Suppression of Christianity in America-the Truth?
71Is Christianity being Suppressed in America
I find this to be an amazing subject, the suppression of Christianity in the United States. As if this were in truth happening on any scale. That some Christians might believe that it is happening I can understand however, in truth I believe that a more pragmatic view of this subject is required. I believe that this should be asked as a question rather than claimed as a fact. Is Christianity being suppressed in the United States? Is there any proof to the claims that Christianity is being suppressed? I don't believe that this is the case, but let's look at the claims.
First, we have to understand that most Christians ignore the foundations of this country and the Constitution along with the Bill of Rights. Most Christians have blinders on when it comes to our history, failing to acknowledge the reality that "One Nation Under God" was not part of our Pledge until the 1950's; "In God we Trust" was not on our original currency; and the founding fathers intended that this country be a one of free men and women not one burdened with a single church. We are a secular nation of free people with the right to worship as we choose without interference. So now that we have established the framework of our nation lets look at the claims of suppression.
Removal of prayer in public schools, is this a matter of Christian suppression? I don't think it is since all prayer is removed not just Christian prayer. The fact is public schools are funded by tax dollars and must serve all of the public not just some of the public. Unless public schools are prepared to accommodate all religious ideologies at prayer time, they must remove prayer entirely. This is the only fair and equitable solution. Some schools have introduced a moment of silence and the courts have upheld this approach as it does not cross the line into religious ideologies and treats all students equally.
Other points of reference on the idea of suppression have been the suggestion that Christians are being jailed for speaking their beliefs in public forums. I am not aware of this except for a single instance, Fred Phelps and other members of the Westboro Church. If there are any members of the a legitimate Christian church that support this lunatic and his message than I am sorry for you and hope you are some day literate enough to read the Bible that you pretend to follow. Suppression, yes this nutcase and his inbred group of followers require it. They are a plague with a message filled with hate and contrary to every teaching of the Christian doctrine I am aware of.
Suppression is a strange word to use in this situation really. Consider that for the past eight years our President has regularly claimed his belief and stand on Christianity and has guided our country into war based on these beliefs. One of the current frontrunners for the Republican Party is heavily reliant upon his evangelical Christian beliefs and background. Christianity is the only Religion with its own television broadcasting station, Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN); which had net assets in excess of $183 million in 2007.
Suppression of Christianity in the United States, no I don't think so. I think what is happening is a balancing of the field. Others are claiming their right to exist within a country that has always assured them of those rights based upon the legal documents that were written and codified over 200 years ago. Christians have every right to exist and worship as they choose. What they do not have the right to do is force others to worship as they do. What they do not have the right to do is force their beliefs into the boardrooms, public buildings, public schools, and private lives of others. What is amazing is that most Christians cannot even agree among themselves what the Bible says or upon the correct form of worship, or for that matter on the fundamentals of Christianity. Yet they want the rest of us to set aside our moral agreements with our beliefs and with God to accept without question "Christianity".
Suppression? No this is not suppression this is simply the natural correction of what has two long been an imbalance. Christians you may certainly speak about God and The Christ within the confines of your own homes and Churches. There is no one who would think to take this right away from you. All reasonable and right thinking people will stand up for your right to do so. What you may not do is continue to force your beliefs down the unwilling throats of others or use public monies to advance your agendas. This is not suppression. Christians have exactly the same rights as all other Americans. What you do not have is more rights. What you must get beyond is the belief that the United States of America is a nation founded as a Christian Nation, it was not ever intended to be so. Read history!
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
wow...what a breath of fresh air...nice to discover a parallel thinker...i do not understand "nuts" wanting to inject their worship into government facilities...(schools, etc.) is it not clear that if the government furnishes facilities to worship in, that they(government) would have to regulate the "when", "where", "how much", "contents", etc.....ned's first readers would surely realize that rule...thanks for hubbing some "sense" on this matter...just a personal thought on one of the common issues...pylos26
The entire subject of whether we are "supposed" to be a Christian nation and have fallen is interesting. It is one of my pet subjects or rants.
As for the Pledge, I wrote a hub that you might find interesting.
http://hubpages.com/hub/The-History-of-The-Pledge-
Great hub!
Cheers, Chef Jeff
Welcome to Hub Pages, Valentine!
I think there may be some legitimate confusion as to our country's philosophical roots, because even the most secular Colonials almost invariably belonged to a church and often quoted from the Bible. It was more of a "social Christianity" than a truly passionate faith. That said, the secular origin of our nation is no state secret, but that fact is under-taught in our schools.
