A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that the state corrections agency can’t force an incarcerated atheist and secular humanist to participate in religiously-affiliated programming to be eligible for parole.
deleted by creator
yeah, it seems what they meant is freedom to be a christian without the pope and absolutely nothing else. no nonbelievers, no non-abrahamics, hell, not even any abrahamic believers who believe in other religions. protestant, mormon, or cringe catholic, take your pick or go to literal hell.
and the best part is when they use the excuse of religious freedom as a shield for their bigotry. like i’m sorry, if your holy book literally calls for gays to be stoned to death that’s a call to violence, it doesn’t deserve to be protected or tolerated.
deleted by creator
Didn’t people make a big deal over jfk running for president because he was Catholic?
I feel like this is inaccurate. What other religions were on hand in the late 1700s? The native religions, of course, but the white guys did not care about that.
Of course there was an emphasis on avoiding dependence on any one organized religion. That was one way of keeping power in the right hands.
And in the 1970s and 1980s, it depends where in the US, but in many places or was and is very common to be Christian. If there is an strong majority, there’s no need to explicitly weaponize because society itself is already pushing your agenda. But that doesn’t mean harm wasn’t caused.
I feel like this is inaccurate.
Your feelings don’t matter.
What other religions were on hand in the late 1700s?
Catholicism, Protestantism, Anglicanism, Congregationalism, Baptists, Presbyterians, Jewish, Muslim, etc. Educate yourself before making monumentally dumb statements.
Of course there was an emphasis on avoiding dependence on any one organized religion. That was one way of keeping power in the right hands.
Patently untrue. Church of England was steamrolling with power and the Holy Roman Empire still existed. Again, just because you are ignorant doesn’t change reality.
And in the 1970s and 1980s, it depends where in the US, but in many places or was and is very common to be Christian.
I don’t recall saying otherwise.
If there is an strong majority, there’s no need to explicitly weaponize because society itself is already pushing your agenda. But that doesn’t mean harm wasn’t caused.
Again, complete bullshit. Most Southern states are currently predominately Christian and they’re screaming at the top of their lungs that they’re the ones being religiously prosecuted.
Could you like, oh I dunno, shut the fuck up when you don’t know what you’re talking about? Kthx.
I hope you get up on the other side of the bed tomorrow. It sounds like you’re going through a rough time in life, but with luck perhaps it’s only a one day phenomenon.
Also, if you want to troll, try to do a better job than that. I got kind of bored reading it.
What a typical religious response. Have your nonsense called out for what it is, so you lash out at people without bothering to respond to the points made.
Thanks for proving me right.
Honestly can someone even provide me with an excerpt from the bible that actively cites the hatred of homosexuals
There is the story of Sodom, two times in Leviticus, the obvious coverup of Johnathan, the reference in Ezekiel (which according to modern prot studies of the bible is a big freaken deal), two times in Paul’s letters, and a derived part of Matthew.
Homosexuality is attacked more times than all of the diet rules combined.
yeah, it seems what they meant is freedom to be a christian without the pope and absolutely nothing else. no nonbelievers, no non-abrahamics, hell, not even any abrahamic believers who believe in other religions. protestant, mormon, or cringe catholic, take your pick or go to literal hell.
If by “they” you’re referring to the folks who wrote the Constitution (many of whom were Deists, not Christians), that’s very much historical revisionism. The religious right certainly thinks that’s what they thought, but it isn’t true.
i did think that but i stand corrected by @Jase@lemmy.world. seems like the founding fathers were actually based (at least on this topic) and it’s just the people who like to speak for them who are corrupting this message.
that said though, there are a lot of calls for religious freedom nowadays that shape up like this: basically, “i should be able to practice my religion and i guess i’ll endure yours because you’re in power, but we’re gonna do something about those unbelievers, right? …right?”
The fact it’s had to go that far is psychotic.
This reminds me of one of my favorites quotes, which is about the 2020 US presidential election, and I’m not even from the USA, but it’s suitable in so much scenarios in life: “It shouldn’t be this close.”
Even as a Christian myself, I agree with you. Separation of Church and State. Politics mixing with religion has been terrible for both.
Politics mixing with religion has been terrible for both.
No it hasn’t. Religions benefit almost immeasurably from infiltrating politics in so many ways, ranging from expemption from all discrimination laws, to having their private schools funded by tax money, to controlling the majority of hospitals in the country, to being allowed to rape and marry children consequence free.
Eh, that’s the church as an institution. I mean religion in the more abstract sense. Political leanings becoming tied to a religious stance has become ridiculous, and has watered down Christianity quite a lot, to the point where even Trump gets to go pray once a year and call himself the Christian vote. It’s also been remarkably divisive, as naturally, a lot of Christians aren’t that, and hot political debates somehow become religious debates.
