Poll: Forcing a Religion – Part II

[Fnord]

Here it is; the long awaited second part to the "Forcing A Religion" poll. The twenty statements are of a more forceful sort then the ones in the previous poll, and were inspired by the previous poll's respondants.

Sorry, no "Planet X" responses. If you absolutely must use one, please refer to the previous poll in this series.

Thank you.

PLEASE NOTE: The statement "Petitioning the government to abolish, enact, AND enforce "Blue Laws" that close commercial establishments 1 day out of 7." Should read:

"Petitioning the government to abolish, enact, OR enforce "Blue Laws" that close commercial establishments 1 day out of 7."

I apologize for any confusion this may cause.

[ImaginalDisc]

Your poll appears to try to draw some sort of similarity between science and secular practice to religious busy-bodiness and blue laws. I don't see any comparison between distributing religious material in a public school and distributing "secular" material in a parochial school. Presumably, there are copies of the Constitution and books on American History in parochial schools, and those are secular documents.

I think you're (deliberately) confusing "secular" with "anti-theist."

[Madalch]

" Petitioning the government to have the Theory of Creationism added to or removed from a public school curriculum."

Adding Creationism to the public school curriculum is forcing ones religious views on others. Removing it is not, since those of a religious bent may learn about it in a more appropriate place.

Your poll seems to be rather skewed by your assumption that "Sauce for the religious is sauce for the secular". Abolishing a law that forces people to go to church is not forcing religious beliefs on anyone, but enacting the law is, yet your poll options lump abolishing in with enacting, and "adding" lumped in with "removing".

You've asked if "distributing secular writings in a parochial school" is a way of forcing ones secular beliefs on people. But is there a school outside of the middle east so religious that no secular materials are allowed? Even the most religious school in North America, I would assume, would have books other than the Bible, such as a dictionary or a world map.

Smeg! Ninja'd by ImaginalDisc!

[That_guy]

You forgot "none of the above." The only way to truly "force" a religion on someone is to say "listen to/follow this guidance because my religion tells you to, or X will happen." (Where X is some consequence which can actually occur.)

[Hokulele]

Hmm, I seem to be missing the references to institutionalized bigotry and sexism.

[Mister Agenda]

I think you would have gotten more informative results if most of the questions weren't constructed such that to agree with them you have to be both for and against something. Oh, sorry, it isn't an actual poll, just a heavy-handed attempt to get us to think about whether there is an equivalence between requiring secularism and requiring religion. The answer is no: secularism is religion neutral in the only way possible: avoiding it altogether. How about YOU think for a minute: substitute 'atheist' for 'secular' in the poll and learn that we don't think atheism should be forced down anyone's throat, either.

[Ladewig]

Thanks for V.2.

[Mister Agenda]

PS: I was so wary of answering your trick questions incorrectly that I didn't select the first four options, which I now see are straightforward enough to agree with. Not a good excuse though, I should have remembered to go back to the top once I read through.

[Irony]

I would love to vote in your poll, but the existence of such obvious trick questions prevents me from doing so.

example:

Re-writing textbooks to add or remove religious or secular references.

So, if I say yes then I am stating that it is forcing your religion on someone for trying to remove an arithmetic mistake in a math textbook or add a little more information on Wallace when discussing the origins of the Theory of Evolution. If I say no then I am saying it's not forcing your religion on someone to try to get schools to remove the Theory of Evolution entirely and replace it with the Hebrew Creation myth.

Could you please try to make a less biased poll, again.

[Dunstan]

On Planet X, polls this poorly written are illegal

[Silentknight]

After reading the poll options, I can't say that I'm disappointed. That's because when I saw this second poll topic, it occurred to me that it would miss the mark as well. I can only imagine what kind of inference this topic is trying to make. Either that secular and religious practices are mirror image equivalents, or that it's impossible to force a religion on anyone because religion is presumed harmless.

[juniper_ann]

Quote:

Petitioning the government to abolish, enact, and enforce "Blue Laws" that close commercial establishments 1 day out of 7.

These are not equivalent (just to choose one of many).

If Jane petitioned the government to ban car sales on Sunday and Joe petitioned the government to force all car lots to be open on Sunday, then that would be equivalent. But if Jane petitions the government to ban car sales on her holy day of choice, and Joe petitions the government not to make religious-based car sale pronouncements, that is not equivalent.

