or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Not Ashamed campaign
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Not Ashamed campaign

post #1 of 37
Thread Starter 

Thought this was interesting.  I can't imagine it resonating in the US, but I can see why it might in the UK.

 

post #2 of 37

Why do you think it would not resonate with people in the us?

post #3 of 37

Probably because the U.S. isn't a theocracy, and the campaign claims that "only Jesus Christ can provide a solid foundation and a robust fabric for our nation."

post #4 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyka View Post

Why do you think it would not resonate with people in the us?


 

I was wondering this, too.  Maybe because we think stories like these can't happen here? 

 

Bluegoat, that is indeed interesting.  Thanks for posting.

post #5 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2xy View Post

Probably because the U.S. isn't a theocracy, and the campaign claims that "only Jesus Christ can provide a solid foundation and a robust fabric for our nation."


Not to mention that the US wasn't founded on Christianity anyway, as many assume.
 

post #6 of 37
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Sage View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyka View Post

Why do you think it would not resonate with people in the us?


 

I was wondering this, too.  Maybe because we think stories like these can't happen here? 

 

Bluegoat, that is indeed interesting.  Thanks for posting.


Yes, this.  When you get fired for offering to pray for someone, that might be inclined to stir people to take some kind of action.  This kind of thing seems to be not uncommon in the UK and maybe even Europe.  I would be surprised to see it in Canada, and in the US it would surprise me too - in some places it is probably harder to be a non-Christian in the US.

post #7 of 37
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2xy View Post

Probably because the U.S. isn't a theocracy, and the campaign claims that "only Jesus Christ can provide a solid foundation and a robust fabric for our nation."



I don't think that necessarily implies a theocracy, though it wouldn't exclude one.  It would be perfectly possible for this to work, logically, with a separated church and state.

post #8 of 37

The other side of the coin suggests ~

 

http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/710

 

 

Quote:

campaign launched today which says Christians have been barred from involvement in public life and are discriminated against in the UK has been heavily criticised by humanists and Christians as misleading and having no evidence to support them. 
 
Mr Copson continued, ‘It is chauvinist and historically illiterate to ignore the vast pre-Christian and non-Christian contributions to the development of our culture, our common values and our positive social norms. Many British people today are the non-Christian children of non-Christian parents and non-Christian grandparents, with no connection to Christianity or in many cases, to any religion. There is no way that they should be excluded from British culture because of that fact.’
post #9 of 37
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imogen View Post

The other side of the coin suggests ~

 

http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/710

 

 

Quote:

campaign launched today which says Christians have been barred from involvement in public life and are discriminated against in the UK has been heavily criticised by humanists and Christians as misleading and having no evidence to support them. 
 
Mr Copson continued, ‘It is chauvinist and historically illiterate to ignore the vast pre-Christian and non-Christian contributions to the development of our culture, our common values and our positive social norms. Many British people today are the non-Christian children of non-Christian parents and non-Christian grandparents, with no connection to Christianity or in many cases, to any religion. There is no way that they should be excluded from British culture because of that fact.’


It's not clear to me how these two paragraphs are connected?  Is ther any more context - where did the quote come from?

 

Ooops - somehow I missed the link, sorry!

 

It seems a bit weak - I rather wish there was some more specific response to the campaigns claims.  Also, as far as I'm aware with the schools issue, the preference given to Christian parents is in Christian schools, which are state funded in the UK along with other religious schools (and nonreligious ones too.)

 

As far as the second paragraph quoted above, it doesn't seem much to the point at all.

 

I think they are missing who the campaign is mainly aimed at, which is Christians.  I find myself wondering if anyone would be interested in or object to the same message being given to members of other religious groups.


Edited by Bluegoat - 12/5/10 at 2:30pm
post #10 of 37

Can you further your thoughts on this?  Because it is my understanding that the US was most certainly founded on Christianity.  Yes, the first settlers came here to escape religious persecution, but their idea of religious freedom was to not have to practice the same type of christianity as the king.  
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by 2xy View Post

Probably because the U.S. isn't a theocracy, and the campaign claims that "only Jesus Christ can provide a solid foundation and a robust fabric for our nation."


