Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Religions becoming State Religions
JohnG
Veteran
Here, and many parts of the world, Freedom of religion is a fundamental right. No, official state recognized religions; but here in the U.S. there's been always a movement to make Christianity the official and constitutional recognized religion; meaning, Christianity would be funded by tax revenue. And, that swearing an oath to the Christian God or any employment would and could depend on being only Christian. Recently, the state of North Carolina has made the statement, and received some form of authorization, that states and not nations can make this law.
As Buddhist, how do you feel that your very right to employment, or even state aide would depend on converting to Christianity?
As Buddhist, how do you feel that your very right to employment, or even state aide would depend on converting to Christianity?
0
Comments
Could you give us a reference to anything done in North Carolina along the lines of what you are saying?
@Chela, I don't agree with you here. People, both individually and collectively, have a right to lobby their government and have freedom of speech. Does it blur the lines a bit? Yes. But a total separation of church and state (as you seem to be suggesting) would probably infringe on the other right -- freedom of speech.
Besides whether you are talking about individual constituents or religious groups, legislation created to appease a group on religioius grounds threatens the freedom and rights of those people not of that group. That can be seen with many social issues such as gay marraige, health insurance covering birth control, access to abortion etc etc etc. If someone wants to argue those things in a way that does not involve religious belief, then that is what needs to be brought to the political decision making table. However, in most cases, religious belief is what is being argued. That is absolutely unacceptable for what should be obvious reasons. It is a fallacy to assume what counts as important truth to one religious group applies in anyway to anyone else. You can not have political debate along those lines -- at least not in a pluralistic society.
We all have certain rights in the US, but they end at the point that they start to deny other people their own rights. People have the right to believe what they want, follow the religion of their choosing and so on. They do not have the right to foist their own religious beliefs on everyone else. That interferes with my right to freedom of religion. Laws passed in this country have to apply to a large diverse population, and that can't be done effectively if only the needs of a few groups are taken into account.
And what are all these events that have infringed on your religious rights? Nobody's stopped me from going to the Buddhist temple, or buying Buddhist books, or donating money to the Buddhist temple, or posting on this website, or talking about Buddhism. Even here in Colorado's most religious city, no one has pushed me to go to a Christian church. And BTW, Buddhist temples are just as able to gain tax exempt status as any Christian church.
http://www.worldstory.net/en/stories/chicken_little.html
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/04/04/3957284/state-has-power-to-establish-official.html
Just because the GOP is talking about it doesn't mean it'll happen, for the record. They did file it, it looks like but that doesn't always mean much. It looks like it came about because the ACLU has been on some of the county agencies in NC for starting various meetings with Christian prayers. They started it as a way to keep judicial rulings from telling them they can't pray, and then they decided to just go ahead and push for a state religion.
As for what would I do if it was me? Well first of all I'd never live in the bible belt. But if I did, or if my state went nuts (you never know, we are home to Michelle Bachman) I would move. I would actually pack up, and move. No way would I be subject to living under something I did not believe in, or living under the stress of trying to lie about it and practice my real beliefs in hiding.
This isn't anything new--its gone on for centuries and all the rhetoric about the U.S. being the land of the free is somewhat delusional--especially in the southern U.S. These people are just as insecure and manipulative as every other group of fanatics that have come and gone. The U.S. is not immune to it either.
There may not be an official state religion, but it is implied with a 'wink, wink, nudge nudge'--and in some places down south you have to be careful, unless you like being harassed.
Just a joke, guys. Don't be so serious all the time.
And thank you, @black_tea for illustrating the point I was trying to make, which was that big religious organizations lobbying for our laws IS infringing on our individual rights. I find it hard to believe that some of us here think it is okay for those religious lobbying powers to tell me or you, as individuals, that we must follow the rules of their Bible (and as how they are interpreted by those lobbyists), regardless of our individual beliefs, values, etc. That IS the equivalent of state-sanctioned religion. I don't understand how anyone can say that this kind of power over individual rights is a constitutional right.
It's not just about the ability to go worship somewhere. Have you been keeping up with current events? When a group of people decide women's health issues are in conflict with their religious beliefs and make it harder for women to get the healthcare they need, that is an infringment on the rights of others by a religious group. When one group is treated unequally, because their sexual orientation offends a particular religious group, then that religious group is infringing on the rights of others. When schools treat creationism as a science and push for prayer in public school, then they are interfering with the religious rights of others. These are issues that have been all over the news for years.
