Should Freedom of Religion include Freedom from Religion?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Goldtop, Dec 13, 2017.

  1. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,701
    That's cute, and would even be true, if atheism were a religion.
    As things stand, we just smile or roll our eyes at the various kinds of silliness and ignore all the symbols for the various kinds of non-existent entity.
    Now, if you could prove that Jehovah issued the currency, we might be very much tempted to start believing in him.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 In Aust : found it :) Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,661
    That's a tough one if we are going to render unto Ceaser
    Would that mean I have to give him all my money?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    That's cute, and would even be true, if atheism were a religion
    LIKE
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,701
    Recall the context. Jesus says: "Whose face is on the coin?"
    If Jehovah issued currency, presumably he would put his own likeness on it, not Caesar's. Not only would we suddenly get religion, but we'd find out whether we were each made in god's image. Be really cool if the picture on the bills changed with whoever handed the cash to the baker who happily put Ernie and Bert on the wedding cake.
     
    Michael 345 likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,935
    Respond to who you want or don't. It's a free country.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,834
    It's not a religion; it's a belief that there are no gods. Hence, to employ "in God we trust" money is just as hypocritical and dishonest as the Christian who works in a secular world.
    No need! Either you believe in God enough to use it, or atheists who use it are liars and hypocrites, and are using the money because it's convenient - and they think their convenience trumps their integrity.

    Or (here's a wild thought) many people who believe in religion, or the lack of it, are OK with people who think differently.
     
  9. Michael 345 In Aust : found it :) Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,661
    Not sure having In god we trust converts money into unusable religious artifacts unable to be used, not just by atheist but also by those others with invisible friends
    By the way is In god we trust on all denominations of currency or only on some coins?

    If christians didn't work in the secular world their employment prospects would be very limited

    Considering my contention If christians didn't work in the secular world their employment prospects would be very limited I would also contend - shoe other foot

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,701
    We don't campaign for the privilege of using the money; we don't swear to uphold "In God We Trust" before using currency. Christians put it on there and we haven't been able to persuade them - yet - to take it off. We trust (to the extent it's unavoidable) in the federal government to honour the value they set on the legal tender.

    The holders of political office have taken a vow to their god and congregation at whatever their denomination's confirmation ritual happens to be.
    What's hypocritical is then taking an oath to uphold a constitution and secular laws that they don't believe in and don't intend to obey.

    You have to live in society, as it exists, even if you're a minority.
    You do not have to hold political office in that system.
    It was never about what some idjit wrote on a platen regarding his own beliefs.
     
  11. Goldtop Registered Member

    Messages:
    32
    Yes, I do understand theists will claim their beliefs 'color' who they are, but they too have to deal with exactly the same issues everyone else has to deal with, hence they too have to adhere to the laws of their lands. If there is separation of church and state in their land, they have no choice but to leave their 'colors' at the door when they go to work. We also know that many theists don't agree with one another on not only day to day issues, they rarely agree on their own beliefs, so I don't think one's beliefs is a valid argument for office.

    If a baker decides he doesn't want to bake a cake for someone, that's fine, the free market will decide the fate of their business. Of course, the issue is much bigger than just cakes, it's also about providing health care in employers insurance plans. I am reminded of this song..

     
  12. Goldtop Registered Member

    Messages:
    32

    I can understand a single person voting in an election their candidate whom they might recognize as kinship in beliefs as has been seen lately in Alabama where folks still supported Moore regardless of the allegations against him. I saw an interview where one woman said, "He's a man of God, he couldn't possibly have done those things he's accused, clearly those women are lying". This person is free to vote for Moore.

    However, the church they attend should not have the same voice until they begin paying their fair share of taxes. I think this is the main difference between other organizations you mentioned, trade unions, lobbies, etc.

    Nothing is sacred? Every sperm is sacred. (-;
     
  13. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,343
    Let say a rural grocery store won't sell food to black people and the black people are about 8% of the population in the area. The free market will allow that store to do just fine, mean while the black folks will have to travel to another store possible some distance away increasing the financial burden on them. That sure as hell isn't fine.
     
