Here are the big questions:

1. How much should religion be considered when it comes to shaping public policy?

2. Whose religion should be considered the "norm" as applies to choosing a set of morals by which to shape that policy?

3. Should children in publicly funded schools be lead in prayers of the religion of the majority?

4. Should children of non-religious, or non-christian backgrounds in schools be forced to participate in Christian holiday traditions?

5. Should tax money be used to promote Christianity by way of religious displays and activites in towns/cities, and such?

Please try to stay on topic with this. No 'Clinton bashing' is allowed. I know it seems funny to be mentioning that here, but he seems to find his way into every thread on this board lately, so I wanted to set the rule for that very plainly before we get started with this debate.

I think you have WAY too many questions to address in one thread. Some of the questions have already been covered (See: Christianity, Why can't it be taught in schools? and The separation of church and state.).

Please narrow this topic and/or split into a few topics.

The debate I was trying to start here, was to cover how Religion tries to permeate all of society. The whole idea was to discuss how religions try to force their way into our lives whether we "like it or not", by whatever means necessary. I started it because I didn't want to go off topic in another thread. I realize that it is a broad discussion, but I didn't think it would cause a problem. I was only hoping to bring some of those issues into a wider discussion, so that more comparisons could be allowed, without people having to go off topic.

I still stand by the rule in my first post... This thread is a "CLINTON FREE ZONE".

I'm still a little uncertain regarding the context here. From which thread did this one arise? That might help.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as vague, so I'll try to put it forward a little better, here. I'm trying to get the pros and cons from people of religion attempting to manipulate and control every aspect of our society... From what appears on television, to with whom, when and how we can have sex.

It actually arose from multiple topics wherein you can find quotes such as this one in the NAMBLA and the Age of Consent Thread:

While debating whether the government should lower the age of consent, HeatherRob felt the necessity to point out that it shouldn't happen, because he and his religion say so.

This started me thinking about how, overall, religion manages to rear its head on just about every issue that comes up in our society... How Christianity imposes itself on people whether you like it or not. I wanted to keep it broad so that we could look at the big picture, and not just one piece of the immense puzzle.

I personally don't care for any bible thumpers to corner me and preach. If I want God, I'll find him.

But compared to many Islamic countries, I would hardly think that we have much forced religion in the US.
I think we need to examine some terms and customs that have become ingrained in our society. There has been increasing outcry recently concerning what I would term political correctness.
Example: schools told to rename christmas break to holiday break, stores ordering salespeople not to say merry christmas. Is this going to far? I would say yes.

Children in public schools should NOT be forced to say/recite prayer of any religion.

Remember, not just christian displays are put up by towns/cities, I've seen many crosses, minoras, crescents, etc.. Should they all be banned on public property?

What about military chaplains? No one is forced to go to services, but their pay comes from taxes like all military members.

When it comes to chaplains in the military, even though they are paid by taxes....I say, let them be there. When people are being sent into harm's way, if they desire to seek out the chaplain of their choice, it should be there for them. We also have chaplains in prisons and for death row inmates. Should they be denied - I say no.

As for religion in other parts of civic life - well, that's a thornier question. It can get down into the ridiculous. Some people are offended by the motto "In G-D We Trust." Shopping bags at Christmas time - oops - Winter Holiday - no longer say "Merry Christmas" on them. Some people are offended at poinsettias being displayed anywhere - even on someone's desk at work. I mean where does it stop?

To avoid getting extreme on one end (forcing religion) there really is no need to get extreme on the other end. For instance, in public museums (and most city museums of any size do get some public money) shall we force them to take down all the art - like paintings of various religious events? If a museum has a replica of the "Last Supper" should that be taken down? Should a replica of the sculpture of "David" or the "Pieta" be prohibited? So much of art is connected with religion.

Shall we stop the singing of the "Messiah" in a publically funded (or partially publically funded) theater? How about school textbooks....forbid any pictures of the great art of Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, no discussion of the architecture of St. Peter's Basilica? No Bach organ music that he composed for church services? How about Mozart's Requiem?

YES! Set it up on the grounds of your place of worship or on your own lawn, and kindly stop spending my tax money on holiday decorations. Thank You.

I don't think I would object to Christian/Jewish/Islamic/Other art being hung in a museum anymore than I'd object to items of ancient Egyptian or Greek/Roman religious significance. While perhaps not to you, to me, they hold the same meaning. I am capable of appreciating art for art, regardless of what significance it holds for you. As long as there's nobody standing there trying to preach to me the "meaning" of the paintings/statuary, I don't really have an issue with this.