For instance, Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A are both closed on Sundays. They are privately owned institutions that close voluntarily. I do not now, nor would I ever petition the government to change this, as much as it may put a cramp on my nefarious Sunday morning embroidery thread runs, because I have no right to force my religious non-beliefs on anyone else.

Do you honestly think that petitioning to abolish blue laws is equivalent to petitioning to enact blue laws?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Hmm, I seem to be missing the references to institutionalized bigotry and sexism.

Hok:

What does that have to do with forcing religion on anyone?

Are you sure you are in the correct thread?

DR

[godless dave]

Some of your poll options don't make sense. For example:

Quote:

Petitioning the government to have the Theory of Creationism added to or removed from a public school curriculum.

Petitioning the government to add the "Theory" of Creationism to public school curriculum would be forcing one's religion on people. Petitioning the government to remove it would not.

[Ladewig]

Like others, I am of the opinion that this poll is poorly written.

For instance "Distributing religious writings in a public school."
If students who are members of a Christian club stand outside the cafeteria and offer religious materials to those who walk by, I do not think that they are forcing their religion on others and they are most certainly not running afoul of the first amendment. The example I gave in the other thread invloved teachers passing out Bibles donated by a Christian group. I consider that action to be both forcing one's religions on others and a violation of the first amendment.

Similarly "Distributing secular writings in a parochial school " could be something as innocuous as passing out fliers publicizing a police chief's plans to give a lecture about what students can do to protect themselves from crime.

Secular ≠ atheist.

Also, secular ≠ war against Christians

[Fnord]

The first poll showed me that there are a lot of people who feel threatened in some way by what others might find merely annoying.

This second poll has already shown me that there are also people who will not be happy unless a poll is skewed in favor of (or reinforces) their already-held beliefs.

Originally Posted by That_guy

You forgot "none of the above." The only way to truly "force" a religion on someone is to say "listen to/follow this guidance because my religion tells you to, or X will happen." (Where X is some consequence which can actually occur.)

What a concept! A religion (or any other idea) can not be forced upon another without resorting to threats or violence. Now where have I read something like this before? Wikipedia, perhaps?

"Argumentum Ad Baculum (Latin: argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick), also known as appeal to force, is an argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification for a conclusion. It is a specific case of the negative form of an argument to the consequences."

What sane, educated, intelligent person would fall for such a ploy, especially when it is used to convert people to accept a new religion?

Mini-poll: Which of these does not represent an Appeal to Force?

a) "Believe as I do, or I will tear out your tongue!"
b) "Stupid fundie! I didn't hit you THAT hard! Now shut up about Jesus, or you'll get a REAL beating!"
c) "If you don't believe, then you'll go straight to Hell!"
d) "Merry Christmas!"

The second poll has been called skewed, poorly written, missing the mark, non-sensical, and with trick questions. One person even called it "a heavy-handed attempt to get us to think about whether there is an equivalence between requiring secularism and requiring religion."

Okay, then let's see if all of you come together and construct a 20-statement poll that is free from assumptions, presumptions, hidden agendae, prejudice, double meanings, implications, fallacies, insults, innuendos, and suppositions; and that also does not make any who take it have to think.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Thanks for V.2.

You're very much welcome. Let's see what the rest come up with for v3.0.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

What is the point of having the government add Creationism it schooling and having them remove it be the same option?

The government teaching Creationism would be enforcement of religion, stopping them from doing it would promote freedom of religion.

The poll is just silly.

[PixyMisa]

"Posting egregiously dishonest polls on web forums" still doesn't seem to be an option.

[JenseitsDavon]

Many of the options of this poll contain both a secular and a nonsecular theme within the same option, which seems to me to be a silly way to look at things. But let's put that aside for a moment:

Let's assume there, for whatever reason, aren't any atheists/agnostics/nonreligious people of any stripe. What sort of laws would be the most prudent to enact? Shall we let the Christians dictate to the Buddhists that they must attend church on Sundays? Should the Buddhists be allowed to enact legislation declaring everyone must be vegetarians? Would we allow the Scientologists to add a tax that goes directly to their church? What about the Hindus? Will they be making laws that require the teachings of Brahma and Vishnu to be taught in schools? Not to mention all the disagreements within all these faiths.

