That's really an improper and incorrect analogy. For one, religion is already regulated. The practice of your faith already has legal limits.
Much like homosexuality has legal limits? And in many countries is grounds for punishment and/or death?
But it shouldn't require that overt a showing. Like I said about the "under God" line in the pledge. It has no place in it.
It was added initially to show a uniformity and affirmation of this country's direction to attempt to do the most good in the world, as well as citing Lincoln's own words addressing this as a sovereign nation "under God". It has been upheld many times as not being a pledge to a religion, but of a ceremonial and patriotic nature. Additionally, it is ILLEGAL to force anyone to recite the pledge against their will, and it is ILLEGAL to punish someone for not doing so.
There is no slippery slope, because the principles that protect us from you also protect you from us. Aqueous Id already laid out the case in Constitutional terms.
Then if you are protected from us, and we are protected from you, what is the discord? Nobody can force you to be religious or partake in religious activity, just as nobody can stop me from doing so if I choose...
Of course, I never said "overly religious," and I don't know why the question is important. What I'm saying is that showings of religious devotion should not be part of the classroom experience, even if they're just words.
In what way? Are you suggesting students not be allowed to pray in class if they wish? Or are you saying that teachers should not be allowed to lead said prayer? If the former, then that would be an oppression of freedom of religious expression. If the latter, fine, but then we need to permit student organizations that do not require a teacher to lead them.
lol, fair enough.
I don't see it, but that's just my view. I think Q has clearly defined his position.
Others have stated the same about Q's statements *shrug*
Yes you are saying I have to ostracize myself. Let's say I'm the only one who doesn't say "Under God" during the pledge (which is a stupid idea in the first place, by the way; a child shouldn't be asked to pledge allegiance to anything, let alone a country) and my classmates notice it. Now I'm humiliated, and treated differently. How is that fair? Why should my religion--or lack thereof--ever come into play in the classroom? It has no place there, period.
Disregarding the notion of whether or not a child should be pledging anything to a country (which is an entirely voluntary action, by the by, as you cannot legally be coerced into reciting the pledge) if students humiliate you or treat you differently for not doing so, then they should be punished.
Then again, as it stands, we can't keep students from bullying other students for such menial differences as weight, height, body build, accent, creed, race, et al...
Except you apparently only think that respect should go one way. You don't for a second consider what effect that could have on someone who is different. You don't much seem to care for their religious freedom; only yours is important. I mean, you don't want to make any concessions; that's all for us to make. We have to shut up while you show your devotion, and suffer the social or perhaps institutional consequences as a result, but you won't even consider the better, more humane option of just not doing it in this setting.
Don't ever think I haven't known what it was like to be different. And again, there should be NO repercussions to NOT participating - that is, after all, the law. You are allowed to abstain/refrain, just as I am allowed to participate in it.
Well, "I'm not perfect" isn't an excuse, but at least you made good with an apology. I hope you understand, however, the hypocrisy of preaching to someone that they should love their neighbor while you also call them a bigot.
Then I shall simply try harder to live by my own creed.
Of course there's a huge difference. But, like you said, there are no ifs, ands, or butts about it.
And if they don't, you'll judge them.
It's impossible not to.
The alternative would be to do nothing and allow them to harm children... surely taking them to task for their harmful actions is far better than the alternative.
I could see that.
Saying a religion is stupid is not a breach of any personal rights. Going up to a person in the street and telling them their religion is stupid is not a violation of anything.
You should use terms like "assault" and "abuse" as their intended, rather than the way you're using them here.
Indeed, telling them they are wrong is not a violation of anything. The problem is, people don't stop there; they try to force them to leave or continue to pester them until they either leave or renounce their belief in order to get some kind of peace. That is harassment. Sometimes people take it even further and threaten them... thus making it into assault... and carry out their threats. That would be both physical and emotional/verbal abuse.
He most certainly did. Hell as a modern concept did not exist until Jesus' teachings.
This is only partially true: Before the New Testament, "hell" or Sheol as it is properly called, is not a place of torture for the unworthy; in fact, it means, quite literally, grave... which is where everyone goes when they die. However, it is also used as an "underworld"...
Sheol in the Old Testament is sometimes identified as the Pit or Hole.
One of the difficulties with understanding the Old Testament nature of Sheol is that it is sometimes identified as the Pit, in the sense of a literal pit or hole dug into the earth, "I cast him down to hell [Sheol] with them that descend into the pit" (Ezekiel 31.16 KJV bible), "Let us swallow them up alive as the grave [Sheol]; and whole, as those that go down into the pit" (Proverbs 1.12 KJV bible), "Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol, To the recesses of the pit" (Isaiah 14.15 NASB bible). These verses refer to Sheol as the Pit or Hole, further associating it with the depths of the earth.
