Is Freedom Of Religion Making Sense Fundamentally?

J.R.R. Tolkien was a devout Catholic and actually intended many things in his books to serve as parallels and pointers toward Christianity. He never understood the Dungeons & Dragons and various countercultures that subsequently embraced his writing.

It's funny how people can read a book and take just what they want out of it.*

*Edit: Of which I'm guilty as charged. I first read The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings at a very young age, when I was also actively being indoctrinated into Catholocism and I never caught the links at that age. Frankly, I still think he actually didn't do a great job of linking the two. As far as I'm concerned the only link between the Silmarillion and The Bible is that they're both fictional world creation/history books, except that the Silmarillion is far better-written.

I can obviously speak only for myself. But I know in my experience it's just so frustrating because I understand why people want and - in some cases - need religion. I understand how Christianity is so deeply ingrained into the people of the U.S. (and the world, really). The problem is, many of those devout followers can't fathom how I'm not one.

The issue I have is that so many Christians can't understand how their bringing their faith into government functions -- be it prayer, quoting scripture or, worst of all, voting against something (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) just because of religious grounds.

What they think of as "openly exercising their freedom of religion" is, in fact, attempting to push those religious beliefs on others through government policy.

However, as I said, I can tolerate things like the little prayer for show (because that's all it is; to show voters they're good Christians). Maybe I shouldn't even be willing to tolerate that, as it gives them a foothold to press further into the things I mentioned above.

I just wish some of the more fervent Christians (and other religions) would stop equating "Godlessness" with "a complete lack of values and ethics".

Do you honestly think it is just on religious grounds and not from their own opinion?

I can appreciate your devil's advocate position here, and while it could be possible in theory, I've never seen anyone vehemently against any of those things who didn't cite religious grounds for being such.

What I don't get is how we can have something like the Establishment Clause which states that there should be a clear cut line separating church and state, and yet here we are in 2014 where we can't have a president that is anything but Christian, at least in an open sense. I still think it's hilarious that people swear that Obama is a "secret muslim". Just how deep is our xenophobia these days, anyway? I'm looking forward to having the first elected official who is openly atheist; it probably won't happen in my lifetime, anyway.

There are a select few that have been in politics at higher levels, but your sentiment is generally in agreement with mine. A president, VP, cabinet member or prominent member of Congress would be appreciated. I certainly don't feel very represented these days, fiscally or in my belief systems.

Atheists in U.S. poltics

...it's a depressingly short list. You've been warned.

It very likely is their opinion, but in my experience, they always have religious doctrine to back it up.

The more worrying thing: The same people damn welfare,social security, senior benefits, etc. which you know...Jesus says is good and all.

Which is why people think that they are basing their judgement on "just" religion.

You don't need to cite your opinion, you just need to back it up with reasoning.

But can you understand why using solely/mostly religious doctrine as that reasoning is problematic?

Who's against Senior benefits?

It isn't the argument that we should abolish all welfare, it is the argument of defining who is eligible and for how long.

A kid who is "depressed" because he flunked high school should not be granted a life-long social security benefit because he smoked half his brain away.

Which is why I said "you don't need to cite your opinion"

Opinions are not made by one source, it is made by life experiences...

They're public officials voting on policy that effects everyone. Not just people who share their religious beliefs. So...yes. They do need to cite their reasoning for that opinion and be held accountable for it.

And if that "experience" is largely "because my religion is against it", that is problematic, as they're enforcing their relgion's beliefs on everyone, whether they share those beliefs or not.

Citation needed what is this a term paper ?

Term limit paper, if we're lucky.

Their accountability will be the next election.

If they pass a legislation that goes against the majority of the people they serve, they will be voted out in the next election. Politics 101.

While there are zealots out there, they generally stay within the confines of the religion they hold. They don't run for public office because A) they wouldn't have the leadership abilities to manage the election campaign and B) they wouldn't have people skills to not only sway the public, but also gather donations to run an effective campaign.

