Ended up having a county officer parking his car out in the trees and walking up to the house, then staying there all night, because somebody had lobbed an unlit molotov cocktail at the house. While i was there alone, pregnant, unhealthy because of that, and with two babies. The RA was at work. All because i had told somebody in passing that i wasn't going to church because i'm not a christian.

 

[BlackShanglan]

yep.

The unwritten part of the law is that it only applies to Christians.

That's the part I want to see challanged swiftly and decisively. That is - I can see arguments for allowing students to engage in their own religious practices as a matter of free speech, and I can see arguments against it. Personally, I lean "against" on the grounds that we restrict all sorts of free speech in schools for a very good reason: the purpose of school is for students to learn specific material, not for anyone who wants an audience to have on one which to inflict his/her views. There's plenty of time for that outside of classes. I feel that way on pretty much all free speech in school topics, including both conservative "pets" like religious speech and liberal "pets" like protesting school uniforms and dress codes.

But I don't mind being noble in defeat. If the good people of the state consider free speech that important, so be it - but it is equally important for everyone, and should be equally accessible.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

:
Originally Posted by Kev H
Religions do not believe in freedom of expression like we do, the "hey, let's be fair to everyone" mantra.

HEY!

Let's not get with the generalisations here! Not every religion is Judeo-Christian. In Wicca, in fact, the main defining principle of the religion is "Hey, let's be fair to everyone."

The Earl

Ahem. Perhaps we might go even further and avoid generalizing all Judeo-Christian religions and practitioners into a single unappetizing position?

Just a thought.

Shanglan

 

[Kev H]

Ahem. Perhaps we might go even further and avoid generalizing all Judeo-Christian religions and practitioners into a single unappetizing position?

Just a thought.

Shanglan

Damnit, Shan! Stop trying to take away the fun!

Seriously though, are not broad generlizations the only way to discuss a potential future? Do I -really- have to preface my statement in such politically correct terms that I need a legal-sized preface to make everyone happy before we get on with the common sense discussions? Give me the benefit of the doubt instead of nitpicking something out of context.

 

[TheEarl]

Ahem. Perhaps we might go even further and avoid generalizing all Judeo-Christian religions and practitioners into a single unappetizing position?

Just a thought.

Shanglan

Strictly speaking, I was being factually correct. Judeo-Christian religions, by their doctrine, state that those who don't believe are somehow flawed. Religions like Buddhism, Shinto, Sikhism, Wicca, Paganism, Druidism and many native American religions don't. Wasn't generalising the practitioners, just the strict word of their texts.

Kev: Point I was making was that people do tend to categorise all religion by what they know of the three main ones. Wouldn't normally be that pedantic over a tangential point, but it's been getting on my nerves recently and you caught the brunt. Sorry.

The Earl

 

[Evil Alpaca]

That will last right up until the moment Muslim students lay out their prayer mats five times a day. Or some atheist hands out atheist literature.



True believers rarely think things through.

No, this will last past all that. It's just the less popular ideologies will be banned and the Christian demoninations will be allowed to continue. Just a guess. Am I too much of a cynic?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Strictly speaking, I was being factually correct. Judeo-Christian religions, by their doctrine, state that those who don't believe are somehow flawed.

No. They do not, as a class. Yours personally may. Mine does not, nor do many others. Some view all humans as inherently flawed, but many preach tolerance, not condemnation for those flaws.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Seriously though, are not broad generlizations the only way to discuss a potential future? Do I -really- have to preface my statement in such politically correct terms that I need a legal-sized preface to make everyone happy before we get on with the common sense discussions? Give me the benefit of the doubt instead of nitpicking something out of context.

I was actually speaking to the Earl, as I was aware - as you note - that I was reading your comment out of context in his post. I included it to indicate the position to which the Earl's post was responding.

As for speaking in generalities - no. I think that's very rarely the way forward, and never when the generality lumps together a large and diverse group of people under a single inaccurate accusation. It's not, to me, a question of political correctness, although I suppose it might in my perception be a matter of manners; more germanely to discussing the topic at hand, it is not accurate.

Shanglan

 

[TheEarl]

No. They do not, as a class. Yours personally may. Mine does not, nor do many others. Some view all humans as inherently flawed, but many preach tolerance, not condemnation for those flaws.