If Jane Doe's religious beliefs say birth control is ok, then why should a different religious group try to make access more difficult? If Bob and John want to get married, and it's ok according to their religious beliefs, then why should the religious beliefs of other matter in the eyes of the law? You could make the case that during a school prayer, the students could pray to whomever they liked, but if you've ever been the odd one out in a school situation, you should realize how difficult that can be on students. And creationism isn't just a Christianized version of how the universe was made, it also flat out isn't science -- interfering with both religion freedom and education. I don't see how you can say that people's rights aren't being infringed upon. Just because I can go to the Dharma Center without being assulted or shunned by the community, doesn't mean that everything's A-OK.
People have the right to believe, preach, and worship wherever they want in any religion they choose. But, no one has the right (or should have the right) to try to make their religious beliefs into the basis for laws that effect everybody. This is the way our country is supposed to be set up, though it unfortunately does not always work that way. This is not interfering with the freedom of speech, it's putting a necessary balance in place so that all groups can be treated equally and fairly. If you throw that balance off, you get a situation where either the group with the most adherents and/or the most money (lobbying power) comes out on top and everyone else is relegated to second class.
Overall, I agree. No one has the right to take their beliefs and tell the rest of us what to do based on them. But, that is one of the tenets of Christianity, too, to pray for all us heathens and try to save us from ourselves, and try to convert us all before it's too late. So I don't think it's goin to go away any time soon.
:nyah:
The problem with your position is that you think there's "a clear difference" among scenarios. And it's really not clear at all.
We should begin with the WHOLE text of the First Amendment to the Constitution that relates to religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I'm not aware of any law that the federal Congress has enacted that has established a religion. In fact, over the decades, the Supreme Court has expanded the meaning of the First Amendment through the 1947 Establishment Clause, which extended the law to all the States.
Since situations having to do with the First Amendment have repeatedly been brought to the Supreme Court for adjudication, it's very clear that what the Amendment says and means is not as clear as you would like to pretend it is.
Now, in regard to women's health issues. There are two hospitals here in Colorado Springs. Memorial Hospital and Penrose-St. Francis Hospital. I choose to go to the latter because it is, quite simply, the better of the two. I am fully aware that it is a hospital owned by the Catholic Church. And when I was in the hospital for a couple of days, there was not one mention of religion in any way. Yes, I am aware that they do not perform abortions. But, as a privately owned hospital, I think that is their right. Memorial Hospital is the publicly owned hospital. What they do or do not do might need to be determined by public will.
I am gay. And that issue is working its way through the Supreme Court and the electorate at this time. I am concerned with what the law is. I am not concerned what a religious group advocates. That is their freedom of speech.
Evolution in school. Trust me...I know more about it than you do. I used to teach evolution in public school. And you are mixing federal and state law. Education is a responsibility of the state, not the federal government...although I wish it were a federal responsibility. I think Tennessee is way off base on that particular topic. But I will let the Tennesseans decide their education system until it becomes a federal responsibility.
And in terms of prayer in school, do you really know what the law is? Students cannot be forced to pray at all. They cannot be forced to recite the Pledge Of Allegiance. They cannot be forced to ever stand during the Pledge. But they can be forced to be quiet while it is being said. You know, sort of like during the Olympics when out of respect we all stand and remain quiet when another country's national anthem is played.
Now I'm sure there are places the law is broken. And when that happens, people need to be willing to work through the system.
But if you think the Constitution and the law is always so clear and that lines are always so distinct, then your comprehension of the news is rather shallow.
Not working for an organization you may disagree with is especially difficult in today's economy, and that's probably one of the reasons this does come up a lot. Leaving an otherwise secure job is a huge gamble that may also effect the employee's family as well. Like a lot of things in this diverse country that at least tries to promote equality, it's going to be a balancing act when you have a group working together, because most likely the group isn't going to be homogenous. I've actually thought about this issue a good bit, and I can at least understand where both sides are coming from. However, when the pros and cons for boths sides are weighed, I'm just not sure how an employee's health can be trumped by the religious views of an employer.
With abortion I can see it moreso. 2 hospitals in our area (and the only 2 in the major city near us) are Catholic hospitals so they don't perform abortions. At least in that case, the doctor would actually have to perform something against their beliefs.
But looking at other topics here, if you turn it around it's harder when it's your belief set that is challenged. What Buddhist wants to be made to do something they don't believe in? What if your employer required you to go shoot a bunch off gophers on the property or something? I realize that's not quite the same case, but just generally speaking. We talk here a lot about what is ok or not ok for a Buddhist to do, too. If you were the boss, would you fire someone for being a hunter? Would you provide health care that covered abortion if you as the boss were against it? Just questions I'm considering myself, thinking aloud.