If only for purposes of morale, they serve to benefit our fighting men and women, and as such, serve an important role in our military. Many are also trained, I believe, to serve other functions, such as 1st responder. As long as no one is forcably "ministered to", I don't actually have a problem with it.

First, a point of information: HeatherRob's religion says no such thing. He may think it does, but he is very mistaken. Christianity's primary text, the Bible, nowhere mentions the age of consent.

Now to the Big Questions:

1. How much should religion be considered when it comes to shaping public policy? Not at all - ever.

2. Whose religion should be considered the "norm" as applies to choosing a set of morals by which to shape that policy? No one's. Policy should be based on the most basic of ethical codes, not on the dogma of any religion.

3. Should children in publicly funded schools be lead in prayers of the religion of the majority? Not under any circumstances, no.

4. Should children of non-religious, or non-christian backgrounds in schools be forced to participate in Christian holiday traditions? No. It would be nice if there were more education about world religions, but participating in the traditions of any of them by force? Never.

5. Should tax money be used to promote Christianity by way of religious displays and activites in towns/cities, and such? Generally, no. I think Christmas is becoming something of an exception. The holiday has become so secularized that it has lost almost all religious significance whatsoever. So long as the displays in question remain fairly neutral - evergreens and lights and such - I don't feel that much objection is called for. Just about every culture has some year-end holiday, be it Chanukkah, Kwanzaa, Saturnalia, or the Mithraic Birth of the Sun (from whence Christians lifted December 25 in the first place); I send out Winter Solstice cards every year - which is, after all, what we're all really celebrating. Therefore, once the "displays" avoid those unutterably tacky "manger scenes" or menorah's the size of factory smokestacks, I say we might as well leave Christmas alone - there'd be no stopping the commercial holiday, anyway.

Here are the big questions:

It shouldn't be considered in shaping public policy UNLESS the policy being created infringes upon the rights of the religion in question. At that point, I would say that it should be considered, but not necessarily acted upon. Government should remain secular.



I agree with Wertz. Basic morals don't need a religion to represent them.



No, absolutely not. Children who want to pray on their own...all power to them, but prayers should not be lead in schools.



No, but I don't see a problem with allowing children to celebrate their own traditions in a classroom environment in some form or another. It affords kids the opportunity to teach and learn about each other. Knowledge is not a bad thing, and as long as all children feel properly included, it can be a very positive experience.



The only holiday that I've noticed cities decorating for is, like Wertz said, the end of the year holidays. Most of these decorations are pretty subtle, in my opinion, and they just add to the sense of festivity. I really don't see that as a problem, because they don't really alienate anyone. Most decorations that are out during the holiday season belong to private entities anyhow.

religion is full of contradictions, superstitions and fear-mongering about a god that tell his slaves to worship him or face eternal damnation.

ALL religions, freedom-man? Thanks for the blanket but it's starting to get warm here again

i did not say all religions i say religion

Which one? Or do mean following any religion? I guess I'm more confused now than before I asked

You state "from people of religion;" however, I don't participate in organized religion. I'd still like to participate on the thread if your intention wasn't to exclude those that aren't "attempting to manipulate or control every aspect of our society" because I don't.



It should only be considered in the context of keeping it out of shaping public policy.  Realistically, it actually is part of shaping our public policy by the very definition of excluding it from public policy.  The separation of church and state is public policy.  Just as no against religious affiliation is public policy. 



Since I stated that religion shouldn't be considered when it comes to shaping public policy, I have a problem answering this question.  However, I'll answer it in the spirit you posed it by speculating a "what if" scenario. 

In a democratic society, it can only be approached by a vote; therefore, it would be the religion of the majority.  However, I have a problem with the concept of an actual "religion" being chosen to set morals.  Laws should be formed based on logic, not religion.  The logic of the government setting the laws.  For instance, the US is a democratic government with a Constitution and Bill of Rights that outlines the essence of our government's aim.  Granted, our forefathers were Christian but they laid the groundwork for all people to freely practice their religions.  Gee, now I see how complicated this is -- because if their religion falls outside of the law............hmmmmmmmmm............and then consider that there are some religions that actually have "laws" that are considered immoral by our standards (e.g., the consequences).  Well, I guess that takes me back to the religion of the majority since it's a democratic society....LOL  However, it's not so funny when you consider another government that has a majority practicing a religion with laws that are considered to violate human rights. 

I fully agree that basic morals don't need religion to outline laws -- in the United States, at least. 



No.  Children in publicly funded schools should not be lead in prayers of any religion -- majority or minority.  Separation of Church and State -- a public school is the State!