It seems to me that the only way to make a multifaith society (buzzword!) work is to make everybody equally unhappy - or, to put it another way, to compromise. You don't tell Jim when to go to church and he doesn't tell you not to eat meat. Now, let's put the nonreligious back into the picture. Should the picture change because suddenly, someone is happy with the result? Of course not. As long as we aren't interfering with your right to enjoy your faith as you will (provided you aren't harming anyone else's right to same), then no religion has grounds to object.

And for Ed's sake, please stop conflating secular, nonreligious, and antireligious!

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Fnord

What a concept! A religion (or any other idea) can not be forced upon another without resorting to threats or violence. Now where have I read something like this before? Wikipedia, perhaps?

So if a biology teacher in a high school in your neighborhood started class by saying "today we will study mammals. Research has shown that higher level mammals have self awareness, therefore harming mammals in any way, including killing them for food, is unspiritual and will take us away from right conduct. Right conduct, of course, is one part of the eightfold path to Nirvana," then you would not describe that as forcing one's religion on the children in that class because there were no threats or violence.

If a school principal made sure that every student was issued a copy of the Bhagavad Gita, then there would be no forcing of religion.

Is that your position?

[ImaginalDisc]

Originally Posted by Fnord

Okay, then let's see if all of you come together and construct a 20-statement poll that is free from assumptions, presumptions, hidden agendae, prejudice, double meanings, implications, fallacies, insults, innuendos, and suppositions; and that also does not make any who take it have to think.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

I accept your challenge, suh!

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Fnord

Okay, then let's see if all of you come together and construct a 20-statement poll that is free from assumptions, presumptions, hidden agendae, prejudice, double meanings, implications, fallacies, insults, innuendos, and suppositions; and that also does not make any who take it have to think.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

If it is any consolation, I believe that you could have constructed a pretty good v3.0 if you were to split out the religious and the secular into separate items.

[That_guy]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

So if a biology teacher in a high school in your neighborhood started class by saying "today we will study mammals. Research has shown that higher level mammals have self awareness, therefore harming mammals in any way, including killing them for food, is unspiritual and will take us away from right conduct. Right conduct, of course, is one part of the eightfold path to Nirvana," then you would not describe that as forcing one's religion on the children in that class because there were no threats or violence.

If a school principal made sure that every student was issued a copy of the Bhagavad Gita, then there would be no forcing of religion.

Is that your position?

Technically, that's simply interjecting opinion where it doesn't belong. Neither that statement on its own, nor giving everyone a free copy of the Bagavad Gita is forcing religion on anyone. This is, of course, a semantic nitpick with the initial premise (which s/he seems to have attempted to turn around on me, missing the entire point.)

Edited to add: The teacher would of course be fired, in this case.

[ImaginalDisc]

Polls at dawn.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by That_guy

Technically, that's simply interjecting opinion where it doesn't belong. Neither that statement on its own, nor giving everyone a free copy of the Bagavad Gita is forcing religion on anyone. This is, of course, a semantic nitpick with the initial premise (which s/he seems to have attempted to turn around on me, missing the entire point.)

Edited to add: The teacher would of course be fired, in this case.

A store could display the Ten Commandments and customers would be free to patronize the store or leave the store. But if a judge in a courtroom displays the Ten Commandments, jurors are not free to choose a different courtroom. This lack of choice is tantamount to forcing religious teachings on them. As they serve they civic duty, they have the right to not have one particular religion foisted on them. Similarly, school children are not allowed to leave a classroom where a teacher is inappropriately offering religious instruction. Children are not allowed to leave the building if the principal is offering a Christian prayer over the school's public address system.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

Polls at dawn.

I think Fnord's v2.0 is better than yours. I think this topic is serious enough to warrant a reasonable poll instead of one filled with jokes.

[Irony]

Originally Posted by Fnord

The first poll showed me that there are a lot of people who feel threatened in some way by what others might find merely annoying.

This second poll has already shown me that there are also people who will not be happy unless a poll is skewed in favor of (or reinforces) their already-held beliefs.

Your first poll showed me that you are prejudiced against the non-religious to the point where you block any actual discrimination against them from your mind and construct ridiculous caricatures of them that are no less offensive than a depiction of a black man in a Klan newsletter.

Your second poll showed me that you are so afraid of loosing those caricatures and being forced to think of these people as actual human beings that you are completely unable to construct a poll that might actually contradict those caricatures and will instead resort to constructing dishonest questions designed to have multiple interpretations so that you can continue to think of us as inhuman monsters regardless of how we vote.