This identification of Sheol as the Pit doesn't define it as a literal pit in the ground. Rather, the Hebrew words for "pit" and "hole" are being used as figurative depictions of Sheol. The usage of the word pit portrays Sheol as a place of darkness and imprisonment, removed from the strength of God, "Unto thee will I cry, O LORD my rock; be not silent to me: lest, if thou be silent to me, I become like them that go down into the pit" (Psalm 28.1 KJV bible), "For my soul is full of troubles: and my life draweth nigh unto the grave [Sheol]. I am counted with them that go down into the pit: I am as a man that hath no strength" (Psalm 88.3-4 KJV bible). Various Hebrew words for pit are often used as representations of the underworld, but this symbolism not define Sheol as a literal hole in the earth.
In many verses, it's clear from the context and usage of the word pit, that something more is being implied than a literal pit in the ground. In Ezekiel, an entire city is prophesied to descend into this pit, "When I shall bring thee (Tyre) down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living" (Ezekiel 26.20 KJV bible). Sheol is being portrayed here as the Pit, meaning an ancient and desolate spiritual wasteland.
The Pit is the underworld; not the land of the living, but the land of the dead. It is a place of ruin that is associated with the depths of the earth, "Son of man, wail for the multitude of Egypt, and cast them down, even her, and the daughters of the famous nations, unto the nether parts of the earth, with them that go down into the pit" (Ezekiel 32.18 KJV bible), "There is Elam and all her multitude round about her grave, all of them slain, fallen by the sword, which are gone down uncircumcised into the nether parts of the earth, which caused their terror in the land of the living; yet have they borne their shame with them that go down to the pit" (Ezekiel 32.24 KJV bible). Is there some kind of giant mass grave in the Middle East where all these armies ended up? No, of course not, because the Pit is being used metaphorically to describe Sheol. Sheol is the realm of the deceased, and the Netherworld that these ancient warriors descended into.
Even in the new testament, though, was also not the originator of "hell". In fact:
The apocryphal books of the intertestimental period had a tremendous impact on the Jews in the time of Christ. It is from these books, especially the book of Enoch, that many of the Jewish myths and fables concerning Hell, heaven, demons and angels and many other fables first became a part of Judaism and from there became a part of Christianity. The myths and fables of these books came from Pagan influences (namely Zoroastrianism), during and after the Babylonian captivity of Israel . In fact, Zoroastrianism looks more like modern Christianity in many ways than ancient Judiasm does!
Additionally:
If Hell is real, why does Psalm 22 (one of the most prophetic passages in scripture concerning the Messiah) promise that because of the cross, " All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD , and all the families of the nations will worship before You. For the kingdom is the LORD'S and He rules over the nations. All the prosperous of the earth will eat and worship , all those who go down to the dust will bow before Him, even he who cannot keep his soul alive " (Psalm 22:27-29 NASB).
If Hell is real, did Jesus fail in His mission? He said, "I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world" (John 12:47).
If Hell is real and most find their way to it, was Jesus lying when He said if He was lifted up (crucified) that He would "draw" ("drag" in the original Greek word, "helkyo") all mankind unto Himself? (John 12:32)
If Hell is real and eternal, how can the Scriptures speak of the gathering of all things into Christ? (Eph. 1:10)
If Hell is real and eternal, how can all things be subdued unto Christ? (1 Corinthians 15:28, Philippians 3:21, Hebrews 2:8).
If Hell is real and eternal, how can it be that the scriptures promise that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord? (Isaiah 45:23, Romans 14:11, Philippians 2:10).
If Hell is real and eternal, how will Jesus ever see the travail of His soul and be satisfied (Isaiah 53:11)? If the traditional understanding is correct, most of those He came to save will never experience His salvation. Do we believe that this would be satisfying to Jesus?
If Hell is real, and God sent Jesus to save people from it, can we really say that the will and pleasure of God has prospered in His hand, since, according to traditional theology, only a few will ever be saved? (Isaiah 53:10, and 55:11).
If Hell is real, and the devil is the one who deceives people into going there, isn't he ultimately the winner in the war for souls? After all, traditional interpretation of the Bible says that more people will end up in Hell than in Heaven. If so, how can we really call Satan the defeated enemy and Christ the victor?
If Hell is real and most of mankind will remain in an eternal deathlike state of torment with no chance to repent or escape, how exactly are we to understand and rejoice in the fact that Jesus destroyed death and him that had the power of death (Satan)? (Hebrews 2:14-15, 1 John 3:8, Hosea 13:14, 1 Corinthians 15:55, 1 Corinthians 15:26 etc.)
If Hell is eternal, how can the increase of Christ's government and of peace have no end? (Isaiah 9:7).
It is, like much of the worst in the bible, human influence on the holy word as people recorded it.
By dying on a cross. Makes sense. Or, wait, what's the opposite of making sense?
Jesus' death on the cross was at the hand of man. The idea it carries is what is important - he took upon himself the sins of man and suffered our punishment so that we may be saved.
Which makes me wonder why anyone pays it any mind today.
Because in the end, the overriding message and point is still relevant... more now than ever since we, as a species, appear to be falling deeper into greed and corruption, both on a social and a government level. If societies morals are so compromised, then for some of us the religious morals are all that seem to be left.