I agree with Cyan in spirit.  My son enjoys learning about other religions.  I've raised him to understand many religions and expose him to many beliefs.  It's my way of teaching my son about beliefs without participating in organized religion. 

However, then the State is promoting Church in State.  Maybe the answer is that the State should have a class that teaches all types of religions, including ashiest -- just like I feel the Catholic schools should include Evolution in their teachings.  Unfortunately, very few people would tolerate the government approaching it this way. 

I'm sure most children of non-religious or non-christian backgrounds actually enjoy participating -- just as my son enjoys the Jewish holidays of his friends.  It's the parents of the non-religious or non-christian backgrounds that have a problem with their children being exposed to Christian traditions. 

Since there is no easy way out of this, Christian holidays shouldn't be celebrated at public schools. 



I visited Washington DC this holiday season and there were displays other than Christian. I know for certain there was a Jewish display -- I'm not sure if there were any additional religious represented though. though

I guess I feel that your question should be "Should tax money be used to promote 'any religion" by way of religious displays........."

The answer is No regarding actual tax dollars being used, however, I'd like to address if any religious displays should be present regardless of funding.

I'd like to say yes, because it represents many of our counties beliefs and I enjoy the festive feel of the end of year holiday seasons; however, then what do you do with religions that believe in Space Ships?

Obviously, it would be best to limit the displays to the top religions of the population. I feel sad when they want to take away the beauty of the season by not permitting a festive atmosphere in cities; however, I'm going to have to answer no, it shouldn't be tax dollars. Maybe they can allow committees and permit the religions to set up their own displays.

Someone could argue that atheists aren't being considered; however, is it any different than every other religion having to view displays of a different religion? No. I don't know the percentages but maybe atheists represent a small percentage of the population and wouldn't qualify as one of the top majority "religions."

(Jaime - I'm even more confused too!)

US Religious Statistics/Information-PBS

Actually, the percentage of non-religious Americans is larger than most any other minority group in this country. (13.2% according to the above source) The number is rising rapidly, as well... The number increasing an astounding 110% between 1990 and 2000... Religions other than Christianity are also growing at an incredible rate.

My problem has little to do with seeing the displays... It has to do with my tax dollars being squandered on them. I'm not just talking about buying them directly either... I'm talking about their maintenance, and even the costs of 'lighting things up' on the public dime for the purpose of religious ceremony. I know it comes across as 'grinchy', but do it on your church's, or your own property, and pay for it yourselves. Nearly 15% of the population in this country is NOT Christian, and we shouldn't have to pay for it.

Thanks for the statistics! I wasn't sure about the percentage of atheists and readily admitted it in my post. Also, my remarks supporting displays were not limited to Christian displays so the additional non-christian statistics really don't apply to my specific comments.

Would you be opposed to it if the various religions paid for the maintenance, electrical and any other costs involved and you could be assured that not one penny of taxpayers dollars are spent?

Do you have a problem with seasonal lighting to celebrate the New Year -- the white lights twinkling everywhere?

Its funny that atheists/agnostics outnumber muslims and jews combined in the states and yet have no representation in congress....hehe

We are more politically disenfranchised than african americans.

I think the only way to allow people to follow their own religion is if it's kept completely separate from Government. Tax dollars used to fund any church sponsored activities is the beginning of the end.

I don't understand why religion would even want to align itself with Government except for greed or power.

the basic morals of most religions is the same (don't kill others, don't take what doesn't belong to you, etc....) and all teach the basic principle of do onto others as you wish to have others do onto you (also known as karma)

the main question I want to answer is prayer in school so here it is:
I think that prayer should not be led by administrators of a school. however, if a group of Christians wants to get together somewhere at the beginning of the day, they should be allowed to. or perhaps we could have a moment of silence at the beginning of each day, and if you wish to pray silently in that time fine, if not just sit silent for a minute or two.

I have no problem with people publicly worshipping. but do have a problem with people trying to force their religious beliefs onto me. such as telling me I can't pray, or whatever. (atheism is technically a religious belief, as you believe in no god) atheist say Christians push their religion onto other but then turn around and say you can't be religious publicly cause it offends them to here the word god. this is forcing their beliefs onto others, and in our society it is wrong.

as to wether children should be forced to participate in religious festivities: I don't think children should be forced to do anything. again atheist think that because they don't believe in god, and don't worship a god, no one else should either, cause they might be offended. Christmas, for example, celebrates the birth of Christ, and people shouldn't be offended at others celebrating it. now to Christians, he was the son of god, to Muslims a prophet, and to others (like myself) a spiritual teacher. should we celebrate his birth at schools and such? yes, but they should explain the many different views of who he was. rather then just the Christian dogmatic one. and saying children shouldn't be allowed to put on a play about it is wrong. it is really just innocent fun for the kids. it is the parents that make all the fuss (I don't believe in god, so my child doesn't and shouldn't be allowed to participate in this, and neither should yours. or whatever.)