And speaking of Catholic hospitals...my aunt gave birth to her fourth child via c-section in one and was planning on getting her tubes tied (which they typically can do during the surgery), but was denied by the hospital. They told her that her husband could schedule a vasectomy, but she could not have her tubes tied. Now, on the surface this doesn't make any sense. But yet it does if you understand that most of the rules regarding women within a patriarchy are set in place solely to control and manipulate the woman-- to ensure she is "behaving". If my aunt were to have a tubal ligation, she might have an affair, and then there would be no pregnancy to announce her sin. That is just one example of how women are/can be unfairly treated within a religious institution regarding healthcare, and in Christianity, the focus is on our reproductive organs.
Nothing about our constitution is black and white. We think we have rights written in stone, but we do not. Something that woke me up to what I believe is going on with the religious right and politics is the independent film "Madison Avenue." Specifically, it highlighted the Tea Party movement and who is behind it (David Koch, for one). Most of my more religious relatives vote for whomever is running on the "take back America" platform, because they honestly believe that "take back America" actually means that, if whomever is on this platform wins, the people (the 99%) will be in charge of the country again. What they don't realize is that Big Corporation is the "wizard" behind this platform's curtain, and they are pushing to strip out what laws we have that protect citizens and the environment in order for Big Corp to earn more profits and power. This is an example of what I mean when I say that the flock is being led astray. They are being taken advantage of by a large group of policy makers and corporate sponsors who see them as easy targets with an institutionalized stream of funding.
We have a neighbor that is of the "full quiver" Catholic belief, and the local Catholic Church and it's members support them with every need they have so they can be put up as an example of good Catholics. Because having babies you can't afford means God will support you! Reminds me of what Pat Robertson said the other day, that the US sees fewer miracles than Africa because we are too educated. That science and all the things we THINK we know are really fake and that if we would just believe what we are told, that God loves us and will save us, God would show us more miracles. He even said we need to go back to living more like people in Africa. And he has so many followers, people who watch him and agree with him. That kind of crap is what runs too much of our country right now. He basically said that anyone who practices critical thinking and thinks for themselves is making God look down on the US. Personally, I would think God would look down on Robertson for being a hateful...well I have no nice words so I won't use any. Sorry to get off on a tangent. Just upsets me that people who listen to that kind of garbage, are people who vote in legislators who want to control our lives with that same garbage.
People don't believe in universal rights, because they know when they're being fed a load of bull. What does that mean, saying people have a universal right to worship however they want? Religion isn't just what church you go to on Sunday. Religion tells you how to treat other people, and now you're saying my right to practice my own religion doesn't exist because I have to hire gays for my business even though my religion says gays are abominations?? The government is trampling on my rights!
The particular set of evangelical Christian people that the politicians in our fine state of North Carolina are pandering to with this really do believe the US should be a theocracy. They have bought the Biblical myth of the Priest-King and a nation that defines itself by it's religion. If all we had was a Congress, we'd have gotten one long ago. Fortunately, we've placed a judicial branch into our power structure that has the authority to stop this sort of thing.
What people do believe in, is their own team. They don't really care about the other teams. Do you have one football team you identify with? Do you really care if the other team has a hurt member that has to be carried off, or do you rejoice because now your team has the advantage? Yet if your member is injured, it's a terrible blow to your people.
It's how we're hardwired and how it's always been and how it will always be. What we can do is try to expand people's definition of their team from "my brand of Christian" or "my political party" or "my skin color" to the entire tribe of humanity. I'm not sure it's possible. Recent history has a spotty record on being able to pull it off.
i must be misunderstanding you. 81% if the people in India are Hindu. What am I not understanding?
I like it, that the bill didn't say which religion or how that would be determined. Gee, you think the Muslim or Jewish or Mormons would have a chance of getting their religion chosen as the "official state religion"?
Would we, as Buddhists here in America, be subject to such things if and when America becomes a Christian theocracy? Or would violence break out and bring about anarchy, with so many groups choosing to take on the government and the people?
Most people in the US do have the idea that Buddhism consists of monks in robes, because the few places out there where lay Buddhists congregate are either ethnic enclaves who don't want to call attention to their differences, or folks heavily into their self journey of detachment and not likely to show up at a demonstration with signs saying "Buddhists against the war!"