TooMuchSexy.blog ‣ April 28, 2005 ‣ Religious Discrimination (blog, whine, philosophy, religion)

Why is god constantly mentioned everywhere one looks? Why must theists push their views upon me? Why am I looked at as being odd for not believing in some greater-than-thou being?

I’m tired of living in a theist nation. I am tired of being treated as a second class human being for not believing in your god.

Nate ‧ Posted 3 years, 2 months, 1 week, 1 day, 1 hour, 59 minutes ago

§

Comments

1. As a person who does believe in God, I’m troubled by it at well. I think too many people feel the need to advertise their belief by attacking your sensibilities and your life by constantly reminding you that without this belief or this object— you are nothing.

   Frankly, I’ve seen many atheists who make better Christians than Christians. It’s a shame that people push their beliefs on to people who don’t ask about it. Hell, I’m open to many points of view, but like many when I feel pushed over and over again to accept something I don’t believe in— it pisses me off.

   You have my empathy.

   — Gabe 

1. Well, if you want to read someone push his non-religion on everyone else, you should read ravingatheist.com.

   — Mister Swill 

1. ahahaha

   you ever see the South Park where everyone became atheists?
   they had the same complaints as you.
   …they were also pooping out of their mouths.

   just food for thought, i guess.

   — Jeff Foster 

1. Oh, I get it! I feel discriminated based on my religious preferences and a similar experience was portrayed on a cartoon show, meaning they are the exact same thing. I’m so glad you’ve shown me the light!

   (Note the extreme sarcasm.)

   — Nate 

1. hahaha

   lighten up man. …and check out that episode. it’s pretty funny.

   — Jeff Foster 

1. The problem in my book is not so much religion or not religion, but the salesman-like mentality some people take on in the case of believing in something or not believing in something.

   I personally do not care what anyone believes or does not believe. But I cannot stand it when someone insists on shoving and “selling” their concept onto others.

   If someone is a vegan, and it makes them happy, great. But if that vegan insists on forcing their views on me and proclaiming their choice “better” in comparision to my “bad” choice, that’s annoying.

   And if religion brings love and joy to someone’s life, that’s great.  Allow your life and example to show others your views.  But don’t force those views on anyone else. It’s that simple.

   — Jack 

1. I’d agree with Jack. The important problem is exactly that: People wanting to force their beliefs on others.

   What people tend to forget is that simply being aware of something doesn’t mean it’s being forced down your throat. Me seeing “In God We Trust” on a quarter effects me almost exactly as much as seeing the date that the quarter was made. it’s words. who cares? if it were “In Nothing We Trust” it would mean exactly the same thing to me. nothing. (Also note; “God” isn’t the same as “Jesus” or “The Christian God.” God simply means a divinity, or a deity, or an object of worship… so it’s at least a little less specific than a lot of people assume.)

   What some people fail to realize, though, is that with Freedom of Religion comes Tolerance of Other Religions. You have to deal with that horrible awareness of other beliefs to have the freedom to believe in what you want.

   Another important thing to be aware of, is that trying to have things like “In God We Trust” taken off the quarter IS forcing YOUR beliefs onto others. If you’re allowed to be an atheist, then your beliefs are in NO GOD. Trying, then, to REMOVE “God” references from things is actually YOU forcing YOUR views onto others.

   The freedom of religion is not the same thing as the freedom FROM religion.

   …just my thoughts on the matter.

   — Jeff Foster 

1. Jeff, I was with you until your last big paragraph.

   No, arguing that currency minted by the U. S. government should not read “In God We Trust” is not forcing any religious views on anyone.  “In God We Trust” is a specific statement endorcing a particular religious point of view.  It may not be a very narrow relligious point of view, but it does state a preference for Monotheism over Polytheism or Atheism.  Arguing that the government should no longer mint currency with that motto is arguing that the government should take a neutral position on religion (as, you know, the Constitution says it’s supposed to).  If Atheists wanted to force their beliefs on others, they would argue that the currency should read “We Trust In No God.”