  14. Goldtop Registered Member

    Messages:
    32
    The free market will also include more than just the 8% of black people living there, it will also include others who will choose not to buy their goods at that store if they didn't agree with the stores policies of not selling to black people. If 92% of the people living there agreed to treat the 8% of black people in the same manner, those 8% would never be able to survive there anyway. I would also suspect such an issue would quickly become public and many would offer their services and their free speech in the matter.
     
  15. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,701
    I don't think I would leave it to the minority of whites to do the right thing - given their record.
    Or financial gain to determine justice.
    Does this have any bearing on the separation of church and state?
    Or is it that government should not be allowed to regulate business, just as it can't regulate religion?
    Before stripping government of all its regulatory, legislative and tax-collecting powers, you might be wise to consider the consequences to citizens.

    They're free to lobby anyway, though they don't pay taxes. What they're not free to do - in theory - is dictate the morality according to which laws will be drafted. All that's guaranteed under the separation of church and state is that there can't be an official state religion that outlaws the practice of other religions.

    Whether any citizens are discriminated against, for any reason, by business, police, other government agencies, private or paramilitary organizations, depends on what specific laws governments enact and enforce.
    The first fifteen administrations were complaisant about the institution of slavery; nineteen more permitted systemic mistreatment of the 'liberated' slaves; twenty-seven denied the vote to women. Only a few have actively protected minorities, more than a few actively persecuted minorities.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2017
  16. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,701
    Yes, that would be true, if Jehovah were backing the currency, rather than a supposedly secular government's decidedly secular bank. What's written on the bill, whether there is a picture of a ship, a statue or a rubber ducky on the back - none of these determine my ability to use the money; the only pertinent information on it is the unit value; all that's relevant is whether the institution underwriting that unit value is able to fulfill its mandate.
    The design of paper currency is no indication of my integrity; what I've done to earn it is.

    Nor has any other printed material in circulation any relation to my integrity in using or not using it. As it happens, I read the bible, newspapers, advertisements and other fiction, without any of them destroying my integrity.

    In a courtroom, I can promise to the tell the truth with my hand resting on a bible, a dictionary, Moby Dick or my own tattoo - none of which texts I consider sacred. If I have integrity, I'll tell the truth anyway; if not, I may lie for love, convenience or profit. I may, however, be swayed by legal consequences.
    If I did consider one of those texts sacred, as Christians supposedly do, then I would expect supernatural consequences for lying after having sworn on a bible and said "So help me God", but only legal ones if I had sworn "So help me Webster."

    That's the crucial difference between belief and unbelief.
    (Spoiler: Lots of people who claim to be Christians lie anyway.)
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2017
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,834
    Right. And most Christians never swear to uphold Leviticus, so they're good there.
    And what vow would that be?
    And what laws would they be?

    I think you are creating a strawman that, 99.999% of the time, is a complete illusion, just to have a good punching bag.
     
  18. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,312
    Certainly they work within the law; otherwise, they would be out of work.

    Should employers be forced to support something they do not agree?
     
  19. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,079
    Sure, we don't all get to agree with everything. As you might say "How can it hurt anything", just like with prayer in schools.
     
  20. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,312
    The cost of a box of condoms is around $5.00 at Walgreen's. The cost of health insurance for a child is considerably more. If an employer is willing to pay for the later because of moral duty, I find no fault in that choice
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,834
    Absolutely. They may not agree with the Thirteenth Amendment, but they still can't keep slaves. They may not agree with the Civil Rights Act, but they still can't say "no Jews or blacks."

    Fortunately, there is nothing forcing them to be employers. If they feel that they cannot possibly condone employing a black person, they don't have to hire anyone.
     
  22. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,312
    But when the question involves the death of a black child, shouldn't they have a choice? Abortion might be legal, but you shouldn't be forced to provide abortion services.
     
  23. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,079
    What if you don't believe in medicine (prayer only) should you be allowed to withhold medical services from your employees?
     

Share This Page