I was under the understanding that the Bible spoke of it being every Christian's duty to bear witness (convert) for his neighbour in order to save him. I understand there are similar passages in the Torah. If I'm wrong, then I apologise, but those were the bits that I was referencing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not making a gross generalisation about Christians or Jews. I don't do that about people, cause they're a tricky species to try and categorise. I was making the statement about the religions. As all of them draw doctrine from the books, they are linked in by these passages.

That was what I was referencing.

The Earl

 

[BlackShanglan]

This is the quotation under discussion:

:
Originally Posted by Kev H
Religions do not believe in freedom of expression like we do, the "hey, let's be fair to everyone" mantra.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEarl
HEY!

Let's not get with the generalisations here! Not every religion is Judeo-Christian. In Wicca, in fact, the main defining principle of the religion is "Hey, let's be fair to everyone."

The Earl

As I think you'll note, your comments make and refer to comments on fairness and freedom of expression. Whether it is a Christian or Jew's duty to proselytize - and for the record, even my religion's missionaries are taught that it is not only not their duty but not desired for them to attempt to convert people from other religions - was not the topic of the comments to which I referred. You referenced fairness and commented on a post on feedom of expression in such a way as to imply that Judeo-Christian religions do not support this. Nothing you have said has suggested that those remarks have any factual basis.

Shanglan

 

[TheEarl]

This is the quotation under discussion:



As I think you'll note, your comments make and refer to comments on fairness and freedom of expression. Whether it is a Christian or Jew's duty to proselytize - and for the record, even my religion's missionaries are taught that it is not only not their duty but not desired for them to attempt to convert people from other religions - was not the topic of the comments to which I referred. You referenced fairness and commented on a post on feedom of expression in such a way as to imply that Judeo-Christian religions do not support this. Nothing you have said has suggested that those remarks have any factual basis.

Shanglan

The original comment was in reference to freedom of expression and the treating of all religions as equal and of deserving of equal consideration. I understand the latter to be something expressly forbidden in the exact wording Torah/OT, which is where my jump came from.

I didn't mean anything perjorative about Christianity, or Judaism or about any person. I was pointing out that, by the book from which all inspiration for these religions is supposed to be drawn, that this one religion is correct and no other gods are to be considered. It wasn't referencing people, or groups, or beliefs, but just the raw materials of the greater group - the Book itself.

This isn't a very salubrious topic to argue on, as it's too easy to misconstrue things and to type dumb-looking sentences which can cause offence. I have no wish, nor need for any grief, so I think I shall apologise for causing trouble and leave.

The Earl

 

[Kev H]

I was actually speaking to the Earl, as I was aware - as you note - that I was reading your comment out of context in his post. I included it to indicate the position to which the Earl's post was responding.

Aha! I am actually on the same page now. I think.

Growing up, I had an exposure to various religions just from my friends I hung around with; one was jewish, one was mormon, a few were baptist, church of christ, episcopal (which is basically catholic and lutheran in the context of this issue), and later, the wild spirit/speaking in tongues one (pentecostal?).

Anyway, all my friends were great people (or they'd have not been friends) and were not judgemental about our differences; however, my experience tends to back what The Earl said about the basic tenants of the religions (especially when concerning the afterlife) implied some sort of non-admittance into heaven for beliefs that did not match. For example, Jesus was "quoted" as saying something to the effect of "no one shall come to my Father except through me" and from that and 1000 other references, most people know that means if you do not recognize him as your saviour, then you're toast....literally and eternally. I am not positive on this point with the mormons, since they kept a low profile (they were an extremely small minority).

And once again, "fire and brimstone" preaching was a way of life in South Texas, so I am limited by my experience. Shan, I'd be very curious to know, even in a PM, what Judeo-Christian religion you are referring to. Do they have such sweeping tolerance that they do not assume non-believers are going to hell for their lack of faith? How do they justify what the bible says, assuming they even believe it's the word of god? If they -do- believe that, how do they explain their tolerance? It sounds like your experience is vastly different from mine (which automatically peaks my interest).

I apologize for my part in jacking the thread (but it seems to be an AH standard method of rambling discussion, which is very interesting to say the least).

 

[BlackShanglan]

** I feel I should observe that I quote passages from the Bible below. This is by way of answering Kev H's questions and not to preach the Bible to anyone, but I wanted to let those who might not wish to read the post know.