   By the way, I realize that everyone thinks the universe came into being on the day they were born, but did you know that “In God We Trust” is a recent thing?  It wasn’t printed on U. S. paper money until the 1950s.  It arrived on coins earlier, but it hasn’t been there forever.  And before you ask, the Pledge of Allegiance didn’t contain the words “under God” until the 1950s, either.

   And, though it’s catchy enough to put on a bumper sticker, “Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion” is a bogus statement.  The very thing that guarantees someone the freedom to practice his or her religion of choice is the guarantee that no religious doctrines will be legally applied to him or her.  That sounds a lot like “freedom from religion” to me.

   You’re right, though, that the motto on the quarter is not a huge deal.  It’s not a huge deal when I jaywalk, either.  But I am technically breaking the law whenever I cross the street in the middle of the block, just as the US mint is violating the Constitution every time it stamps a coin that reads “In God We Trust.”

   — Mister Swill 

1. your points are valid, and i am aware of when the coins were changes.

   I suppose my point is not that of technicality, but of principle.

   There are far more pressing and disgusting things going on, and caring at all about anything that has to do with any religious slogans on government stuff, i just find that to be priorities way out of wack. there are 700,000 things far more important than that, and probably 10 million things slightly more important. this is just my opinion though.

   I still disagree with you, though, about the FROM / OF thing. A guarantee that no religious doctrines will be legally applied to you is freedom OF religion. it means you can choose yourself, instead of someone choosing for you. nothing about that statement says that you will never have to see anything representing any other religion ever. THAT is freedom FROM.

   It SOUNDS like “freedom from religion” to you, but that’s just because what it really is, is “freedom from religious doctrines will be legally applied to you” which is, in other words, the “Freedom OF religion”

   — Jeff Foster 

1. “There are far more pressing and disgusting things going on, and caring at all about anything that has to do with any religious slogans on government stuff, i just find that to be priorities way out of wack.”

   Exactly.

   The same way factions that lean right are obsessed with the issue of flag burning and such, factions on the left are similarly obsessed with the issue of that phrase on currency.

   Both issues are equally petty and ultimately trivial. It’s the kind of ‘safe’ issue that people debate about but—when all is said and done—ultimately affects nothing and it’s impact is comparatively minor compared to other things.

   — Jack 

1. Okay, Jeff, once again I’m going to have to disagree with your syntax.

   My point is one of principle.  Your point is one of, well, not technicality, really.  I guess your point is one of practicality.  But we’ll get to that in a second.  Let me once again address the freedom of vs. freedom from thing.

   I suppose I could argue the semantics of “freedom of religion is not the same thing as freedom from religion” until I wear out my keyboard, but let’s face it:  That sentence is really just a meaningless catch phrase.  So please allow me to define my position and we can see if we perhaps already agree.

   One of the core tenets of the United States Constitution is that the affairs of government should be completely separate from the affairs of any religious organization.  So congress can make no law governing any religious practice or expression, the activities of religious organizations are exempt from taxes, etc.  And the government is supposed to maintain a neutral stance regarding the endorsement of any religion or type of religion.  Putting the motto “In God We Trust” goes against that principle.

   As for the practicality issue, I think we also already agree.  I rarely even think about the fact that the currency in my pocket says “In God We Trust.” I know that statement should not be put on the currency, but I’m not going to devote a lot of energy to attempt to halt the practice.  Believe me, it doesn’t take a lot of energy to state my opinion on this blog.  And let’s not forget, speaking of priorities being out of whack, that someone spent the energy to get that motto put on the currency in the first place.  And let’s also not forget that you were the one who brought the issue up.

   — Mister Swill 

1. well no one can really force their religion on you. You either accept it or not. I would like to know what your idea of forcing it on you is? If just talking about it is force then I disagree with you because that would be censorship and they also have good intentions. If I have to tolerate homosexuality and be considered and called a “homophobic” for knowing its immoral then I certainly cannot understand why religious people are wrong for putting there moral views in the universe.

   I won’t try to make you believe in God and you don’t try to make me believe that homosexuality is moral or censor my right to express that. deal?

   — anisoptera 

§