Tying religion to politics has allowed politics to slowly pull that horse further and further, to the point where “Christianity” now means southern fundamentalism to a lot, maybe even most, people. I think without political influence, we’d be a lot closer today to how Christianity started, and is meant to look.
Not that I disagree with the sentiment that things would be better for all of us if thr GOP hadn’t courted the religious right, but I did want to mention that Christianity in the 1st century looked a lot different than it has in the 20th or now.
The religion has changed dramatically over the years. And it was usually a collection of disparate sects. The new testament canon as we know it wasn’t agreed upon until around 400, and the standardization of mainstream belief, the Nicene Creed, had only been adopted a generation before.
And of course the split during the Reformation in the 1500s changed white a bit. Even decade by decade you see different movements, changed in interpretation (slavery being ok vs not), and such.
We don’t have any of the original biblical sources, and none of them are believed to be writings directly from Jesus or his disciples themselves. What we have is filtered through other parties and further filtered through the canonization processes (OT and NT both).
So it’s a bit tough to really pin down what Christianity was “meant to be”. But I wished it wasn’t what it is in many parts of the US.
Well it is, look at Malaysia for example
Edit. Ok you’re being sarcastic lol
No sarcasm. These are all reality in the US right now. Feel free to fact check.
Lmao I guess that’s the same for us either
Let me try a different argument:
The separation of church and state has forced American denominations to compete in a marketplace for souls/money, and they have become ruthlessly efficient corporatized entities, using marketing and business-process management, and exploiting tax advantages and high switching costs.
Meanwhile, in Europe, you have official state Catholicism or Protestantism-flavors, which are moribund, inspire little passion, and most everyone is either atheist, agnostic, or un-passioned.
The separation of church and state has forced American denominations to compete in a marketplace for souls/money, and they have become ruthlessly efficient corporatized entities, using marketing and business-process management, and exploiting tax advantages and high switching costs.
This is not a product of separation of church and state, but of the atrocious combination of hyper-capitalism and tax exemption for religious organizations.
Yeah it is one of the unexpected results. It is an imperfect analogy but Europe Christianity has become a domesticated animal that knows not to cause trouble. American Christianity is a mean badass sewer rat that not only fends for itself but can’t be killed. I really doubt anyone could have predicted this before it happened.
lmao, so the church and state shouldn’t be separated because the government is inefficient and its inefficiencies should remain to be inflicted upon the church?
that’s… actually kinda based, lol. i do appreciate the objective and the unconventional method to achieve it. however, i think there’s a difference between being a government entity and having control over governance. the latter should never be given to the church, because that’s one hella fast way to surpass all the damage they have managed to do under the american system. for example, while your statements seem accurate for western europe and the nordics (emphasis on “seem”, i don’t live there) but over here in hungary the “christian democratic party” is literally the only party our government is in a coalition with, and they get to pass discriminatory laws basically as fast as they can come up with them. the closest analogy i can give is imagine if all the shit that’s going on in those red states was going on country-wide with no one left to oppose it.
that’s also what europe looked like before the “age of enlightenment”, which is separation of church and state is so important in public consciousness, even if not technically implemented.
still, i do like your idea, and yes, inflicting bureaucracy upon the church would be helpful. maybe it’s not a separation of church and state that we need, but protection of the state from the church’s influence.
Such an interesting statement. I can kind of see what you mean. Would you happen to have more reading material on this topic? It would be very appreciated.
Politics mixing with religion has been terrible for both.
This statement presupposes that religion hasn’t always been inherently political. Religion is nothing if not a tool for control.
Absolutely. It’s hard to conceive of something that has been more damaging to society than Abrahamic religion.
I think the concept of money was the most detrimental, but Abrahamic mythologies are a close second.
Money is just a vehicle for trade, which is essential for any society.
The country was founded of freedom of religion by the fanatics who were too fanatical for England.
No certain colonies were founded by zealots too fanatical for England and the Netherlands, the country was founded by slave owning wealthy people
deleted by creator
The Founders were steeped in the Age of Enlightenment. Modern Americans wouldn’t even recognize it as Christianity. Like The Jefferson Bible
… completed in 1820 by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson’s condensed composition excludes all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels that contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages that portray Jesus as divine.
