New Aestheism movements

[Thorne]

Not wanting to participate is both respect for one's own position, whether atheist or another religion,

Atheism is NOT a religion. It's not a belief system. It is a lack of belief in gods. That's ALL.

and respect for the religion doing the praying. It means you take that seriously too, that it is not unimportant flim-flam.

I disagree. Personally, I DO think prayer is unimportant flim-flam. As a means for getting what one wants it is tantamount to writing a letter to Santa Claus. True, prayer has been shown to have a calming effect on some people, similar to meditation, or taking a deep breath, or counting to ten. And such an effect can help people's bodies to, for example, fight off diseases more efficiently. Just like meditation. Or rest. Or soothing music.

But the prayer I argue against is those prayers which are inserted into governmental procedures, or public meetings by government entities (such as public schools). These prayers are prohibited by the Constitution of the United States, yet Christians (especially) insist that we are violating THEIR right to freedom of religion because we don't want them pushing their prayers into such venues! Or that they are being persecuted because they are ejected from a meeting for disrupting the meeting by "spontaneously" rising in prayer, loud and long.

As usual, these "followers of Jesus" have cherry-picked their beliefs, only following the rules that they agree with. They ignore the statement from Matthew 6:5-6:
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

In other words, keep it in church, and in your heart, where it belongs.

[MMI]

And don't think you would be safe in the UK, either. The same kinds of fundamentalist idiots we have here are starting to make a fuss over there. If it happens here, how long will the UK remain free?

We know how to treat religious fundamentalists ... send them to America!

[Thorne]

We know how to treat religious fundamentalists ... send them to America!

Bloody bastards! I'd suggest you send them to Australia instead, but THEY keep sending them here, too!

[denuseri]

Where can we send all the atheist fundamentalists?

[MMI]

You know, Thorne, that's not a half bad idea. If we'd sent them all to Oz in the first place, perhaps the Australian cricket and rugby teams would suck like the USA's do.

[thir]

Atheism is NOT a religion. It's not a belief system. It is a lack of belief in gods. That's ALL.

I do know that - bad phrasing. Sorry.

I disagree. Personally, I DO think prayer is unimportant flim-flam.

What I meant here was that I respect that the prayers take it seriously.

And that is one reason they should not try to force others into it as if it was just - nothing.
I think it was MMI who said what does it matter - it's just a prayer. I think it does, both ways.

But the prayer I argue against is those prayers which are inserted into governmental procedures, or public meetings by government entities (such as public schools). These prayers are prohibited by the Constitution of the United States, yet Christians (especially) insist that we are violating THEIR right to freedom of religion because we don't want them pushing their prayers into such venues! Or that they are being persecuted because they are ejected from a meeting for disrupting the meeting by "spontaneously" rising in prayer, loud and long.

As you know, I agree totally in this. Freedom in these matters as in others is the important thing.
The fight is where one person's freedom (as percieved) restrains that of another. And I think in this case the public space is the neutral space. You do not do BDSM for instance in a public place, for that reason.

But it will always be a matter of debate what you can or cannot do in a public space. But the other situations you mention are crystal clear: you do Not make a captive audience of other people by praying in such situations.

As usual, these "followers of Jesus" have cherry-picked their beliefs, only following the rules that they agree with. They ignore the statement from Matthew 6:5-6:
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

In other words, keep it in church, and in your heart, where it belongs.

Mostly I agree. But I would have no problem with for instance a muslim doing his or her praying on a little carpet in the corner of a room 5 times a day, or someone praying quietly somewhere, if there is no prayer room.

[thir]

No, I don't think you are off topic, but I'm not sure what you mean by "refuse to bury". Do you mean that the priest refused to perform the Christian burial rites? Did he refuse to allow the person to be buried in 'consecrated' ground? Or is it that burials can ONLY be performed through the State sponsored church?

He refused to perform the rites. As for the second, I don't know if our church yards are consecrated ground, but you cannot refuse anyone a place there, as Christianity is a state religion and also the person was a Christian and wanted a Christian burial. As for the last, I am not sure that there are any any other burial places pt in DK at this time - maybe a few.

The latest discussions meant that gays could marry in church but the priest could refuse. Maybe fair enough, I do not know, but you can get married at the town council office - gays too - so you are not stuck. Burial is worse, Althugh you can get in the ground and people can organise their own rites or lack thereof if they want, which a fair number do. Here in UK you can organise pagan funerals with pagan rites if you wish.

Anyway it is a remarkedly hostile idea of that priest, but it has happened once before, many years ago, apparently.

I think either of the first two instances can be viewed as valid, within his religious belief system.

Well, His belief system, maybe. The cornerstone of the Danish Christianity (such as it is) is love thy neighbour. Such an intolerant person - I hate people like that, why can't he be tolerant like me? ;-))

He should be allowed the freedom to refuse.

You know - I am not sure. Not within the state church, anyway. It is not a hate church.
The thought of new churches with hate messages in DK or really really scary!

