Is it time for religion to be in the public square? (1 Viewer)

[bird]

So often we hear and see that religionists want to put “God back in the public square”.

So, is it time for that? And what does that actually mean?

Well, my guess is that the religionists don’t actually want that. What they want is more preferential treatment for what their religion/sect claims. They are certainly entitled to believe whatever religion they want. Iirc, Jefferson said (paraphrasing) it doesn’t matter if my neighbor believes there are twenty gods or no god. It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.

So, what do I think religion in the public square should mean? It should mean open discussion of dogma.

Of course, that is not what the religionists want. In fact, they fear it.

 

[zztop]

A lot of (R) want to break the first amendment?

Also what is perplexing to me, is (R) states pass a bunch of laws, pivot the message as "religious freedom" yet also dismissive to the hypocrisy that those same laws infringe upon the beliefs of some others (not everyone has the same belief system)

So how can they justify 'religious freedom' but also oppressing the beliefs of others at the same time?

 

[bird]

A lot of (R) want to break the first amendment?

Also what is perplexing to me, is (R) states pass a bunch of laws, pivot the message as "religious freedom" yet also dismissive to the hypocrisy that those same laws infringe upon the beliefs of some others (not everyone has the same belief system)

So how can they justify 'religious freedom' but also oppressing the beliefs of others at the same time?

To them religious freedom means religious freedom for themselves only. Other people’s beliefs are meaningless because they are not “true belief”. This also goes back to not wanting to discuss dogma.

 

[Taurus]

A lot of (R) want to break the first amendment?

Also what is perplexing to me, is (R) states pass a bunch of laws, pivot the message as "religious freedom" yet also dismissive to the hypocrisy that those same laws infringe upon the beliefs of some others (not everyone has the same belief system)

So how can they justify 'religious freedom' but also oppressing the beliefs of others at the same time?

The hypocrisy is the point.

 

[Optimus Prime]

To them religious freedom means religious freedom for themselves only. Other people’s beliefs are meaningless because they are not “true belief”. This also goes back to not wanting to discuss dogma.

People who want to discuss their religious beliefs with you never want to hear about
yours

 

[LovesMusic7360]

So often we hear and see that religionists want to put “God back in the public square”.

So, is it time for that? And what does that actually mean?

Well, my guess is that the religionists don’t actually want that. What they want is more preferential treatment for what their religion/sect claims. They are certainly entitled to believe whatever religion they want. Iirc, Jefferson said (paraphrasing) it doesn’t matter if my neighbor believes there are twenty gods or no god. It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.

So, what do I think religion in the public square should mean? It should mean open discussion of dogma.

Of course, that is not what the religionists want. In fact, they fear it.

To answer the question in the title of this thread.

NO.

 

[fooferdoggie]

its in the public square ever see a street preacher? we can see the results in Alabama right now.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

People who want to discuss their religious beliefs with you never want to hear about
yours

I very rarely express my spirituality with a "religious American", aka Christian, because of their responce. Such a descussion usually goes like this:

Some sort of preamble, then:

Them: what is your religion if it isn't Prodestant/Chatholic?

Me: I'm a Buddhist

Them: Oh, yes, it's always good to look around first.

Ha, ha, they just can't comcieve that I won't "come around" to Christianity. They think I must be dabbling. On the one hand it's kind of humourus. On the other hand it expresses their limitations and is insulting. So, I've stopped going there except with other Buddhists.

 

[bird]

To answer the question in the title of this thread.

NO.

OK. What would be wrong with discussion of religious dogma? Right now religionists are using “religious freedom” to ram their particular beliefs down the throats of others. This is not about whose belief structure is “correct” but about why religious belief should not be impacting those who do not believe the way the religionists do.

 

[SystemShock]

Are we talking back in the public square las in a public hanging?

 

[SystemShock]

its in the public square ever see a street preacher? we can see the results in Alabama right now.

I have never been so lucky as to encounter one of them.

 

[fooferdoggie]

I have never been so lucky as to encounter one of them.

I have seen a few. they love to say you're going hell. thats the best way to show how god loves you by scaring you. I think they love to make themselves feel good.

 

[bird]

Are we talking back in the public square las in a public hanging?

We are talking dogma discussion. That which the religionists do not what at all costs.

 

[MT15]

I have never been so lucky as to encounter one of them.

There’s a guy in my town who shows up on a busy street fairly often holding a huge sign saying we are all about to go to hell. Nobody ever talks to him, that I have seen. Obviously disturbed.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

There’s a guy in my town who shows up on a busy street fairly often holding a huge sign saying we are all about to go to hell. Nobody ever talks to him, that I have seen. Obviously disturbed.

We've got a guy who shows up on the edge of a shopping center parking lot at a prominent intersection. I see him once every few weeks.