Do you feel persecuted because of your beliefs?

[KyuubisSlave]

but from the government's viewpoint they are covered under separation of church and state.

I think its worth noting again that there is nowhere in the constitution that says Seperation of Church and State, and the citation it is taken from is often times  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which if anything is made more for the freedom of religion than the prohibition of it.

and your forget that Freedom of religion also covers the non religious. The reason for separation of church and state is to protect everyone's rights held under the 1st amendment.

[BluePriest]

I think its worth noting again that there is nowhere in the constitution that says Seperation of Church and State, and the citation it is taken from is often times  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which if anything is made more for the freedom of religion than the prohibition of it.

and your forget that Freedom of religion also covers the non religious. The reason for separation of church and state is to protect everyone's rights held under the 1st amendment.

Emphasis Added, since it was once again relevant.

[KyuubisSlave]

I think its worth noting again that there is nowhere in the constitution that says Seperation of Church and State, and the citation it is taken from is often times  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which if anything is made more for the freedom of religion than the prohibition of it.

and your forget that Freedom of religion also covers the non religious. The reason for separation of church and state is to protect everyone's rights held under the 1st amendment.

Emphasis Added, since it was once again relevant.

Ah... my poor friend let me introduce you to the necessary and proper clause.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

=D Yay they thought of this! After all the words air force is not in the constitution now is it?

[ratcharmer]

I think the topic of separation of church and state could easily occupy a thread on its own, and mayhaps it should, but it could threaten to drag this one off topic.

Taken in the context of the professor who was fired it's an interesting point. Was the government (assuming we accept the university as a part of the government) acting to maintain neutrality when they fired the professor or were they favoring one religion or another?

I for one feel that this action was biased since they fired a Catholic professor for teaching about Catholic beliefs, yet they still maintain all of their other religion professors, all of whom have beliefs and teach about beliefs.

Generally I feel that the university is embracing a bit of a double standard in this case. Is it okay if we move the discussion over church & state to a different thread?

[Boingo]

I really hope that we can have a non-heated discussion. It is obviously not hate speech, as it seems it was meant to create a discussion in the class. While I can see that condemning someone...as being morally wrong can be considered hateful, but it is simply a representation of the Catholic faith.

Taken in the context of the professor who was fired it's an interesting point. Was the government (assuming we accept the university as a part of the government) acting to maintain neutrality when they fired the professor or were they favoring one religion or another?

I for one feel that this action was biased since they fired a Catholic professor for teaching about Catholic beliefs, yet they still maintain all of their other religion professors, all of whom have beliefs and teach about beliefs.

Generally I feel that the university is embracing a bit of a double standard in this case.

After reading the article (assuming the source is accurate) the thing that really bothered me about this whole affair is that the college first approached Dr. Howell and asked him to come teach about Catholic beliefs, and then later fired him for teaching those same beliefs.

I believe an institution shouldn't have to represent beliefs they don't want to (although I also believe it's fair if their reputation suffers as a result) but if the University of Illinois didn't want someone teaching this viewpoint then they should not have hired someone to teach a class on it.

I find it notable that many different forum members representing varying viewpoints have read the article and arrived at the same conclusion:  the university was wrongly fired the professor.  But beyond the immediate case of whether or not he should have been fired, I think this raises an important point sometimes lost when we debate solely in abstracts where there often appears to be great divisions among the debaters: when dealing with concrete, real-life cases, many of us will arrive at very similar conclusions and not appear that different from one another at all.  I'm not sure why that is for sure, but it seems that, somehow, common sense goes out the window when we do not look at real-world cases. 

Additionally, I would like to commend you all for keeping this a thoughtful and polite discussion. 

I think the topic of separation of church and state could easily occupy a thread on its own, and mayhaps it should, but it could threaten to drag this one off topic.

I agree--let's keep this thread focused on persecution due to one's beliefs.

[iampostal]

yah u was a bit cheeky there...my intent was more to point out that when the church had power it persecuted those who were just even suspected of witchcraft or heresy.....but in today's THINKING world the church has become irrelevent, has no power and beliefs are only persecuted because when examined they are without foundation and are at best foolish.

[johannhowitzer]

beliefs are only persecuted because when examined they are without foundation and are at best foolish.