as regarding tax money to religious displays and such: no, none of the money they steal from me should benefit any religious group. this includes vouchers for private schools. I think that using taxes to pay anything religious amounts to state sponsorship and it tends to favor one religious group over another. (my taxes pay for a manger scene but won't pay for a Islamic scene of some sort) state sponsorship will sponsor the religion of the majority of the members of the state, because it is the right religion and others are wrong, so supporting them would be supporting the wrong religion.

Atheism comes in several flavors, as does agnosticism. Assertive and Passive. Its more than semantics and reflects subtle differences in philosophy.

Strong atheism: There is/are no god/gods
Passive atheism: I have no faith in the existence of gods

Strong agnosticism: I dont know and we CANT know.
Passive agnosticism: I dont know

So you can never be sure if a non-believer is really asserting anything about the absolute reality of god/??? unless you ask him.

1. How much should religion be considered when it comes to shaping public policy?

Individuals officials might consider their religion while formulating public policy. It seems natural to do so. The product public policy should not indicate any sort of religious influence. Example of places we currently have religion in public policy are "In God We Trust" on currency and our not-for-profit policies.

2. Whose religion should be considered the "norm" as applies to choosing a set of morals by which to shape that policy?

This question makes me think of George Bush in his speech evoking his God as giving a stamp of approval on his plans. Is he declaring his God to be the norm? It bothers me. It is not necessary.

3. Should children in publicly funded schools be lead in prayers of the religion of the majority?

We have a constitution with a prime goal of establishing that minorities all have civil rights. This is so the majority can not get out of hand. We should vigorously protect civil rights.

A counselor at the High School would meet with some students before school to say some prayers. All students were there voluntarily. It made me uncomfortable but I did not oppose it outright. I worried about an implied support of a religion by the school as the counselor still is representing the school as it is on school grounds in a high traffic area just before school is to open. I did ask the counselor be told she can not lead the prayers but she can be present. It would be better if school staff was not involved and I would vote differently is I ever am in that position again.

4. Should children of non-religious, or non-christian backgrounds in schools be forced to participate in Christian holiday traditions?

We have Christmas concerts every year in the school system at all levels. The music is a mixture of Christian songs and secular songs. The music is great but the words can ring hollow for the religious songs from an atheist perspective(atheism is technically not a religious belief as you have no beliefs. a = no and theism = belief Atheism is the absence of a belief system.). I do not mind the use of some religious songs but a predominance of them is inappropriate. We ride the line in our school district but it is unlikely we will change as the majority are and they do not mind putting their religion out front some.

Are these concerts forcing kids to participate? Any student can refuse to sing a religious song or participate in the concerts. I guess coercion could still be charged(peer pressure, etc.). But, exposure to music from different religions is not a bad thing and can be educational. It is the preponderance of such music which would step over the line. How is that for a gray area?

5. Should tax money be used to promote Christianity by way of religious displays and activities in towns/cities, and such?

Never in any circumstances. It is not necessary. Celebrating Christmas or any holiday can be secular. Celebrating a holiday is not automatically a religious activity.

I see no reason for religion to have anything to do with government.

Disenfranchised? I'm so confused by this. Our government is based on voting for our represenatives. If someone truly wants Muslim or Atheist representatives than they should rally the support of the respective religious (or non-religious) communities to vote!

It's not our government's responsibility to see to it that beliefs are represented. It's the people who vote. If someone is a minority, then they just have to deal with it in our current system. Is there another system you would prefer?

Why do some people that come to the United States wanting religious freedom then want to change the government to include their beliefs?

As this thread has continued, I've decided that there should be absolute separation of church and state. Leave decorations on private grounds and not public grounds.

I see no problem with the New Year being celebrated as our most festive season; therefore, lighting up the cities with lights for the New Year shouldn't be an issue with anyone. Unless of course, someone is against the coming of a New Year. Sorry, we can't control the calendar.

By the way, no one mentioned that the holiday season is a very large part of our enconomy. The decorating of the country helps promote the enconomy. It helps people feel festive and go to the stores and buy, buy, buy. I think decorating for the New Year would also have the same result and I cant' see any reason someone would have a problem with the New Year being our festive holiday promoted by the government.

Small communities that can get votes beyond their own interest group may have a chance at getting some representation but atheists/agnostics cannot at this point in american history. For a major public figure to come forward openly as an atheist or agnostic and try to win an election in america would simply be laughable. This would be failing an important litmus test of the vast majority of americans.