UNTIL his superiors reverse him, which in effect says that the religion accepts gays as having the same rights as heterosexuals. Because of the priests vows to the church, his personal freedoms are somewhat narrowed. Of course, he is still free to remove himself from the church and cling to his personal beliefs, but as a representative of the church he is bound by the rules and requirements of his office. The third issue is more terrifying.

Well, he was told in no uncertain terms what his duties were, but even before that had apologised profusedly. But it took a bit for the chock to settle, before other Christians could start to forgive, which they admitted they had to, that is another cornerstone :-)

There is an equally terrifying parallel here in the US, in regard to this whole equality of marriage business. A state legislator apparently proposed (sorry, can't find a link now) that all marriages within that state MUST be performed by clergy to be valid!

And when I think that marriage is actually a new idea, historically speaking..and even then priests had nothing to do with it.

This would remove marriage from the purview of the state and make it completely religious, which would mean problems for any non-religious persons, and especially for gays. And what happens when, for example, they decide that it can only be CHRISTIAN churches? No more Jewish or Muslim weddings. No Hindu weddings. Fortunately, I think the proposal was soundly defeated. But based on past performance we can be sure that he, or they, will try again.

The idea is - so weird I cannot understand it!! Why can't he just marry those who wants to, and let the rest do as they desire?? I think people like that just want to make waves - it is so obviously illogical.

[thir]

D:
The topic this time though is about the ironic zealotry of the atheists is I understood the op correctly isnt it?

t:
Allegedly. I am not sure I agree in that view.

D:
I think all people of any faith (even if that faith is only one in science or in nothing at all) would do far better if they stopped trying to convert followers and simpley co-existed in mutual respect of each others ways. Tend their own garden as it were to steal a phrase from Voltaire.

t:
Indeed.

However, you can go the other way too: In UK they have these interfaith attempts here and there, seems to be going well, people of various faiths getting to know each other. But they do not want pagans - we do not have a holy book ;-)))

t:
Recently, in Denmark, a priest refused to bury a gay person. This caused a tremendous response from the public, most of which on the line of what on earth do you think you are doing, refusing to bury someone? A few Christians (we do not have so many, all in all, in spite of Christianity being a state religion) asked where 'love your neighbour as yourself' went - the cornerstone of most Danish Christianity.

D:
Yes, sounds like this individuals bigotry to homosexuality has cuased him to "sin" and go against the core tenants of his faith, not a very priestly thing to do.

t: No, it wasn't, it was kind of - different though, to hear all the non-chuch goers ask him where his love for his neighbour was.

t:
But a few asked where was the priest's freedom of choice? That question was answered by the bishop, who said your duty is to bury whoever needs burying, period, it is in your job description. State religion - the bishop is the boss.

D:
The priest was clearly in the wrong in that he was refusing to bury the man...however he would be in the right perhaps depending upon his sects rules to have withheld the sacrements etc during said ceromony perhaps idk.

t:
No, because it was not a sect, but a main religion with fairly clear ideas. Accepting a job in it, he also accepts the main ideas. If he felt strongly about it, he should make his own church. Which I hope - and pray! - that noone does, not this hate church.

[Thorne]

You know, Thorne, that's not a half bad idea. If we'd sent them all to Oz in the first place, perhaps the Australian cricket and rugby teams would suck like the USA's do.

Nah, pretty unlikely. They're too busy being bigots to get involved with sports, especially sports like rugby where men actually TOUCH one another!

Besides, Americans suck at cricket and rugby because we have our OWN sports, like baseball and football. REAL football, where you throw and catch the ball with your hands! Not that silly thing YOU call football, where you use your feet!

[Thorne]

But it will always be a matter of debate what you can or cannot do in a public space. But the other situations you mention are crystal clear: you do Not make a captive audience of other people by praying in such situations.

There are no proscriptions against public prayer in the US. If a group of people wanted to go into a public park and pray, loudly, they would be permitted as long as they are not interfering with other people's activities. Personally, I have no objection to this activity, provided it is available to ALL who want to pray. Including Christians, Jews, Muslims or any other religious group.

One thing that has happened in several communities around the US is that Christians, who have frequently performed prayer meetings similar to this, have tried to prevent those of other faiths from enjoying the same rights. To the point where the city government has had to restrict ALL faiths, including Christians, from using the park just so that the Christians can prevent OTHERS from using it. I also recall a case back in 2002 where a Christian community complained about the local mosque issuing their call to prayer, through loudspeakers, five times a day. Claiming it was a disturbance. Wound up that the city had to ban the use of Church bells on Sundays in order to stop the mosque. Not exactly the result the Christians wanted!

Mostly I agree. But I would have no problem with for instance a muslim doing his or her praying on a little carpet in the corner of a room 5 times a day, or someone praying quietly somewhere, if there is no prayer room.

I have no problem with it either. Many businesses make allowances for such things. But that Muslim is not forcing a public meeting to begin with a prayer, the way that many Christian communities do.