And once again, "fire and brimstone" preaching was a way of life in South Texas, so I am limited by my experience. Shan, I'd be very curious to know, even in a PM, what Judeo-Christian religion you are referring to. Do they have such sweeping tolerance that they do not assume non-believers are going to hell for their lack of faith? How do they justify what the bible says, assuming they even believe it's the word of god? If they -do- believe that, how do they explain their tolerance? It sounds like your experience is vastly different from mine (which automatically peaks my interest).

I apologize for my part in jacking the thread (but it seems to be an AH standard method of rambling discussion, which is very interesting to say the least).

Yes indeed - there is nothing we love so well as a good thread-jack. But really, it's like verbal conversations - they move about and grow, or they die, no?

I've had my experience of fire-and-brimstone in my days as well. I spent some of my college years in the south after being raised in the north, and then moved to England for a few years and spent some time in Ireland as well, so I've heard from a variety of perspectives. I do know the type of approach to which you refer; undoubtedly it does exist, and I think that's a pity. I've never been very fond of people who spend their time pointing out who's going to hell. Jesus seems to me to have been fairly specific about people not trying to make that sort of call themselves.

Let me preface my comments on my faith with this: religions are not monolithic things. Any major religion has a very wide range of practitioners and approaches. Indeed, that was one of the points that led to my comment on The Earl's post; even individual sects of specific religions have a great variance amongst followers, and so it seemed to me unreasonable to assert that a vast family comprised of dozens of churches and religions takes a single definable approach. Every major church I've encountered is in a constant process of questioning, exploring, retrenching, and re-inventing what it means. Your experiences of my church, then, may not be the same as my own. Most people who are not members of it are not likely to see it as I do.

I belong to the Catholic church. In its two thousand years of existence, it has embraced many approaches to the faith, some more dubious than others. Modern practice, however, at least in the groups I've encountered, is what I described in terms of missionary work: they do not see conversion as their chief goal, and the groups I'm familiar with specifically renounce conversion as a direct goal. Their goal is to perform corporeal acts of mercy and demonstrate their own faith. As an example, I recall reading an article about the conflicted feelings a priest encountered when a young boy of another faith (I think he was Hindu) requested to convert to Catholicism before dying of AIDS. The priest didn't wish to perform the conversion, feeling that the boy was too young to fully understand the choice and being concerned that he might feel pressured to it by the knowledge of his own impending death. Eventually the priest and the boy and the boy's parents discussed the matter; I believe that in that case the parents expressed a wish that the boy be allowed to be baptized into the church, as they felt it did not conflict with their own teachings. However, the priest not only considered that boy might be better not baptized, but also considered that it might be actively wrong to baptize him under the circumstances. These are not the actions of an intolerant person who believes his religion correct at all costs.

As to how this makes sense in light of the Bible - which, incidentally, is only a book, and not a church; there are immense differences in interpretation both within and between churches, and it is too hasty to assume that knowing the Bible means that one knows any specific Christian church - I think that this approach most likely comes from precisely the passage you quote:

For example, Jesus was "quoted" as saying something to the effect of "no one shall come to my Father except through me" and from that and 1000 other references, most people know that means if you do not recognize him as your saviour, then you're toast....literally and eternally. I am not positive on this point with the mormons, since they kept a low profile (they were an extremely small minority).

I believe that many people do take that statement to mean that those who in their earthly lives do not join Christian churches and profess Christian faith are condemned to hell. I also believe this to be incorrect, and many priests, including a number of my acquaintance, also believe this to be incorrect. The lines are from the gospel of John, and I think their context signficant. That is, beginning at John 14.1, spoken at the Last Supper after he predicts that Peter will betray him:

Jesus: "Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. In my father's house there are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. And where I go you know, and the way you know."

Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?"

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him."

Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us."

Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, "Show us the Father?" [...] "Believe me, I am the Father, and the Father in me."

The key points here, to me, are these:

(1) Jesus observes that there are many mansions in his father's house - much room for all, and varied homes. This suggests inclusivity rather than exclusivity. He doesn't tell them, "There's a tiny room and only the elect can enter into it."

(2) Jesus calls himself "the way" and does so in the context of explaining how to get to the Father. Jesus says that he is preparing the way - making the path clear - and later that he is the way, or the path. He does not say that he is the goal, nor that it is in any way crucial that people recognize him as the way. I can follow a path without knowing what it's called; I can follow the path he clears, in my opinion, without knowing that it is he who cleared it. Indeed, the act of clearing a path indicates welcome; who would turn away a guest one had cleared a path for simply because the poor guest missed it and blundered in through the thorn hedge?