The people in office are not zealots, and their reasoning is beyond that of religion alone.

I've been wrapping my brain around the different ways to approach this post.

I just can't decide on one.

All I know is you show a disturbing lack of empathy for those less fortunate than you. However, I can't really fault you, as it's such a widespread sentiment as to be considered societal at this point. Our entire approach to addiction and mental illnesses in this country is painfully inadequate.

My empathy are for those who truly unable to function in society due to no fault of their own. Which is a small percentage of the welfare class.

Maybe it's the culture I was brought up on. Maybe it's the fact that I see the abuse on a daily basis. Maybe it's the fact that the administration's solutions are really problems on itself. Maybe it's factors outside of welfare that also mold my opinions in the matter. Maybe it's all of the above all wrapped in a nice little package.

But like I said, I don't want welfare to be abolished, I just want the definitions and limits on certain benefits to be redefined to suit to serve those who truly are unable to take care of themselves.

"Politics 101" is hardly applicable at this stage of the game.

Everything you've stated is all well and good on paper, but your suppositions don't hold water in today's political environment.

The fact that the Tea Party has elected officials supporting them disrupts your whole argument by itself.

If someone abuses drugs to the point where they've experienced irreversible brain damage and significant loss of cognitive function, they are by definition unable to take care of themselves.


This is a very slippery slope upon which you do not want to tread.

Wait, are you saying that politicians aren't elected by the public they are serving?

If that's the case, where do I sign up for Nevada and California primaries?

unfortunately, the people that are truly able to take care of themselves by the requirements of social aid are well beyond the lower class. what needs to happen, instead of the slash and burn tactics that actually happen by the institutions that are so anti-welfare is actual funding into enforcement to root out specific cases of abuse instead of assuming there is a mass blanket of abuse going on for the majority of the system.

Even though Jim Jones wasnt like, into politics he sure as hell preached an awesome enough politically charged sermon to get that entire congregation to just pack up and go to that compound to drink some koolaid. You know, cause that cant happen in a similar situation with real politics.

Also, "Impeachment" is very much a thing. Its not just that one thing we say were gunna do when we find that smoking Benghazi gun with the Obama.

For ***'s sake you're obtuse sometimes, and I'm sure it's deliberate.

Politicians are elected by a majority vote, but it is their job to represent all of their constituents regardless of their own personal beliefs. And right now in this country that is not happening.

And so it begins

So, if the majority of the constituents want prayer in their small townhall meetings, can you blame the politician who is fighting to keep that for his/her constituents when some guy who wants to believe in Paganism feels left out, and his "feelings" are hurt because of it?

Never mind that is what the majority of that local population is doing, in that one little town...

Yes, I can blame that.

It's essentially government endorsing a religion.

That is straight-up prohibited by the Constitution.

You have said to me previously you don't like insulting people, but you constantly do it. You put quotes on things like "depression" and "feelings". As if those aren't actual things to be considered.

You're big into Ayn Rand, aren't you?

Edit: Also:

Yes. You do need to never mind that the small town majority is doing that. That's the entire point. It's protection for all. Not just the majority.

One thing you are missing though ramyrez is that some of the decisions made are for the greater good even if you might not see it that way.

Take for example this town hall prayer example. It could very well be for the best if it's all inclusive. Let any legitamate request to have a prayer be said representing their own faith. Put a time limit that is equal for all and walla!

Now if you limit it to only a christian prayer or only a muslim prayer or only a satanist prayer as the main and only prayer as an opening then it's a problem.

This is not the government endorsing religion. It's government recognizing your right to include your personal faith in all things nto mandating or being exclusionist.

I fail to see the relevance of a prayer at a government meeting at all.

Edit, also, too lazy to link it, but go ahead and assume I've again linked the Hot Fuzz "The Greater Good" image here. You can't say those words without me thinking it.

So, we should change everything because one person was offended?

That, my friends, is what is wrong with America today. We must change our beliefs to conform to one person.