Poll: Forcing a Religion – Part II

[Fnord]

Here it is; the long awaited second part to the "Forcing A Religion" poll. The twenty statements are of a more forceful sort then the ones in the previous poll, and were inspired by the previous poll's respondants.

Sorry, no "Planet X" responses. If you absolutely must use one, please refer to the previous poll in this series.

Thank you.

PLEASE NOTE: The statement "Petitioning the government to abolish, enact, AND enforce "Blue Laws" that close commercial establishments 1 day out of 7." Should read:

"Petitioning the government to abolish, enact, OR enforce "Blue Laws" that close commercial establishments 1 day out of 7."

I apologize for any confusion this may cause.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Your poll appears to try to draw some sort of similarity between science and secular practice to religious busy-bodiness and blue laws. I don't see any comparison between distributing religious material in a public school and distributing "secular" material in a parochial school. Presumably, there are copies of the Constitution and books on American History in parochial schools, and those are secular documents.

I think you're (deliberately) confusing "secular" with "anti-theist."

 

[Madalch]

" Petitioning the government to have the Theory of Creationism added to or removed from a public school curriculum."

Adding Creationism to the public school curriculum is forcing ones religious views on others. Removing it is not, since those of a religious bent may learn about it in a more appropriate place.

Your poll seems to be rather skewed by your assumption that "Sauce for the religious is sauce for the secular". Abolishing a law that forces people to go to church is not forcing religious beliefs on anyone, but enacting the law is, yet your poll options lump abolishing in with enacting, and "adding" lumped in with "removing".

You've asked if "distributing secular writings in a parochial school" is a way of forcing ones secular beliefs on people. But is there a school outside of the middle east so religious that no secular materials are allowed? Even the most religious school in North America, I would assume, would have books other than the Bible, such as a dictionary or a world map.

Smeg! Ninja'd by ImaginalDisc!

 

[That_guy]

You forgot "none of the above." The only way to truly "force" a religion on someone is to say "listen to/follow this guidance because my religion tells you to, or X will happen." (Where X is some consequence which can actually occur.)

 

[Hokulele]

Hmm, I seem to be missing the references to institutionalized bigotry and sexism.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I think you would have gotten more informative results if most of the questions weren't constructed such that to agree with them you have to be both for and against something. Oh, sorry, it isn't an actual poll, just a heavy-handed attempt to get us to think about whether there is an equivalence between requiring secularism and requiring religion. The answer is no: secularism is religion neutral in the only way possible: avoiding it altogether. How about YOU think for a minute: substitute 'atheist' for 'secular' in the poll and learn that we don't think atheism should be forced down anyone's throat, either.

 

[Ladewig]

Thanks for V.2.

 

[Mister Agenda]

PS: I was so wary of answering your trick questions incorrectly that I didn't select the first four options, which I now see are straightforward enough to agree with. Not a good excuse though, I should have remembered to go back to the top once I read through.

 

[Irony]

I would love to vote in your poll, but the existence of such obvious trick questions prevents me from doing so.

example:

Re-writing textbooks to add or remove religious or secular references.

So, if I say yes then I am stating that it is forcing your religion on someone for trying to remove an arithmetic mistake in a math textbook or add a little more information on Wallace when discussing the origins of the Theory of Evolution. If I say no then I am saying it's not forcing your religion on someone to try to get schools to remove the Theory of Evolution entirely and replace it with the Hebrew Creation myth.

Could you please try to make a less biased poll, again.

 

[Dunstan]

On Planet X, polls this poorly written are illegal

 

[Frozenwolf150]

After reading the poll options, I can't say that I'm disappointed. That's because when I saw this second poll topic, it occurred to me that it would miss the mark as well. I can only imagine what kind of inference this topic is trying to make. Either that secular and religious practices are mirror image equivalents, or that it's impossible to force a religion on anyone because religion is presumed harmless.

 

[juniper_ann]

Petitioning the government to abolish, enact, and enforce "Blue Laws" that close commercial establishments 1 day out of 7.

These are not equivalent (just to choose one of many).

If Jane petitioned the government to ban car sales on Sunday and Joe petitioned the government to force all car lots to be open on Sunday, then that would be equivalent. But if Jane petitions the government to ban car sales on her holy day of choice, and Joe petitions the government not to make religious-based car sale pronouncements, that is not equivalent.

For instance, Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A are both closed on Sundays. They are privately owned institutions that close voluntarily. I do not now, nor would I ever petition the government to change this, as much as it may put a cramp on my nefarious Sunday morning embroidery thread runs, because I have no right to force my religious non-beliefs on anyone else.

Do you honestly think that petitioning to abolish blue laws is equivalent to petitioning to enact blue laws?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Hmm, I seem to be missing the references to institutionalized bigotry and sexism.

Hok:

What does that have to do with forcing religion on anyone?

Are you sure you are in the correct thread?