(3) Jesus says that he is the Father - he is one with God, and God is one with him. Then, indeed, no one can come to the Father but through him, but only in the way that we can't go to God without going to God. They're the same person, or aspects of the same person. Jesus is an acting aspect of God trying to clear the way and make it easier to reach him.

I would also add this consideration - John 12.44-48, which comes shortly before the passage discussed above and which seems to me very clear on the topic:

Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. And he who sees Me sees Him who sent me. I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him - the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day."

Here Jesus is quite clear that his purpose is not to damn whole classes of people who hear but do not believe in him, or indeed who never hear of him - for it seems to me a very unlikely thing that an all-knowing and all-merciful God would damn whole generations of, for instance, Northern Europeans who wouldn't hear about Christ for centuries, simply because they were born in the wrong place. Rather, his purpose is to save the world - and those who do not hear him, or hear and do not believe, are not damned, but will be judged by Christ's word - not by whether they've sworn by his name or gone to his church, but just by whether they've lived as he has asked people to. Given that his demands are quite common in many religions - do unto others, practice charity, love thy neighbour - this is not a difficult thing for people of most faiths to manage.

Of course, above and beyond that still is the Divine capacity for forgiveness. I imagine that an all-knowing and omnipotent God is quite aware of what odd little monkeys we can be, and how confusing for all of us this must be. Most of the priests and religious folk I know take that approach too. We should all strive to be as good as we can, and to be honest in our morals and self-discipline. We should also, however, remember that God is a forgiving being and understands when we have done our best. He was kind enough to send his Son / self down to try to help us out, but I imagine he recognizes that it's difficult for humans to agree on almost anything, and that even the most direct sign will only do for some of them. Thus my father's favorite passage of the Bible, from Paul: All human knowledge is fallible. We must do our best, and from there put our trust in God.

Shanglan

 

[Kev H]

I like your attitude, Shan, for it is one of tolerance and understanding in human nature; however, most protestants would argue you are ignoring direct examples from the bible (and even the passage you quoted) in claiming that tolerance is more important than belief (and that mercy might make up for lack of belief). Their approach is, of course, more black-and-white but it is also more straight-forward and less open to interpretation.

The best example I can remember (and I am no bible scholar so I won't try to quote the specific passages, though I have read it through twice - I now use those brain cells for things like porn writing), is about "Doubting Thomas." I remember the story because I identify with the poor fool, who heard the word of Jesus/God and could not bring himself to believe the "truth" he had heard without some proof of power (something, btw, that Satan tempts Jesus with almost mercilessly since Satan knows that doubt from living in a mundane world is the anathema of the human soul). The entire story is recited/made up (depending on your belief) to emphasize the point that Jesus is your last chance at salvation.

Thomas specifically was a "good" man - he was moral and consciencious, much like many of us are - open-minded enough to "want" to believe, yet critical enough (and fair enough) to need proof to analyze. He wasn't about to believe some human who was working to gather some new religion, even though he identified and sympathized with that religion. The scripture is very clear about the sad fate of this guy; and by extension leaves little "wiggle" room around it's "basic" tenant: that if you have been exposed to the truth and still doubt, then you are in peril of "eternal damnation."

John 3:16 (in the protestant bible - I know the bibles are arranged differently and include/delete some books/verses, which points out the intense human manipulation and, for me, points to it's fallicy) implies almost implicitly that if you believe (that god sent his only son to atone for our sins) "you shall not perish, but have everlasting life."

If I still remembered half of what I read, I could point to many more passages to that effect - they do not quibble about their meaning. But most meaningful, would be your own passage, the end of which you did not discuss. To the black-and-white mentality this passage is clear: "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him - the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day." This is specifically talking to the Doubting Thomases, those who question and cannot believe something they are told. They will be judged in the last days - not be mercy, but by the very words they rejected.

Other passages in the New Testament have the undertone of the old, jealous god (the one who magically changed from the Old testament days of drowning all those without a boat, plagues galore, and nuking whole cities, and let's not forget the 10 Commandments - "Thou shalt have no other gods before me") - and when taken all together in context they point to the fact Jesus did not indeed save you from yourself, but offered a choice (to those who hear the word) to save yourself or perish.