[That_guy]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

A store could display the Ten Commandments and customers would be free to patronize the store or leave the store.

Agreed

Quote:

But if a judge in a courtroom displays the Ten Commandments, jurors are not free to choose a different courtroom. This lack of choice is tantamount to forcing religious teachings on them. As they serve they civic duty, they have the right to not have one particular religion foisted on them.

Also agreed.

Quote:

Similarly, school children are not allowed to leave a classroom where a teacher is inappropriately offering religious instruction. Children are not allowed to leave the building if the principal is offering a Christian prayer over the school's public address system.

Not so agreed. Children have the same rights as adults in this regard, but it's up to their parents to teach them this. If a child's beliefs, or lack thereof, are being infringed upon in a manner not related to education, they have every right to get up and walk away. Also, in this situation, the teacher/principal should be fired.

[Irony]

Originally Posted by That_guy

Not so agreed. Children have the same rights as adults in this regard, but it's up to their parents to teach them this. If a child's beliefs, or lack thereof, are being infringed upon in a manner not related to education, they have every right to get up and walk away. Also, in this situation, the teacher/principal should be fired.

Point of fact, they don't. The parents have the option of home-schooling the child, but this is not the child's choice, and for most families is not even a realistic option. Up until age 16 a child can be forced to attend school no matter how much he/she protests.

[juniper_ann]

Originally Posted by Fnord

What a concept! A religion (or any other idea) can not be forced upon another without resorting to threats or violence.

Laws are based on force. Blue laws are based on force. Truancy laws are based on force.

[Madalch]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I think Fnord's v2.0 is better than yours. I think this topic is serious enough to warrant a reasonable poll instead of one filled with jokes.

Both of Fnord's polls were jokes.

[That_guy]

Originally Posted by Irony

Point of fact, they don't. The parents have the option of home-schooling the child, but this is not the child's choice, and for most families is not even a realistic option. Up until age 16 a child can be forced to attend school no matter how much he/she protests.

Point of fact, they do. Children are forced to attend school, but when the school does something wrong, the child is within their rights to express their dissent. If a teacher beats a child, do you think the child has no right to get up and walk away? The same right applies to mental/emotional abuse. Obviously, the child needs to explain the cause for dissent, at which time appropriate action should be taken.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Hok:

What does that have to do with forcing religion on anyone?

Are you sure you are in the correct thread?

DR

I teach and consult on various computer programs free-lance for a living. There are certain countries where I am not allowed to teach classes if there will be adult men among my students. In a couple of these countries, it is due to cultural (non-religious) issues, in a few others, it is due to religious issues. To be fair, none of these are Christian countries (by that I mean countries in which the population is predominantly Christian), but I find a restriction on how I can earn a living as being forced into a culture or religion. This is one of the main reasons I live where I do, as Hawai'i has a very tolerant stance towards anyone's religion or lack thereof.

[Irony]

Originally Posted by That_guy

Point of fact, they do. Children are forced to attend school, but when the school does something wrong, the child is within their rights to express their dissent. If a teacher beats a child, do you think the child has no right to get up and walk away? The same right applies to mental/emotional abuse. Obviously, the child needs to explain the cause for dissent, at which time appropriate action should be taken.

Physical abuse is a poor metaphor for this, but I'll run with it anyway. If a teacher beats a child, is it less abusive because the child has the ability to attempt to escape? If the law stated that the child had to go back to the teacher and continue to receive beatings, would you also contend that it was not a violation of that child's rights because he could still escape after only being beaten up a little bit? Would the fact that the child would face disciplinary action for attempting to escape also not be a violation of his/her rights?

The fact that a school might punish teachers for abusing their students does not make the abuse less of a violation of those students' rights.

[That_guy]

Originally Posted by Irony

Physical abuse is a poor metaphor for this, but I'll run with it anyway. If a teacher beats a child, is it less abusive because the child has the ability to attempt to escape? If the law stated that the child had to go back to the teacher and continue to receive beatings, would you also contend that it was not a violation of that child's rights because he could still escape after only being beaten up a little bit? Would the fact that the child would face disciplinary action for attempting to escape also not be a violation of his/her rights?

The fact that a school might punish teachers for abusing their students does not make the abuse less of a violation of those students' rights.

You seem to misunderstand me, so I'll try to clarify. It is illegal for a teacher to beat a child (further clarification: in public schools, in America.) It is also illegal (or at least, against the rules,) for a teacher to teach religion as fact (in public schools, in America.) This is the only equivalence I was trying to show.

