0 Votes
RE: Wrong place. Wrong Time.
>There is definitely a pretext that "those other" religions are exactly that, something "other people" do.
By and large they are. America is a Christian country, despite scottb’s assertions to the contrary.
From Wiki:
79.8% Christian
1.4% Jewish
0.3% Muslim
0.2% Buddhist
0.1% Hindu
… there ought to be equal face time and legitimacy put into the others. I’d like to also hear a little about how members of that class would be re-incarnated as low caste people or cockroaches under the Hindu system.
Yet we’re supposed to give "equal time" to all religions? In the name of what- diversity? What is the purpose of said diversity? There are 266 times as many Christians as Muslims in America, 399 Christians for each Buddhist, and 798 for every Hindu?
I can certainly see merit in studying these religions as a means to understanding the world, particularly the part of it where people’s religion permits them to fly planes into buildings. That said, I don’t understand what purpose Vnutz would have for giving "equal time" to a practiced by a sliver of the population.
Understanding Christianity, on the other hand, is central to understanding American history. All respect to the handful of Buddhists in the US, Buddhism didn’t have a lot to do with what made this country what it is today.
I know you whining, rabid secularists will put a carat in front of the above quote and quote chapter and verse about how the Constitution protects all religions and guards against the establishment of any particular religion. I agree. However, explain to me how understanding any of the "less than 1% of the population" religions is central to understanding American history, and why every hour spent discussing Christianity should be balanced by an hour of discussing Hinduism.
I read the transcript after MarkMcB’s illuminating post. It’s hard to know the context of the conversation without seeing how they got to the starting point of the transcript, but my observations are thus:
1. The guy gave too much info about his chosen religion.
2. The student set him up.
The NY Times article is a typical liberal hit-job—for example where is the context and quote of the Muslim girl being damned to hell?
Finally, it appears the community has rallied behind the teacher, with the minority of whiny secularists and the ACLU taking a predictable stance.
Thank God — or Allah for you 0.3% — we live in a country where the majority rules.
Brand X is right because more people believe? by VnutZ
I read the transcript after MarkMcB’s illuminating post. It’s hard to know the context of the conversation without seeing how they got to the starting point of the transcript.
I’ll admit, I read the transcript after posting it and I was not impressed, either. The articles alluded to several recordings being made so I can only guess as to why they didn’t provide everything. Perhaps the material is being held as evidence for the lawsuit the kid’s dad was thinking of filing? Maybe the NY Times exaggerated or printed a fallacy? Or maybe the New Jersey Journal didn’t want to go hosting the raw material with that content in it – fear of a lawsuit against them? I’m guessing. But so are you. All we have is what the newspapers have given us.
By and large they are. America is a Christian country …
I was referring to the world, which according to Wikipedia is:
What are you afraid of with regard to giving equal face time to the major beliefs – that your kids might be exposed to Buddhism and like it? Is it offensive that a teacher introduce alternative religions with as much credence as your own?
But seriously – is a major part of your argument that Christianity "is the way to go" simply because of the numbers behind it?
Understanding Christianity, on the other hand, is central to understanding American history. All respect to the handful of Buddhists in the US, Buddhism didn’t have a lot to do with what made this country what it is today.
How so? Just because a dude that did something historical is Christian doesn’t mean Christianity gets the credit for his accomplishment. If he’s the Pope … then sure. But Joe Six-Pack? No.
RE: Wrong place. Wrong Time. by scottb
America is a Christian country, despite scottb’s assertions to the contrary.
And clearly you didn’t read my assertions. America, as a country isn’t really distinguishable from the American government. This government is explicitly formulated to not acknowledge a deity. That means it’s a-theist (though not anti-theist).
America is an atheist country, that happens to have a substantial population of Christians.
Furthermore, as I defend atheism in this forum, every theist seems to eventually insist that I accept their definition of Christianity when considering who counts as a Christian. If one must be "born again", as one poster claims, then that Christian population goes down under 10%. One guy appears to only count Mormons – under that definition, there are about as many Christians as Jews.
You only get that 70%+ number (the ARIS gives it as 76.5%) if you’re willing to accept that anyone who says they’re a Christian actually counts as being a Christian.
Yet we’re supposed to give "equal time" to all religions? In the name of what- diversity? What is the purpose of said diversity? There are 266 times as many Christians as Muslims in America, 399 Christians for each Buddhist, and 798 for every Hindu?
If you lump Christianity into one big pile, you can get those numbers. If you look at Christianity the way it sees itself, then there are a few more Catholics (24.5%) than Baptists (16.3%), and a somewhat larger number (35.7%) if you combine all of the "other" Christian groups (each quite small). And around as many "non-religious" (14.1%) as Baptists. The non-Christian groups make up 3.7%.
If Christianity – in any of its flavors – deserves mention, then so do the many people who disregard religion.
Finally, it appears the community has rallied behind the teacher, with the minority of whiny secularists and the ACLU taking a predictable stance. Thank God — or Allah for you 0.3% — we live in a country where the majority rules.
Predictable, but necessary. The notion that "majority rules" is always relevant is plain stupid. The Constitution isn’t designed to allow it, either. It explicitly prohibits the "tyrrany of the majority" in particular areas, and the Supreme Court’s authority to give the final interpretation of the Constitution on those matters is designed to protect the rights of those who hold minority opinions.