Even your own religious greats (Saints, I am pretty sure) knew this to be true, and spread the word accordingly. Saint Thomas (not the doubting one, heh, but the one who made that awful logical reasoning why it is "safer" to believe in god) specifically ponders the benefits and consequences of faith. He stated it is far safer on the eternal soul to have faith in this truth, for if it is all wrong what have you lost? However if you do not believe and it is correct, then you have lost your eternal soul.

Now I understand Catholicism may be morphing to become more "hip" but it cannot shrug off well-defined tenants of the bible without throwing it out. The bible was written during the times of many other religions (which were smitten or left out as was convenient), and the "looking-forward" areas of the bible, such as John's Revelations, do not predict some "kinder, gentler" religion, but states quite clearly he sees what has been prophesied before - that Jesus is done playing meek, and will return as the lion.

Per the people I know who have studied the bible their entire lives, there is no room for interpretation in here about some forgiving god - you either believe your own book and have little but pity and anxiety for those who do not believe as you do, or you chunk your book out the window and stop claiming Christianity.

From my point of view, anyone who knows and understands how fucked up people were and are, has little reason to have faith in religions. There is a big difference between feeling through this life for one's spiritual journey/growth and believing what others tell you (and "taking it on faith"). There may or may not be a God (or gods) or even any form of continued consciousness, but if there is, I am rooting for your god to win out, Shan, for he seems one of the most reasonable of all them.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Kev - I'm in a bit of a dash here, so I shall attempt brevity. Stand back; I haven't tried that before, and who knows what might happen. [Add after posting - *snicker* How's that for brevity?]

Here's the core of the issue in a few lines from your post. The goal here is not to abridge away your meaning or to ignore issues of specific lines of scripture, but to identify what I think is the one central issue:

... most protestants would argue you are ignoring direct examples from the bible (and even the passage you quoted) in claiming that tolerance is more important than belief (and that mercy might make up for lack of belief). Their approach is, of course, more black-and-white but it is also more straight-forward and less open to interpretation.

[...]

Per the people I know who have studied the bible their entire lives, there is no room for interpretation in here about some forgiving god - you either believe your own book and have little but pity and anxiety for those who do not believe as you do, or you chunk your book out the window and stop claiming Christianity.

I understand how you come by this approach. I only wish to observe that what you enunciate here is, essentially, Biblical fundamentalism - and that that is only one of many divergent Christian views. I personally, without meaning to slight any person's religion, have problems with the assumptions underlying Biblical fundamentalism, as I do not believe that the Bible differs from other books in being open to interpretation - particularly when the Bible includes a melange of orally transmitted redactions, written first hand accounts, and after-the-fact letters and communications by the apostles, and of course does not contain a great deal of material (the apocrypha) stricken at the earlier councils. Indeed, there would not be multiple churches within the Christian tradition if there were not many ways of reading some of the same passages of the Bible.

To say, then, "the Bible says this, and so there can be no argument" is to say that one's own interpretation of that passage and its context is the only one possible - rarely true in so complex a text. I could, for example, offer a divergent interpretation of each of the examples you cite, starting with the observation that a passage that promises salvation to a person who follows Christ does not automatically promise damnation to those who don't. Thomas, for instance - at least in my text - isn't told that he's condemned to hell (which I hope will be of some comfort to you). Rather, he's told that they are blessed who believe when they do not see. He's not told that his doubt is a terrible wicked sin; indeed, why would we specially bless those of faith if we did not recognize that it's a difficult and very special thing to believe what one has not seen, and that it's normal for humans to doubt what they have not seen proven?

But my point here is not chiefly to interpret Biblical passages. It is to go back to that original quotation that began this discussion. The question initially was of whether religions allow or encourage tolerance and/or divergence of thought and free expression. My point here is that while some branches of Biblical fundamentalism do not, they are not the entirety of the Judeo-Christian family of religion. There are many groups who take quite different approaches. The Paulists, for instance, within my own faith tend to be more liberal, and a characteristic tendency of some is to apply the tools of literary criticism and analysis to the Bible. Obviously they inform some of my own approach; like them, I feel that "the Bible says X" is very frequently an oversimplification. Otherwise we're pretty much all doomed, as the Bible also in theory condemns one to hell for eating rabbit or shrimp, cross-breeding goats, and/or wearing linen/wool blends. I suppose it's possible, but my human reason, which I think God gave me for a purpose, suggests to me that that's unlikely to be the case with any but a wholly unreasonable God.