Not to mention that the US wasn't founded on Christianity anyway, as many assume.
 

post #11 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommy2maya View Post

Can you further your thoughts on this?  Because it is my understanding that the US was most certainly founded on Christianity.  Yes, the first settlers came here to escape religious persecution, but their idea of religious freedom was to not have to practice the same type of christianity as the king.  
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by 2xy View Post

Probably because the U.S. isn't a theocracy, and the campaign claims that "only Jesus Christ can provide a solid foundation and a robust fabric for our nation."


Not to mention that the US wasn't founded on Christianity anyway, as many assume.
 


 

 

Many of the founding fathers were deists.  Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin in particular were vocal opponents of organized religion.

post #12 of 37
Thread Starter 


I think a lot depends on what you mean by "founded on".  As Trigger said, many of the American founding Fathers weren't really Christians.  Also, separation of Church and State was an important principle for many early settlers, though that was, it could be argued, a principle most held on religious grounds, having it's origins in the Anabaptist movement.  But that principle is actually in the founding documents I believe, so in a sense overt religiosity is barred as a principle for American life.  And of course because a lot of the early settlers were Christians, I think you can trace a lot of modern American values at least in part to their views - particularly the views of those Anabaptists and people who were trying to escape religious persecution.  As an outsider, I look at a lot of the fundamentalist sects and see much the same attitude that I read about when I am looking at early American history. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mommy2maya View Post

Can you further your thoughts on this?  Because it is my understanding that the US was most certainly founded on Christianity.  Yes, the first settlers came here to escape religious persecution, but their idea of religious freedom was to not have to practice the same type of christianity as the king.  
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by 2xy View Post

Probably because the U.S. isn't a theocracy, and the campaign claims that "only Jesus Christ can provide a solid foundation and a robust fabric for our nation."


Not to mention that the US wasn't founded on Christianity anyway, as many assume.
 


 
post #13 of 37

 

Quote:

I think a lot depends on what you mean by "founded on".  As Trigger said, many of the American founding Fathers weren't really Christians.  Also, separation of Church and State was an important principle for many early settlers, though that was, it could be argued, a principle most held on religious grounds, having it's origins in the Anabaptist movement.  But that principle is actually in the founding documents I believe, so in a sense overt religiosity is barred as a principle for American life.

I often wonder what the guys who instituted freedom of religion in America would think if they could see America with all its religions today. I mean, obviously the colonists didn't extend "freedom of religion" to the (alleged) "witches" at Salem. I assume by "freedom of religion" they meant something more like "freedom of denomination within Christianity" (possibly even "within Protestantism"? Not sure about a Catholic presence in the early days of America). So it's possible they'd be horrified to see Islam, Buddhism, Wicca etc all over the country, despite their theoretically broad-minded statements. Which doesn't mean that freedom of religion as it's practiced today is a bad thing, at all, it just seems... hermeneutically unconstitutional, as it were.

 

ETA:

 

Quote:
Maybe because we think stories like these can't happen here?

Some of those seemed a bit dubious to me. I mean, without more information it's hard to really call it discrimination. "The biblical way to bring up children" could mean spanking, which some agencies would be against regardless of which religion endorsed it. Wearing a promise ring might have been against the school dress code (maybe no jewellery was allowed at all), in which case taking it off would have hardly been a betrayal of Jesus - I mean, they were hardly forcing the girl to have sex with the quarterback! Wearing a cross at work - don't nurses usually have pretty strict no-jewellery rules? I know some are only allowed to wear wedding rings, no engagement rings. Again, if that were the case, it would have just been petulant and entitled of the woman to want to wear her jewellery because it was religiously significant. I mean, there's NO command in the BIble that "thou must wear a cross 24/7" - it's a personal preference.