DR

 

[godless dave]

Some of your poll options don't make sense. For example:

Petitioning the government to have the Theory of Creationism added to or removed from a public school curriculum.

Petitioning the government to add the "Theory" of Creationism to public school curriculum would be forcing one's religion on people. Petitioning the government to remove it would not.

 

[Ladewig]

Like others, I am of the opinion that this poll is poorly written.

For instance "Distributing religious writings in a public school."
If students who are members of a Christian club stand outside the cafeteria and offer religious materials to those who walk by, I do not think that they are forcing their religion on others and they are most certainly not running afoul of the first amendment. The example I gave in the other thread invloved teachers passing out Bibles donated by a Christian group. I consider that action to be both forcing one's religions on others and a violation of the first amendment.

Similarly "Distributing secular writings in a parochial school " could be something as innocuous as passing out fliers publicizing a police chief's plans to give a lecture about what students can do to protect themselves from crime.

Secular ≠ atheist.

Also, secular ≠ war against Christians

 

[Fnord]

The first poll showed me that there are a lot of people who feel threatened in some way by what others might find merely annoying.

This second poll has already shown me that there are also people who will not be happy unless a poll is skewed in favor of (or reinforces) their already-held beliefs.

You forgot "none of the above." The only way to truly "force" a religion on someone is to say "listen to/follow this guidance because my religion tells you to, or X will happen." (Where X is some consequence which can actually occur.)

What a concept! A religion (or any other idea) can not be forced upon another without resorting to threats or violence. Now where have I read something like this before? Wikipedia, perhaps?

"Argumentum Ad Baculum (Latin: argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick), also known as appeal to force, is an argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification for a conclusion. It is a specific case of the negative form of an argument to the consequences."

What sane, educated, intelligent person would fall for such a ploy, especially when it is used to convert people to accept a new religion?

Mini-poll: Which of these does not represent an Appeal to Force?

a) "Believe as I do, or I will tear out your tongue!"
b) "Stupid fundie! I didn't hit you THAT hard! Now shut up about Jesus, or you'll get a REAL beating!"
c) "If you don't believe, then you'll go straight to Hell!"
d) "Merry Christmas!"

The second poll has been called skewed, poorly written, missing the mark, non-sensical, and with trick questions. One person even called it "a heavy-handed attempt to get us to think about whether there is an equivalence between requiring secularism and requiring religion."

Okay, then let's see if all of you come together and construct a 20-statement poll that is free from assumptions, presumptions, hidden agendae, prejudice, double meanings, implications, fallacies, insults, innuendos, and suppositions; and that also does not make any who take it have to think.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

Thanks for V.2.

You're very much welcome. Let's see what the rest come up with for v3.0.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

What is the point of having the government add Creationism it schooling and having them remove it be the same option?

The government teaching Creationism would be enforcement of religion, stopping them from doing it would promote freedom of religion.

The poll is just silly.

 

[PixyMisa]

"Posting egregiously dishonest polls on web forums" still doesn't seem to be an option.

 

[JenseitsDavon]

Many of the options of this poll contain both a secular and a nonsecular theme within the same option, which seems to me to be a silly way to look at things. But let's put that aside for a moment:

Let's assume there, for whatever reason, aren't any atheists/agnostics/nonreligious people of any stripe. What sort of laws would be the most prudent to enact? Shall we let the Christians dictate to the Buddhists that they must attend church on Sundays? Should the Buddhists be allowed to enact legislation declaring everyone must be vegetarians? Would we allow the Scientologists to add a tax that goes directly to their church? What about the Hindus? Will they be making laws that require the teachings of Brahma and Vishnu to be taught in schools? Not to mention all the disagreements within all these faiths.

It seems to me that the only way to make a multifaith society (buzzword!) work is to make everybody equally unhappy - or, to put it another way, to compromise. You don't tell Jim when to go to church and he doesn't tell you not to eat meat. Now, let's put the nonreligious back into the picture. Should the picture change because suddenly, someone is happy with the result? Of course not. As long as we aren't interfering with your right to enjoy your faith as you will (provided you aren't harming anyone else's right to same), then no religion has grounds to object.

And for Ed's sake, please stop conflating secular, nonreligious, and antireligious!

 

[Ladewig]

What a concept! A religion (or any other idea) can not be forced upon another without resorting to threats or violence. Now where have I read something like this before? Wikipedia, perhaps?

So if a biology teacher in a high school in your neighborhood started class by saying "today we will study mammals. Research has shown that higher level mammals have self awareness, therefore harming mammals in any way, including killing them for food, is unspiritual and will take us away from right conduct. Right conduct, of course, is one part of the eightfold path to Nirvana," then you would not describe that as forcing one's religion on the children in that class because there were no threats or violence.

If a school principal made sure that every student was issued a copy of the Bhagavad Gita, then there would be no forcing of religion.

Is that your position?