What I find confounding is the notion of certain individuals that, if their personal brand of religion is not written into our laws, then the rights of those individuals have been violated and their means of religious expression has been cruelly suppressed. It's not so much the self-serving statements themselves, it's the fact that these folks seem to genuinely believe this ... this ... what they're saying!
Great Hubs. Am looking forward to many more.
Thanks for your comments Marian. I try never to cloud the issues with the personal beliefs of the Founding Fathers or for that matter others of that time. The issue is not with their personal beliefs, although with many their writings are readily available and give great insight. The issue is not and will remain, should the religious beliefs of any person be allowed to be legislated? The answer, at least for me is not. I heard someone say recently that America was founded as a "White Christian Nation and must be led always by a White Christian". After I was done being amazed and dumbfounded and was then ready to do battle.
So long as we have people who believe as this person believes those of us who know otherwise must be prepared to defend the Constitution and the truth of our history. Otherwise our future is surely at risk.
Valentine, isn't it amazing how we can all read the same books and still get the "facts" wrong? Our history is better defined by what we fail to find in our textbooks - very little about Jewish, Catholic, Native and African inputs to the nation. Yet all these people were here, functioning against the odds, and freedom and dignity was often denied them simoly because of those "White Christians" who thought it was their right to treat people like animals.
Where in any textbnook our 8th graders read does it mention the hard, dangerous and totally uncompensated work done by people in slavery to build this nation? Now Causasians from Scotland, England and Ireland did a lot of indentured servant work, which is close enough to slavery, except that at the end of the indentured service the person was freed, given things to start a new life and sent on his or her way.
With slavery, the names of the people in bondage were often anonymous, or worse yet, changed from the birth names given in Africa to some ridiculous names the slave owner decided were good enough.
America is indeed the world's best hope, but unless we are willing to meet our past as it REALLY was, we will remain forever a spoiled child of a nation, forever blaming others for all our misfortunes.
Great hub!
Cheers!
Chef Jeff
Hear, hear! Great hub!
Thanks Kerry. It is one of my pet peeves so hopefully my passion for the subject comes through.
Suppression is the silencing of freedom of speech, and stopping the right to peacefully exercise my beliefs at any time and place for ones owns agenda, which is what is happening today. Most anti-Christian actions today are done under the idea of separation of church and state. While this isn't in either the constitution or bill of right, on the other hand a idea that is in the Constitution is:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
And like I have said to a similar post:
It was never the founding father intent to silence one belief or the right to exercise that belief over another. Many people today have distorted the idea of separation of church and state to mean the banning of any act of faith on public property or in public forums. Instead of what it really means, which is the preventing of organized beliefs from using government to enforce their belief over another. i.e. atheist over Christian or even scientific theory over faith. All beliefs are suppose to have equal protections and rights to exercise that belief in public or in congress if they so choose and we cant stop it. What we can stop is laws that mandate a particular belief system or doctrine. Yet it doesn't mean we cant make laws based on our beliefs, just that our beliefs can not be established through laws.
Thus if we use the courts and congress to limit someone ability to freely exercise their beliefs, then we are suppressing them. If laws punish people for expressing a belief, such saying Merry Christmas, or God Bless you we are suppressing them. If we ban Christmas plays, Nativity scenes, and prayer we are limited the right to exercise their freedom afforded to them by the Constitution thus we are suppressing them. So call it what you must to make you feel ok with it, but just remember the poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Rob I am not sure I understand your point. As an American I don't want Christian prayer in my public schools. I vote to ensure that this is the case so that all American children are educated in a manner that is free of bias, that is in a manner that is Secular. As an American I want what our Founding Fathers wanted a Secular Government. Read their papers, read their writings, read history. I want Christians to be able to practice their religion just not in my front lawn or in my schools, that is on my private property or in the public property that my tax dollars pay for. Why is this difficult for you to understand?
I want those of other faiths to have equal access to practice their faiths. I want all faiths to be treated fairly and with equity under the law. I don't personally care if you say Merry Christmas. I do care if you demand I take an oath on a book that has no meaning to me. I care that our pledge includes a prayer. I care that our money includes language that wasn't there originally and that is "Christian" inclusive. I care that Christians believe they have greater rights than others and attempt to enforce those rights through laws upon those who disagree with their religious beliefs.
Any law that is based upon religious beliefs and does not serve the greater community is a bad law.