You could label their morality puritanical but I think cynicism would also equally apply. If you view humans as naturally greedy and selfish, society needs to codify expected behavior to keep it in check.
their morality
Jefferson raped other people’s children and sold his own. Washington was not only a slaver but used his victims’ flesh as a cosmetic. (Washington’s famous “wooden” teeth were actually harvested from enslaved humans)
Secular government is a good idea on it’s own, not because 18th century R. Kelly and Leatherface said so.
deleted by creator
When will this myth die
Nope. This country was founded on the idea that weathly people shouldn’t have to pay their fair share of taxes.
I assume you have detailed statistics go back up this claim.
Don’t conflate a religion with the religious extremists.
All religion is extremist.
Don’t criminalize abortion and I won’t.
One man’s extremist is another man’s hero.
In the “Big Book,” the foundational document of these programs, “Chapter 4: We Agnostics” tells atheists and agnostics that they are “doomed to alcoholic death” unless they “seek Him.” The chapter characterizes non-believers as “handicapped by obstinacy, sensitiveness, and unreasoning prejudice.”
This really jumped out at me. What a horrible thing to say about someone, especially someone looking for help.
“Unreasoning prejudice” ain’t that just the richest projection you’ve ever seen🤣🤣🤣
Alcoholic death? That’s weirdly specific. I barely even drink. If I do, then I do it to get drunk, but not to comatose type of levels.
The Big Book being discussed in this comment is one of the foundations of the Alcoholics Anonymous program. Hence this warning about alcoholism. AA features a higher power as part of recovery.
I was thinking about going to some AA meetings, was massively put off though by all the bible thumping rhetoric. I don’t want anything to do with the majority of religions.
Am I allowed to drink alcohol as long as I believe in God, I’m not quite I understand their random system of belief.
Also, I guess that drugs are okay?
Also, I guess that drugs are okay?
I mean… sort of?
From what I understand, they appeal to a ‘higher power’ as a part of the 12 steps. Also, there is Narcotics Anonymous, Overeaters Anonymous, and others. The 12-step program, as flawed as we may see it, actually helps a lot of people so I’m not knocking it.
I’ve also heard you can be very relaxed with the higher power ‘as you understand it’, providing a way in for agnostic/atheistic members. I don’t have all the info, just what I’ve heard unfortunately.I am just confused by the idea that someone who is not religious is automatically doomed to alcoholism.
The two things are not even on the same continuum, the comment makes no sense.
Great now punish them for trying
As a Christian, I agree with this.
Seriously. Forcing prisoners to participate in a religion is just wrong. Imagine the uproar if it was Islam instead of Christianity.
And yet, I’m being downvoted.
People are stupid.
There will be people browsing the comments who read the article, left feeling angry and powerless. Then you reveal yourself as someone who ascribes to what they see as ‘enemy’, downvoting you is a way to exert some (small) sense of power. Try not to take it personally.
I wish more Christians thought like you.
Yeah, I’m not sure if people thought you agreed with the state…? I guess we generally see “As a Christian, I <insert terrible opinion here>”, so assumptions of that sort are likely, but I’m not sure. I try to do my part to show that we’re not all the Westboro Baptist type, too.
Good point. I do not agree with the state. Nobody should have a religion forced upon them.
As a Latin American, it seems to me that Christian fanaticism is so wide spread in the US it almost feels cartoonish, like the sort of general impression one gets from any cult or fundamentalist religious group. And I’m from Latin America!
It always reminds me of North Korea, or China. No matter what else you do, you must be seen to believe in the right thing or else you are some kind of evil deviant.
What the religion or belief system is actually is is about is almost irrelevant. The important thing is to believe, understanding it is entirely not required and almost frowned upon.
The United States was founded by people who were already upset they couldn’t be as fanatical/evangelical as they wanted.
No, a few North American colonies were founded by people who were already upset they couldn’t be as fanatical/evangelical as they wanted.
The United States was founded mostly by Deists and folks influenced by Enlightenment philosophy, several hundred years later.
So while I’m all for this, think about the person trying to get a parole board to write off on their parole. Even if the person is in the right I can only imagine that it’s still in that person’s best interests to at least act the good christian because the parole board can deny them for any reason with no need to explain.
American society is so fucked.
Yeah, but it sounds like they already crossed that line. Once that happens, may as well stick up for your rights. Regardless of whether they went through the program. The corrupted parole board will already prejudge them as a bad person for not believing in their version of their god.
You also get special privileges if you’re religious in prison, like better food if you’re keeping Kosher or Halal and being let out of your cell to go to religious services. Even if you’re an atheist, I could see why you would pretend.
We have more work to do than I used to think.
Good. I have grown tired of the brainwashed reformed criminal that spends all his time being overly aggressive about religion and downright hateful with it.
I fucking love this guy. Fuck RSAT and fuck the WV DOC. The whole thing is a mess. Prison reform, now!