Unlike racial minorities or gay communties, non-believers dont usually migrate to be near one another. Its unlikely they will have any political power until their numbers grow (which they slowly have) and the middle american association of atheism with communism begins to fade.

Im not complaining, just pointing out a fact of american life. Professed absence of faith is as much political suicide as being a gay candidate in 1959. Thomas Jefferson himself couldnt be elected today seeing as he didnt believe in the divinity of jesus (with no jewish heritage to excuse him).

--though i think jesse ventura might be a non believer...there are always exceptions i suppose.

Not to get off topic but I liked Jesse - mostly because his election to govenor proved that an average American can be elected in today's world and you don't have to be a career politician to represent the voice of your people.

Back on topic, I totally understand the issues you've presented for Atheist representation. I guess even though I, myself, am not sure about God, but I have a tollerance for other peoples beliefs, it's hard for me to understand why Atheists are upset by viewing displays of other religions when other religions are exposed to viewing each others.

Do I make any sense? I'm trying to explain that I see Atheists as a group that is exposed equally to the same problems each religious affiliation is exposed to regarding religious issues.

I'm all for the "moment of silent meditation" during the morning excercises. As far as religious groups conducting religious meetings on public property, I have a problem with this. (Unless they pay a fee for its use, as any other outside organization would have to do.) If the kids of a particular religion feel the need to hold prayer meetings, I might suggest that their church would be an ideal place to do that.

I have no problem with the discussion of Jesus of Nazereth 'the historical figure' in the classroom. He did exist, after all. I do have a problem with the plays you refer to though, because they're dogmatic... In essence a religious display on the public dime. I'd suggest that church groups should get together and organize such an activity, so that the kids are not deprived of their fun. I don't want to steal Christmas, I just want to give it to parents and religious organizations. It is their ceremony... They should pay for all of it. School is the place for education, not religious training.


Again I'll say, it is not seeing a display that bothers me, its the fact that it is on public property, and it does not belong there. If people want to have a religious display they can set it up themselves. They don't need the town/city to take care of that for them. There are plenty of religious shop-keepers, and business owners who I'm sure would be happy to help create a festive mood about town. Again, I'm not trying to steal Christmas, just trying to give it back to those it belongs to.

Christians are understandably upset that their monopoly over western culture is being eroded. They want all social norms patterned on their bible and all references to a possible supreme being or beings cast as the singular, male "GOD" of the bible. Christian lobbyists spend millions to this end. Not to mention all the nutty creationist stuff on the fringe of christianity and the money and time they spend trying to alter the science standards. I think non believers are rightly suspicious of their motives as it seems pretty obvious which group is more brazenly attempting to present their agenda. Restore their agenda more like.

I dont even mind the pledge of allegience mentioning some kind of divinity, but to say 'god' rather than 'divine will' or 'divine authority' and pretend you are referring to the traditions of all faiths is silly. Its another 'wink-wink' promotion of the majority religions (monotheism from the middle east). Government shouldnt promote one faith tradition over another.

When I was in 8th grade, someone in our school district died. We lived in a large school district so I have no idea who it was that died.

Over the loudspeaker in homeroom, everyone was asked to stand for silent prayer. Not "a moment of silence" but "silent prayer." I remained quietly in my seat. When my homeroom teacher noticed that I was sitting down, she said for me to stand up. I politely told her that I didn't have to stand for silent prayer. (I didn't even indicate that I didn't want to pray, if you notice in my wording.) She came across the room and physically hit me.

Nothing ever resulted from this because I never told my mother. My mother probably would have been humiliated to find out that I didn't want to pray. Then again, she also was a women ahead of her times and she might have been very angry with the school district for what happened. I'll never know.

I strongly oppose children being forced to participate in a religious activity that they do not want to partake. I fully support teaching all religion from a historical standpoint -- I think it would benefit society if everyone learned about each other. I don't think that parents are equipped to teach their children about other religions or atheists.

There should be a way to teach everyone the basics about beliefs without a slant. I certainly would have appreciated knowing much earlier in life that Atheists weren't evil. It took maturing and some logical thinking for me to realize that they are just like everyone else.

Not one person has answered my question -- Would you be opposed to festive lights throughout the city to celebrate the New Year?

Would you be opposed to it if the various religions paid for the maintenance, electrical and any other costs involved and you could be assured that not one penny of taxpayers dollars are spent?

Do you have a problem with seasonal lighting to celebrate the New Year -- the white lights twinkling everywhere?

Not at all. I would love it.