It is not a question of what you want or what I want but it is a question having the ability to have all points of view openly expressed without having to conform to someone beliefs or "no beliefs". (Which is a point I believe both of us tax payers can agree upon.)
But instead trying to find a way to reasonably find middle ground, People have turn there efforts toward using the government to build a "no religion zone" or what could be coined a atheists society which in it own right is a government established belief system. Which is what you are arguing is bad idea. Call it secular or whatever it is still using government to establish a national belief system. Of course many will argue that it isn't because privately you can practice whatever you like, as long you don't ask or tell.
Any law that does not inherently support liberty, justice, and freedom is a bad law.
I will agree that no belief system should use the law to force others to believe as they do but i disagree that people should not use their belief to explain why they agree or disagree with a national policy or law. We are nation built on the backs of many ideas, cultures, and beliefs thus we are going to struggle and disagree but that why we are a democracy. A country where we can debate freely and express our ideas, and yes disagree.
Just because Christians don't support abortion, or gay marriage, or whatever does not mean their opinions are not worth hearing nor is it justification to try to eliminate their influence on society. And the same hold true for all the other points of view.
It is easy to try to put Christians in a box and say that we all are x or y but it is not true. We are literate, educated, and have the ability to reason. I have read my history, The Bill of Rights, the Constitution and much much more. Yet I don't see it as black and white as you do, maybe it is perspective thing but it is not as you seem to suggest a education issue.
Speaking of education, what happens when you limit perspective from education? You get a limited education, by being absolutely opposed to religious or other perspectives you are limiting your education and the creative thoughts that perspective brings. Plus a secular only education environment give education a secular bias which is not a bias free education. In fact it downgrades my cultural, moral, aesthetic perspectives which is imparted to my children without a single consideration of the impact it is having on that and other segment of the American population.
Everything is relative based on culture and beliefs,should children be forced to pray or practice a belief no, but they also should not be forced to hide their beliefs either. Which is what is happening, not only to Christian cultures but to others as well. We say we want a equal and open society, but are actions say we want equal and open as long as it relates to our view points, which is wrong. So are we going to continue to argue, over your perspective versus mine or are you we going to find a way accept that we are different and work together to find a solution that does not suppress your beliefs or mine?
Rob
Ah, now I understand what you are saying. Thank you for that. I actually have no issue at all with religion being taught in public schools just so long as it is inclusive and not exclusive. I would be fully in favor in age appropriate comparative religious studies in public schools. I have always supported the idea that young people should be able to form private clubs, including religious based clubs and use school property after or before school for their meetings. I simply don't believe school activities such as games or class should start with a prayer. Those are examples.
I agree with you that debate should not disregard the framework of our disagreements, including those that are based upon our religious frameworks. I simply do not want to see our freedoms limited by religious fanaticism, it is a fine line sometimes but one that exists.
I am not opposed to religion. I am opposed to exclusion. I am strongly opposed to those who demand that I believe as they do, scream at me and my children that we are going to hell if I do not. I am strongly opposed to violence in the name of religion, any religion. I am strongly opposed to religion that would limit the civil rights of another group simply because they are born different whether by race, gender, or sexual orientation. We can have the discussions and should but at the end of the day we have to find a way to live together without disenfranchising others within the community that do not think or believe in the same way.
Agreed, and respected.
I have never agreed with those extremist who say they represent me and my beliefs, just as I am learning that you seem, not to believe in those extremist who seem to be the rally heads of "your side". To often these minority groups seem to try to represent what us the majority have never thought in the first place. Thus bringing our society to a place of knee jerk reactions, name calling, and saber rattling.
My faith teaches me to love the person not what I believe is the sin, which is not what is being represented. Also my faith teaches me to hold those of my faith to our shared standards, not those who don't believe, because how can they be held to a standard they haven't accepted. My faith is about loving, and acting out of love which includes sharing but not forcefully converting. We can not and should not force people to believe, our model (Jesus) never did that nor would he teach that. With that understanding I hope you would see that I am not about forcing my view on you either, and I am open to find a way to coexist in manner that beneficial to all.
Yes, I will do and say things that may be strange to you, but that is me being me just as you will do and say things that from my prospective is equally strange but it doesn't mean we should trash each other about until one side is the winner for no one wins in conflict only in open discussion and compromise do we gain. And if we listen as we have here, we may find that we have much more in common then we have been lead to believe by those who seek our conflict.
Rob
stephanie says:
14 months ago
Could of not said it better myself! Rock on my sister! =)