Your example (in public schools, in America,) just can't happen anymore, and it wasn't right when it could. If a teacher beats a child, that teacher will lose their job. Same with the teaching of religion as fact.

[JoeEllison]

Another strawman poll from the self-appointed King of the Victims? Wonderful...

[Madalch]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Another strawman poll from the self-appointed King of the Victims? Wonderful...

"King of the Who?"
"The Victims!"
"Who are the victims?"
"We all are! All of us Christians are victims of secularist oppression!"
"Well, I didn't vote for you!"
"You don't vote for kings!"
"Well, how'd you get that, then?"
"The Bully of the Lake, his arms clad in the purest shimmering samite, held me aloft, and hurled me through a plate-glass window, because I was being Christian, and had tried for eleven days running to explain how damned he was. That is why I am your king!"

[ImaginalDisc]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I think Fnord's v2.0 is better than yours. I think this topic is serious enough to warrant a reasonable poll instead of one filled with jokes.

What about my poll is unreasonable or detrimental to the subject matter?

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Fnord

The first poll showed me that there are a lot of people who feel threatened in some way by what others might find merely annoying.

This second poll has already shown me that there are also people who will not be happy unless a poll is skewed in favor of (or reinforces) their already-held beliefs.

So you do it wrong, and it's our fault, somehow? We're skewed because you don't get that you can't have a for/against option in the same sentence in any kind of legitimate, valid poll, regardless of subject?

Quote:

Okay, then let's see if all of you come together and construct a 20-statement poll that is free from assumptions, presumptions, hidden agendae, prejudice, double meanings, implications, fallacies, insults, innuendos, and suppositions; and that also does not make any who take it have to think.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

You have an idea, execute it poorly--twice--and now you expect me to clean up your mess? Why? You are the one who wants a poll, not I.

You are the one who apparently needs to learn a thing or two about making them. Not I.

Here; I can help this much:


I stay out of places like churches, temples, and mosques. I do not want anything to do with religion, and I've only myself to blame if I go anywhere that I may reasonably expect religion or religious observances to be present.

But when I go someplace that I expect to be non-religious, then it is wrong to insert any religiosity into it, and especially of the sort I would feel compelled to at least pretend to go along with--say, at work? Where I might lose my job if I don't go along to get along.

Or in a public school that the law can compel me to attend.

Or even at a sporting event, where the game I paid good money to see is being delayed so a few people can publicly ask the Big Sky Daddy to show who He loves more, by manipulating physics so they can win...even though the other side is asking for the same dispensation from the same Sky Daddy.

No, saying "Merry Christmas" is not a case of forcing religion onto a person.

Neither is saying "Happy Holidays" an attempt to force atheism on anyone.

On that note, however, seeing as how the majority of Americans identify themselves as at least nominally Christian, then I suggest you all get together next Christmas and refuse to do any shopping or decorating. The commercialism will end if you'll stop shopping, and Christmas will almost instantly become a purely religious holiday again. Except, some of you own businesses, which depend on those December sales to make a profit. What a shame...

As for school: you want religion-based instruction for your kids? Send them to a religion-based school. You can't afford the tuition? Ask Sky Daddy for it; surely you want what He wants, right?

When I speak of having religion forced on me, I mean when it intrudes into any context that I can reasonably expect to be non-religious. I mean, come on: what more can I do? I don't want to take your religion away from you, but I don't want to partake, either. The best thing I can do is "stay out of those places." Isn't it? By the same token, why can I not reasonably expect religion to be limited to those places and events designated for it?

Yes, limited. All choices should have limits, don't you think?

Finally, a rehash of an old argument: I know from my own years with religion that the Bible plainly says to "pray in secret" when you are not gathered in fellowship with one another. This is meant to keep you from using your God in public like a fashionable status-symbol. Even your God sets limits for you; so why would anyone fight for the right to disobey his god?

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

What about my poll is unreasonable or detrimental to the subject matter?

"A judicial system which requires witnesses to deface a religious book before giving testimony.

"Harassing people who deny the creative genius of The Mystic Knights of Oingo Boingo's film 'The Forbidden Zone.'"


If you want to argue that your poll is no worse than Fnord's v2.0, then I would consider your position a reasonable one, but to claim that there is nothing unreasonable about the poll is disingenuous.