Poll: Forcing a Religion – Part II

[ImaginalDisc]

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.

I accept your challenge, suh!

 

[Ladewig]

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.

If it is any consolation, I believe that you could have constructed a pretty good v3.0 if you were to split out the religious and the secular into separate items.

 

[That_guy]

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?

Technically, that's simply interjecting opinion where it doesn't belong. Neither that statement on its own, nor giving everyone a free copy of the Bagavad Gita is forcing religion on anyone. This is, of course, a semantic nitpick with the initial premise (which s/he seems to have attempted to turn around on me, missing the entire point.)

Edited to add: The teacher would of course be fired, in this case.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Polls at dawn.

 

[Ladewig]

Technically, that's simply interjecting opinion where it doesn't belong. Neither that statement on its own, nor giving everyone a free copy of the Bagavad Gita is forcing religion on anyone. This is, of course, a semantic nitpick with the initial premise (which s/he seems to have attempted to turn around on me, missing the entire point.)

Edited to add: The teacher would of course be fired, in this case.

A store could display the Ten Commandments and customers would be free to patronize the store or leave the store. But if a judge in a courtroom displays the Ten Commandments, jurors are not free to choose a different courtroom. This lack of choice is tantamount to forcing religious teachings on them. As they serve they civic duty, they have the right to not have one particular religion foisted on them. Similarly, school children are not allowed to leave a classroom where a teacher is inappropriately offering religious instruction. Children are not allowed to leave the building if the principal is offering a Christian prayer over the school's public address system.

 

[Ladewig]

Polls at dawn.

I think Fnord's v2.0 is better than yours. I think this topic is serious enough to warrant a reasonable poll instead of one filled with jokes.

 

[Irony]

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.

Your first poll showed me that you are prejudiced against the non-religious to the point where you block any actual discrimination against them from your mind and construct ridiculous caricatures of them that are no less offensive than a depiction of a black man in a Klan newsletter.

Your second poll showed me that you are so afraid of loosing those caricatures and being forced to think of these people as actual human beings that you are completely unable to construct a poll that might actually contradict those caricatures and will instead resort to constructing dishonest questions designed to have multiple interpretations so that you can continue to think of us as inhuman monsters regardless of how we vote.

 

[That_guy]

A store could display the Ten Commandments and customers would be free to patronize the store or leave the store.

Agreed

But if a judge in a courtroom displays the Ten Commandments, jurors are not free to choose a different courtroom. This lack of choice is tantamount to forcing religious teachings on them. As they serve they civic duty, they have the right to not have one particular religion foisted on them.

Also agreed.

Similarly, school children are not allowed to leave a classroom where a teacher is inappropriately offering religious instruction. Children are not allowed to leave the building if the principal is offering a Christian prayer over the school's public address system.

Not so agreed. Children have the same rights as adults in this regard, but it's up to their parents to teach them this. If a child's beliefs, or lack thereof, are being infringed upon in a manner not related to education, they have every right to get up and walk away. Also, in this situation, the teacher/principal should be fired.

 

[Irony]

Not so agreed. Children have the same rights as adults in this regard, but it's up to their parents to teach them this. If a child's beliefs, or lack thereof, are being infringed upon in a manner not related to education, they have every right to get up and walk away. Also, in this situation, the teacher/principal should be fired.

Point of fact, they don't. The parents have the option of home-schooling the child, but this is not the child's choice, and for most families is not even a realistic option. Up until age 16 a child can be forced to attend school no matter how much he/she protests.

 

[juniper_ann]

What a concept! A religion (or any other idea) can not be forced upon another without resorting to threats or violence.

Laws are based on force. Blue laws are based on force. Truancy laws are based on force.

 

[Madalch]

I think Fnord's v2.0 is better than yours. I think this topic is serious enough to warrant a reasonable poll instead of one filled with jokes.

Both of Fnord's polls were jokes.

 

[That_guy]

Point of fact, they don't. The parents have the option of home-schooling the child, but this is not the child's choice, and for most families is not even a realistic option. Up until age 16 a child can be forced to attend school no matter how much he/she protests.

Point of fact, they do. Children are forced to attend school, but when the school does something wrong, the child is within their rights to express their dissent. If a teacher beats a child, do you think the child has no right to get up and walk away? The same right applies to mental/emotional abuse. Obviously, the child needs to explain the cause for dissent, at which time appropriate action should be taken.

 

[Hokulele]

Hok:

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

Are you sure you are in the correct thread?

DR

I teach and consult on various computer programs free-lance for a living. There are certain countries where I am not allowed to teach classes if there will be adult men among my students. In a couple of these countries, it is due to cultural (non-religious) issues, in a few others, it is due to religious issues. To be fair, none of these are Christian countries (by that I mean countries in which the population is predominantly Christian), but I find a restriction on how I can earn a living as being forced into a culture or religion. This is one of the main reasons I live where I do, as Hawai'i has a very tolerant stance towards anyone's religion or lack thereof.

 

[Irony]

Point of fact, they do. Children are forced to attend school, but when the school does something wrong, the child is within their rights to express their dissent. If a teacher beats a child, do you think the child has no right to get up and walk away? The same right applies to mental/emotional abuse. Obviously, the child needs to explain the cause for dissent, at which time appropriate action should be taken.