From my point of view, anyone who knows and understands how fucked up people were and are, has little reason to have faith in religions. There is a big difference between feeling through this life for one's spiritual journey/growth and believing what others tell you (and "taking it on faith"). There may or may not be a God (or gods) or even any form of continued consciousness, but if there is, I am rooting for your god to win out, Shan, for he seems one of the most reasonable of all them.

Thank you very much. I think that God is a wonderful and reasonable being. Unfortunately, he is followed and interpreted by humans, and we all know what you lot can be like. I don't personally believe that religion is about taking everything on faith; I believe that reason is involved in one's practice of religion, and that abdicating one's responsibility to weigh, investigate, and continually develop one's own morals and ethics is a sort of sin in itself. That's where I think people generally run into trouble. It's not just that some religious figures have an unspiritual love of power (and some do); many humans don't like questioning their own motives and choices. The two extreme poles are quite popular - do what someone else tells me is right, or decide that everything I want to do is right. The middle ground of consistently questioning one's assumptions, weighing the differing stances, and being willing to examine new approaches is more work, and its not work that everyone wants to do. There is that tendency to make things black and white, as you note - because it's much simpler and more stable that way. Acknowledging that all of our guesses may be wrong is much less comforting. However, I think it more likely to be true. To me, that is the nature of God's mercy - understanding that we are humans, and by nature cannot understand God or God's will perfectly.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

EL said,

A true believe[r] should be a positive comment for someone who is a true believer and not a nasty ironic dig...

EL, the phrase is colored by a number of users and usages: quite famously there is a book called 'The True Believer' by Hoffer, which while not insulting exactly did use the phrase for a dogmatic and narrow minded adherent to an idealogy or religion. I believe he mentioned some communists, for instance.

The irony is that some Christian groups rather like the label, and apply it approvingly, just as we would say, 'a true friend'.

In that regard it's not unlike the term 'mothafucker', which is often insulting. Yet some people are happy to call themselves 'mean mothafuckers.'

 

[1337_G1RL]

...

Since schools are multi-faith organisations, it makes sense to allow ALL students to follow their faith as they see fit, not just the Christian ones. Also I think that ID should be kept out of science class, if they want to cover it in a class about religion, or in a debate club or something then that is ok, but something like ID cannot be scientifically proven or disproven, it's a matter of faith, so keep it out of science class.

1337

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Yep. Ended up having a county officer parking his car out in the trees and walking up to the house, then staying there all night, because somebody had lobbed an unlit molotov cocktail at the house. While i was there alone, pregnant, unhealthy because of that, and with two babies. The RA was at work. All because i had told somebody in passing that i wasn't going to church because i'm not a christian.

Want me to beat 'em up for ya?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I'm no Christ raper by any stretch of the imagination and I have a bit of thinly disguised disdain for evangelical religion in general, but some of the language intrigued me.

"students could pray aloud in groups, distribute religious literature and express religious viewpoints to their classmates"

is what the students can do. The first two, I'm assuming they're allowed to do this now in class rather than after school in a club activity (we had a trinity club in our high school that prayed together), and should be rightfully prevented. The first for purely temporal reasons (only so much time to learn all they gotta learn), though they certainly should have the right at lunch and in specifically religious clubs. Freedom of religion and all that.

The second is just stupid, I mean c'mon, direct breach with no wiggle-room. That's recruitment and any smart student will just pull one of the old stunts and staple pro-Satanism leaflets all over school.

The third though almost makes you wonder what the rule was before. Allowed to express religious viewpoints to their classmates? How fully was that banned? While I'm sure an attempt to prevent ranting or hate-filled speeches against "immorality" from students and to punish it rightfully as abuse is important, it is different from the wholesale banning of talking about religious beliefs. It reminds me of religious discussions I used to have with friends, sharing of religious beliefs among those of different faith, and the occassional defense of one's own philosophy using religious beliefs by a student when they felt their personal philosophies under attack (we had a senior year teacher who tried to recruit us to her personal philosophy). It would seem freedom of speech should rightfgully protect that and freedom of religion and it shouldn't be banned from the state as long as it isn't being used to enforce, degrade, or comes from a teacher especially in the form of lecture. Am I wrong here or does this language make you think about how it can be taken to far the other way?