[Thorne]

Well, His belief system, maybe. The cornerstone of the Danish Christianity (such as it is) is love thy neighbour.

That is the cornerstone of ALL Christianity, supposedly. Here in the US, far too many churches have forgotten the teachings of Jesus, as written in their Bibles, in favor of hatred towards those who are different (see especially the Westboro Baptists). One more reason to fight them whenever possible.

And when I think that marriage is actually a new idea, historically speaking..and even then priests had nothing to do with it.

LOL! Don't try putting THAT one over on the theists here! To them, marriage was created by GOD, for one man and one woman. It says so in their BIBLE! (Don't read that part about Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines. "Ignore that man behind the curtain!)

The idea is - so weird I cannot understand it!! Why can't he just marry those who wants to, and let the rest do as they desire?? I think people like that just want to make waves - it is so obviously illogical.

Part of the problem of religious thought is that it defies logic. Or twists it into unimaginable shapes to try to justify the beliefs. When questioned about God's command to Joshua to kill all of the Canaanites, men women and children, William Lane Craig, a Christian apologist, makes this horrific comment:
"Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."
IMO, anyone who can so easily twist their minds to accept such a statement as "logical" is seriously demented. Using this logic I can say that:
If you believe, as Craig does, that "those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy", then you should stop seeing doctors and taking medications, and allow yourself to die quickly, so you can get to heaven faster. Don't bother looking before crossing the streets. Trust that God will protect you, or call you home. Amen.

Sounds logical to me!

[thir]

There are no proscriptions against public prayer in the US. If a group of people wanted to go into a public park and pray, loudly, they would be permitted as long as they are not interfering with other people's activities. Personally, I have no objection to this activity, provided it is available to ALL who want to pray. Including Christians, Jews, Muslims or any other religious group.

Me neither, because you can walk away from it, and presumably there is room for everybody in a park. People do all kinds of things there, thai chi and whatnot, and that is fine. What I was thinking about was meeting where you have to attend, and other situations where you cannot walk away. Like starting a political meeting, which you have to attend, with a prayer.

One thing that has happened in several communities around the US is that Christians, who have frequently performed prayer meetings similar to this, have tried to prevent those of other faiths from enjoying the same rights. To the point where the city government has had to restrict ALL faiths, including Christians, from using the park just so that the Christians can prevent OTHERS from using it.

I would say it sounds childish, but actually few children behave that way.

I also recall a case back in 2002 where a Christian community complained about the local mosque issuing their call to prayer, through loudspeakers, five times a day. Claiming it was a disturbance. Wound up that the city had to ban the use of Church bells on Sundays in order to stop the mosque. Not exactly the result the Christians wanted!

But at least there was peace and quiet! Not a bad result, really.

I have no problem with it either. Many businesses make allowances for such things. But that Muslim is not forcing a public meeting to begin with a prayer, the way that many Christian communities do.

That's it.

[tedteague]

I'm going to offer a new perspective here on this whole "church and state" that seems to be popping up.
America has a democracy (for the sake of staying on topic, let's just suppose this is true) or a democratic republic, but the point is the same
A democracy is defined as citizens determining the public policy of their own nation: a majority will win
If the majority happens to be religious, then why is it not within the limits of the US Constitution to impliment religious social policy? That's the democratic thing to do.
For example, I'm sure Thorne here would be all about pro-choice, and would say that a minority of right-wing religious fundamentalists are out to restrict the proceedure, but if we go by a recent poll, where 59% of americans identify as pro-life, then they should get to determine the public policy that says "no abortions"

[Thorne]

I'm going to offer a new perspective here on this whole "church and state" that seems to be popping up.
America has a democracy (for the sake of staying on topic, let's just suppose this is true) or a democratic republic, but the point is the same

No, the situation is NOT the same. The US is NOT a Democracy, but a Democratic Republic, by design.

A democracy is defined as citizens determining the public policy of their own nation: a majority will win
If the majority happens to be religious, then why is it not within the limits of the US Constitution to impliment religious social policy? That's the democratic thing to do.

Which is why we are a Democratic Republic. We elect leaders who are expected to make sure the country does the RIGHT thing, despite what the majority might think. And by the right thing, we mean constitutionally right. Let's face it, if we had to abide strictly by the majority then blacks would still be forbidden to vote or intermarry, women would not be permitted to vote, non-Christians would not be allowed to hold office, etc. It's because in the past our leaders had the strength of character to do what was RIGHT instead of what the majority wanted that America has a fair measure of equality today.

For example, I'm sure Thorne here would be all about pro-choice, and would say that a minority of right-wing religious fundamentalists are out to restrict the proceedure, but if we go by a recent poll, where 59% of americans identify as pro-life, then they should get to determine the public policy that says "no abortions"

Yes, I am pro-choice. And despite what they claim, the anti-abortion groups are not pro-life, but pro-forced-birth. Many of them would ban abortions under any circumstances, even when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. And another example of where the majority can be wrong, taking away the rights of women to control their bodies for the sake of POTENTIAL humans.