Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIt is not the beliefs of A or B, but the attempt to proselytize, which C to Z find off-putting. If it just stayed at "I'm saved" C to Z would not take umbrage, but "I'm saved" all too often comes across as "You gotta get saved too or you're going to hell".
[b]"If Person A..."
If Person A believes that God exists and Person B believes in the person and work of Jesus Christ
for his or her salvation and eternal life, why are some members of the population from Person C to Person Z
threatened to the point of covert or overt hostility by the beliefs of Person A and/or Person B?[/b]
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThey must be stupid to feel threatened by the absurd beliefs of A and B.
[b]"If Person A..."
If Person A believes that God exists and Person B believes in the person and work of Jesus Christ
for his or her salvation and eternal life, why are some members of the population from Person C to Person Z
threatened to the point of covert or overt hostility by the beliefs of Person A and/or Person B?[/b]
...........
however if A and B try to impose their fairytale values on them ....
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIn reply to item 4 on your list: I have never in my life been accosted "in the real world" by people peddling pamphlets and announcing "There is no God." I have been accosted countless times by the other sort. Yes, I know, they have a constitutional right to freedom of speech; but I have a constitutional right not to have anyone else's dogma foisted off on me, or on my children in the public schools (e.g. Creationism taught as science). If I wanted my children to think like RJH (I use the word "think" hyperbolically here), I'd send them to parochial schools.
OP Footnotes:
1) The "population" in focus literally encompasses both "real world" and "online message board" communities of equal peers;
2) It observes ground rules of civility with a spectrum ranging from 'live and let live' tolerance to polite discourse to lively discussion;
3) All members of this population respect the volitional free will ...[text shortened]... rofile.
Thanks to each of you for your topic interest and thoughtful replies. Kind regards, Bob
This form of covert proselytism not a threat to me personally, but I find it annoying and pervasive enough to deserve a response. I hope this answers your question. No personal acrimony intended.
Originally posted by moonbusI do agree that a school setting is no place for religion. Yes, there should be a "separation of church and state". You want to know about religion, go to church. You want to be educated, go to school. There should be zero overlap.
In reply to item 4 on your list: I have never in my life been accosted "in the real world" by people peddling pamphlets and announcing "There is no God." I have been accosted countless times by the other sort. Yes, I know, they have a constitutional right to freedom of speech; but I have a constitutional right not to have anyone else's dogma foisted off on m ...[text shortened]... enough to deserve a response. I hope this answers your question. No personal acrimony intended.
12 May 15
Originally posted by SuzianneCertainly schools should teach about the various religions that are a part of this world? As part of the cultural upbringing of children?
I do agree that a school setting is no place for religion. Yes, there should be a "separation of church and state". You want to know about religion, go to church. You want to be educated, go to school. There should be zero overlap.
Originally posted by Great King RatWell, sure, that's part of what used to be called "Social Studies" or "Humanities" when I was in school. Learning "about" them in school is fine, as long as no "preference" is shown. Just as learning about races and cultures is fine, as long as there is no "this is the right race" or "this is the right culture". Of course children should learn about the world they live in. This is part of the function of education. But proselytizing is not.
Certainly schools should teach about the various religions that are a part of this world? As part of the cultural upbringing of children?
12 May 15
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyHave you personally experienced covert or overt hostility towards yourself because of your beliefs?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
[b]"If Person A..."
If Person A believes that God exists and Person B believes in the person and work of Jesus Christ
for his or her salvation and eternal life, why are some members of the population from Person C to Person Z
threatened to the point of covert or overt hostility by the beliefs of Person A and/or Person B?"[/b]
12 May 15
Originally posted by SuzianneI just gave Suzi a thumbs up !!!!!!! 😀
Well, sure, that's part of what used to be called "Social Studies" or "Humanities" when I was in school. Learning "about" them in school is fine, as long as no "preference" is shown. Just as learning about races and cultures is fine, as long as there is no "this is the right race" or "this is the right culture". Of course children should learn about the world they live in. This is part of the function of education. But proselytizing is not.
Originally posted by SuzianneI agree with no proselytizing in school, but I also believe that schools should teach the controveries with evolution and the age of the earth. Please give me a thumbs up for that sweet Suzy, pretty please. 😉
Well, sure, that's part of what used to be called "Social Studies" or "Humanities" when I was in school. Learning "about" them in school is fine, as long as no "preference" is shown. Just as learning about races and cultures is fine, as long as there is no "this is the right race" or "this is the right culture". Of course children should learn about the world they live in. This is part of the function of education. But proselytizing is not.
The post that was quoted here has been removedSuzianne clarified what she meant a few posts later. She meant no religious proselytizing in schools. 😏
HalleluYaHshua ! Praise the LORD!
What you say about American school children being required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance is not exactly the truth. If the parents object, then they are not required to recite it with the rest of the class.
It is ridiculous for the courts to be expected to restrict freedom of speech in schools by declaring a cultural norm of the use of one word as violation of a law that doesn't exist.
13 May 15
Originally posted by SuzianneAgreed.
Well, sure, that's part of what used to be called "Social Studies" or "Humanities" when I was in school. Learning "about" them in school is fine, as long as no "preference" is shown. Just as learning about races and cultures is fine, as long as there is no "this is the right race" or "this is the right culture". Of course children should learn about the world they live in. This is part of the function of education. But proselytizing is not.