Physical abuse is a poor metaphor for this, but I'll run with it anyway. If a teacher beats a child, is it less abusive because the child has the ability to attempt to escape? If the law stated that the child had to go back to the teacher and continue to receive beatings, would you also contend that it was not a violation of that child's rights because he could still escape after only being beaten up a little bit? Would the fact that the child would face disciplinary action for attempting to escape also not be a violation of his/her rights?

The fact that a school might punish teachers for abusing their students does not make the abuse less of a violation of those students' rights.

 

[That_guy]

Physical abuse is a poor metaphor for this, but I'll run with it anyway. If a teacher beats a child, is it less abusive because the child has the ability to attempt to escape? If the law stated that the child had to go back to the teacher and continue to receive beatings, would you also contend that it was not a violation of that child's rights because he could still escape after only being beaten up a little bit? Would the fact that the child would face disciplinary action for attempting to escape also not be a violation of his/her rights?

The fact that a school might punish teachers for abusing their students does not make the abuse less of a violation of those students' rights.

You seem to misunderstand me, so I'll try to clarify. It is illegal for a teacher to beat a child (further clarification: in public schools, in America.) It is also illegal (or at least, against the rules,) for a teacher to teach religion as fact (in public schools, in America.) This is the only equivalence I was trying to show.

Your example (in public schools, in America,) just can't happen anymore, and it wasn't right when it could. If a teacher beats a child, that teacher will lose their job. Same with the teaching of religion as fact.

 

[JoeEllison]

Another strawman poll from the self-appointed King of the Victims? Wonderful...

 

[Madalch]

Another strawman poll from the self-appointed King of the Victims? Wonderful...

"King of the Who?"
"The Victims!"
"Who are the victims?"
"We all are! All of us Christians are victims of secularist oppression!"
"Well, I didn't vote for you!"
"You don't vote for kings!"
"Well, how'd you get that, then?"
"The Bully of the Lake, his arms clad in the purest shimmering samite, held me aloft, and hurled me through a plate-glass window, because I was being Christian, and had tried for eleven days running to explain how damned he was. That is why I am your king!"

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I think Fnord's v2.0 is better than yours. I think this topic is serious enough to warrant a reasonable poll instead of one filled with jokes.

What about my poll is unreasonable or detrimental to the subject matter?

 

[slingblade]

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.

So you do it wrong, and it's our fault, somehow? We're skewed because you don't get that you can't have a for/against option in the same sentence in any kind of legitimate, valid poll, regardless of subject?

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.

You have an idea, execute it poorly--twice--and now you expect me to clean up your mess? Why? You are the one who wants a poll, not I.

You are the one who apparently needs to learn a thing or two about making them. Not I.

Here; I can help this much:


I stay out of places like churches, temples, and mosques. I do not want anything to do with religion, and I've only myself to blame if I go anywhere that I may reasonably expect religion or religious observances to be present.

But when I go someplace that I expect to be non-religious, then it is wrong to insert any religiosity into it, and especially of the sort I would feel compelled to at least pretend to go along with--say, at work? Where I might lose my job if I don't go along to get along.

Or in a public school that the law can compel me to attend.

Or even at a sporting event, where the game I paid good money to see is being delayed so a few people can publicly ask the Big Sky Daddy to show who He loves more, by manipulating physics so they can win...even though the other side is asking for the same dispensation from the same Sky Daddy.

No, saying "Merry Christmas" is not a case of forcing religion onto a person.

Neither is saying "Happy Holidays" an attempt to force atheism on anyone.

On that note, however, seeing as how the majority of Americans identify themselves as at least nominally Christian, then I suggest you all get together next Christmas and refuse to do any shopping or decorating. The commercialism will end if you'll stop shopping, and Christmas will almost instantly become a purely religious holiday again. Except, some of you own businesses, which depend on those December sales to make a profit. What a shame...

As for school: you want religion-based instruction for your kids? Send them to a religion-based school. You can't afford the tuition? Ask Sky Daddy for it; surely you want what He wants, right?

When I speak of having religion forced on me, I mean when it intrudes into any context that I can reasonably expect to be non-religious. I mean, come on: what more can I do? I don't want to take your religion away from you, but I don't want to partake, either. The best thing I can do is "stay out of those places." Isn't it? By the same token, why can I not reasonably expect religion to be limited to those places and events designated for it?

Yes, limited. All choices should have limits, don't you think?

Finally, a rehash of an old argument: I know from my own years with religion that the Bible plainly says to "pray in secret" when you are not gathered in fellowship with one another. This is meant to keep you from using your God in public like a fashionable status-symbol. Even your God sets limits for you; so why would anyone fight for the right to disobey his god?

 

[Ladewig]

What about my poll is unreasonable or detrimental to the subject matter?

"A judicial system which requires witnesses to deface a religious book before giving testimony.

"Harassing people who deny the creative genius of The Mystic Knights of Oingo Boingo's film 'The Forbidden Zone.'"


If you want to argue that your poll is no worse than Fnord's v2.0, then I would consider your position a reasonable one, but to claim that there is nothing unreasonable about the poll is disingenuous.