 

It's just a bit hard to get up in arms about things like this when Christians are being ACTUALLY killed and tortured for their faith in other parts of the world. I heard just the other week of a convert from Islam who saw his wife and children shot because he converted - makes "I don't get to wear my jewellery to work" seem just a tad less ghastly, doesn't it?

post #14 of 37
Smokering, I did not mean to imply that the examples on the website were "ghastly." I simply was stating that Americans expect to be able to openly express our religion in harmless ways such as the stories described without facing those kinds of consequences.
post #15 of 37

One reason I don't think this campaign would resonate in the US is that "shame" is not a concept that is considered, promoted, admitted to, etc. etc. in any context, particularly a religious context.

 

Actually, the more I think about it....this campaign might appeal to mainline Protestants in the US, who often seem dually embarrassed by conservative Evangelicals and secular society's perception of Christians. I guess if the opposite of shame is pride, mainline Protestants seem to lack pride in their own tradition, their own worldview, their own faith.  Interesting campaign.

post #16 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

I often wonder what the guys who instituted freedom of religion in America would think if they could see America with all its religions today. I mean, obviously the colonists didn't extend "freedom of religion" to the (alleged) "witches" at Salem. I assume by "freedom of religion" they meant something more like "freedom of denomination within Christianity" (possibly even "within Protestantism"? Not sure about a Catholic presence in the early days of America). So it's possible they'd be horrified to see Islam, Buddhism, Wicca etc all over the country, despite their theoretically broad-minded statements. Which doesn't mean that freedom of religion as it's practiced today is a bad thing, at all, it just seems... hermeneutically unconstitutional, as it were.


In general, the founders were not vague fools who need continual reinterpretation and clarification -- they were, in their writing and speech, generally quite clear about their personal feelings, legal intentions, and where the two did and did not overlap.  Various bigotries have been sanctioned by American law from the start, however that their concluding vision was in part one of religion -- not denomination, but religion -- not being a grounds for affecting a citizen's legal standing was quite clear.  Use of the example of extending tolerance even to the mere "Musselman" was common enough.  The failing, really, wasn't one of intentions so much one of the system being set up such that regional laws which contradict the overriding principle must be formally challenged, which counts on either the strength of oppressed people to force the issue or, alternately, the inclination of others in a more privileged position to follow through with taking up the issue at all.

post #17 of 37

Liquesce: So you think the witch-burning thing was more of a regional aberrancy, which the founders would not have intended/permitted? Or was witchcraft not recognised as a religion in its own right, but rather a perversion or corruption of Christianity?

 

Quote:
Smokering, I did not mean to imply that the examples on the website were "ghastly." I simply was stating that Americans expect to be able to openly express our religion in harmless ways such as the stories described without facing those kinds of consequences.

Well, one of the "consequences" was simply that the woman had to take off her necklace. She chose to make an issue of it, even though it wasn't an issue of being asked to do something against her religious beliefs. (In other words, it wasn't akin to asking a Muslim to remove hijab or something. I doubt any Christian could conscientiously state that it would be a sin not to wear a religious necklace at work.) I'd be very interested to hear the other side of that story. Same with the promise ring issue. I suspect that both things went against a dress code, which technically isn't a "harmless" expression of religion, but an expectation of special treatment.

 

Now, if you can get me some proof that other nurses at that hospital were allowed to wear non-religious pendants, or that other students at the school were allowed to wear similar non-celibacy-related rings, then sure, it's an issue. But perhaps I'm a bit cynical - I'm familiar with a particular Christian mindset that cries "persecution!" every time its ears are sullied with a secular Christmas carol, and it's a bit pathetic.