Emphasized the word that makes this phrase false.  Lots of persecution still running around out in this world today... likely no religious or demographic group is either immune or innocent.

I also laughed at "cheeky" coming from a person who confused "prosecution" with "persecution."    Classic.

[jmizzle7]

As a Christian, I definitely feel persecuted for my beliefs. Whether I am at school, at work, or even at home, I feel that it is really hard for me to share my faith with others. It is a spiritual battle, and an internal struggle to overcome my own ego and pride to accept the fact that it is better for me to share my faith and be rejected by man than to set aside my faith for the approval of others.

[Innominate]

I've never experienced persecution, neither when I was Christian nor now as an atheist. I have certainly experienced disagreement, and the occasional person presumes to tell me what I believe, but persecution is a scale far above that. I expect that for most people in the developed world they would experience more persecution for their political beliefs than their religious ones - it's definitely the case in Australia. As with all generalisations, there are likely to be exceptions, however.

[SeddyRocky]

As a Christian, I definitely feel persecuted for my beliefs. Whether I am at school, at work, or even at home, I feel that it is really hard for me to share my faith with others. It is a spiritual battle, and an internal struggle to overcome my own ego and pride to accept the fact that it is better for me to share my faith and be rejected by man than to set aside my faith for the approval of others.

Boingo and co, kudos for reminding us to keep on topic!

Jmizzle, do you mean share faith as in: a) missionary/evangelical style, aka spread the Good News/convert? or b) express your thoughts and beliefs/opinions in spiritual (or secular) matters? or

c) something else.

Because personally, I believe that just as people have a right to express their religion, the style of shoving it down peoples throats/"you should think like me!!!" is not really acceptable. This goes for atheist/non-religions too.

Edit: Not saying you are, I'm just stating my opinion on it.

[ratcharmer]

yah u was a bit cheeky there...my intent was more to point out that when the church had power it persecuted those who were just even suspected of witchcraft or heresy.....but in today's THINKING world the church has become irrelevent, has no power and beliefs are only persecuted because when examined they are without foundation and are at best foolish.

The Soviet Union and Communist China (the two best examples of strictly atheistic states that I know of) were both quite well known for persecuting many different groups at various points in their histories. Some of these groups were religious in nature, some were not.

According to the Pew Global attitudes Europe has been becoming more secular of late, but the rest of the world has not. Trends in religious attitude have gone back and forth throughout history, so one particular region becoming less religious temporarily is nothing new and there is nothing to indicate this is anything different.

As to the claim that "beliefs are only persecuted because when examined they are without foundation and are at best foolish." I have no idea where you could possibly be getting this from.
Even assuming that it was somehow impossible for an intelligent individual to come to the conclusion that any religion is correct other than atheism (which is clearly false since we have several individuals on this very thread who are both religious and demonstrate intelligence on a regular basis in this very thread) then I still fail to see how being incorrect about something justifies large-scale persecution.

If you really want to go into more detail about the history of persecution in religious versus non-religious societies, and who is to blame for what. Then that discussion may be best suited to another thread.

Because personally, I believe that just as people have a right to express their religion, the style of shoving it down peoples throats/"you should think like me!!!" is not really acceptable. This goes for atheist/non-religions too.

Edit: Not saying you are, I'm just stating my opinion on it.

This argument has always sort of puzzled me. If someone people's beliefs say that they should try to spread those beliefs then how is it possible to say trying to spread one's beliefs is not acceptable without infringing upon their right to express their religion? Could someone try to explain this to me?

[SeddyRocky]

Well, your freedoms should not infringe upon others. It is persons A freedom to express her religion, but also person B's freedom to feel fully free to express her religion without person A pushing  B towards another religion. Going missionary is not bad if people want it, but to force-feed Christianity/atheism/Buddhism/Islam is not acceptable in my opinion. Very few religion demand that you make others believe what you do, Jehovas witnesses and Mormorns being the exceptions I can think of off the top of my head (please correct me if mistaken).

But it is a delicate problem. Where does the line between expression/free speech and religion and infringing upon others go?

Btw, religious persecution and secular (usually political/ideological)have occurred throughout the history. Why a crusade would be any more/less of a slaughter than the massacre of students on a square, I fail to see. It is all about the abuse of power and forcing people to conform. (sounding a little hippie here, but still).