 

As for the "biblical views on raising a child" thing - again, according to the agencies involved, it might well not be seen as a harmless expression of religion, but as child abuse. Heck, most of MDC looks at spanking that way.

post #18 of 37

I looked up the "biblical views on raising a child" cases, and all the ones I found appear to be holding the belief that a child should be raised by a married man and woman and refusing to be involved in adoption cases involving homosexual partners.  I dug for a while with the same concern, but discipline is not the issue here.  Apparently both religion and sexual orientation are protected by UK law from discrimination, and difficulties arise when people's religious beliefs prohibit them from acting as if homosexual and heterosexual relationships are the same.

post #19 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

 

Quote:
Smokering, I did not mean to imply that the examples on the website were "ghastly." I simply was stating that Americans expect to be able to openly express our religion in harmless ways such as the stories described without facing those kinds of consequences.

Well, one of the "consequences" was simply that the woman had to take off her necklace. She chose to make an issue of it, even though it wasn't an issue of being asked to do something against her religious beliefs. (In other words, it wasn't akin to asking a Muslim to remove hijab or something. I doubt any Christian could conscientiously state that it would be a sin not to wear a religious necklace at work.) I'd be very interested to hear the other side of that story. Same with the promise ring issue. I suspect that both things went against a dress code, which technically isn't a "harmless" expression of religion, but an expectation of special treatment.

 

Now, if you can get me some proof that other nurses at that hospital were allowed to wear non-religious pendants, or that other students at the school were allowed to wear similar non-celibacy-related rings, then sure, it's an issue. But perhaps I'm a bit cynical - I'm familiar with a particular Christian mindset that cries "persecution!" every time its ears are sullied with a secular Christmas carol, and it's a bit pathetic.

 

As for the "biblical views on raising a child" thing - again, according to the agencies involved, it might well not be seen as a harmless expression of religion, but as child abuse. Heck, most of MDC looks at spanking that way.



I would be interested in seeing more details of those cases also.  But to be clear, all I am saying is that some Americans have been known to sue over lesser issues than the 'right' to wear a piece of religious jewelry, and that's just the way it is here.  Americans are very protective of their right to express themselves, no matter how serious or petty the issue seems to others.  I'm not saying I agree with certain cases or not since I don't know all the details, but I am stating a fact about American culture.

post #20 of 37
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

Liquesce: So you think the witch-burning thing was more of a regional aberrancy, which the founders would not have intended/permitted? Or was witchcraft not recognised as a religion in its own right, but rather a perversion or corruption of Christianity?

No, I don't think witchcraft was understood as a religion.  When they said someone was practising witchcraft, they meant the person was communing with the devil or evil spirits for nefarious purposes.  This is still the belief in witch burnings today.  What the peope are really doing is a different story (and a lot of such accusations may simply be constructed for some person's personal benifit.)  It could be practising a pagan religion, or just being odd ???  As far as I know there probably were not actual people dealing with evil spirits in the American cases.
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NicaG View Post

One reason I don't think this campaign would resonate in the US is that "shame" is not a concept that is considered, promoted, admitted to, etc. etc. in any context, particularly a religious context.

 

Actually, the more I think about it....this campaign might appeal to mainline Protestants in the US, who often seem dually embarrassed by conservative Evangelicals and secular society's perception of Christians. I guess if the opposite of shame is pride, mainline Protestants seem to lack pride in their own tradition, their own worldview, their own faith.  Interesting campaign.


This is where I can see it being a reasonable campaign.  There are a lot of people like you mention, who are embarrased to admit their religious beliefs publicly.  I think this is probably more common in the UK here Christians are more of a minority.

 





I would be interested in seeing more details of those cases also.  But to be clear, all I am saying is that some Americans have been known to sue over lesser issues than the 'right' to wear a piece of religious jewelry, and that's just the way it is here.  Americans are very protective of their right to express themselves, no matter how serious or petty the issue seems to others.  I'm not saying I agree with certain cases or not since I don't know all the details, but I am stating a fact about American culture.

 

 

 

It's really hard to know what to make of them.  The difficulty with homosexual cases seems likely to be a problem for a lot of people.  I don't know so much about the UK, but in France people are not allowed to wear any religious symbol to school, because it is supposed to be a secular institution.  So it isn't an impossible thing to imagine.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Not Ashamed campaign