posted
I understand the fear that some folks have that there is a "War against religion" going on in this country, or that religion is loosing its place in our society. I understand their fears that their beliefs may some day be outlawed.
I want them to understand my fears.
I fear the confusion in their arguments that make Christian and Religion synonymous. The Cross is not the only holy symbol in existence and the Bible is not the only holy text that people revere. The see removing a Cross from a government yard as an attack on their religion, but do not realize that having a Cross on a government yard is an attack on other peoples religion.
I fear a Protestant Pope, anointed by his TV audience, a cross-denominational evangelical leader, will gather the other Evangelical churches around him to create a theological state in practice if not in fact.
I fear the phrases used by so many people seeking a Christian Faith Based Government sounding so similar to those in the Mid-East seeking an Islamic based government, or the more fanatical Hebrews in Israel demanding a more Torah based government.
I fear that my own, deeply felt religious beliefs are not those that these leaders, that state or their followers would consider acceptable. And I believe that bowing down to a church I don't believe in is wrong.
I fear that those who claim "America was historically a Christian nation." are implying, "If you are not Christian, you are not a true American."
I fear the similarity between some of the battle crys of the Christian Activists, and White Supremacists. Both claim that the other side is waging a war, a war they are loosing. Both claim that action must be taken now, before the slippery slope to h@$#--(Literally in the Christian's argument, figuratively in the Racist argument) ruins our country. I fear they use identical language some times, accept that the Christian Activists stop at calls for violence.
so far.
I fear the power Catholic Priests had over the children in their congregations, and fear the bureaucratic CYA attitude that ran/runs rampant in their hierarchy. I fear this occurs in other churches as well, of all denominations.
I fear that some day my son will have to choose between being graded unfairly at school, or praising a God he doesn't believe in. Worse, I fear that being forced to believe in a particular God for his teachers at school will drive him away from believing in God all together.
I fear a parochial, isolationist, and egotistical attitude may emerge from the idea that the only good church is my church.
I fear the short sighted views of fanatics in power, who believe that Jesus is coming back any day, so worries about the environment, over-population, and other long term problems can be ignored.
I fear a confusion between the words Agnostic and Scientist, between Science and Heresy. I do not want other countries in the world to leave us in the technological backwaters because we will not allow our children to study science, explore the universe, question the world.
So when I make a statement, or an argument, about maintaining that wall between Church and State, the above is why. It is not to steal your bibles or the criticize your faith or to deny you the right, privilege, and honor to believe and practice your religion.
quote: The Cross is not the only holy symbol in existence
It's certainly not the only symbol holy to me. In fact, it's not a holy symbol to me at all.
quote: the Bible is not the only holy text that people revere.
Nor is it the only holy text that I revere.
quote: I fear a Protestant Pope, anointed by his TV audience, a cross-denominational evangelical leader, will gather the other Evangelical churches around him to create a theological state in practice if not in fact.
If that happens, I'll be in a worse position than agnostics and atheists.
quote: I fear that those who claim "America was historically a Christian nation." are implying, "If you are not Christian, you are not a true American."
While it's obviously bein inferred, I don't think it's being implied.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:While it's obviously bein inferred, I don't think it's being implied.
Actually, Porter, I've heard a number of people, including politicians, say just that. George Bush, Sr., was once quoted as saying "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." Technically, you may be correct, since it's not so much implied as overt.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If that happens, I'll be in a worse position than agnostics and atheists."
No. I think Hatrack has demonstrated that, in general, the religious will team up against the areligious first, and only turn on each other later.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel the same way. My problem is if one way of thinking becomes the norm it makes it harder for people to think outside of that framework...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, why do you feel homosexuality stands in opposition to religious observance? Why is homosexuality equivalent to a religion?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes a cross is offensive to those who's religion or lack thereof do not adopt it.
My advice? Get over it. Islamic crescents don't offend me. Buddha statues don't offend me (I may even like to own a little laughing Buddha statuette at some point). Stars of David certainly don't offend me. Gay Pride flags and stickers don't offend me either. And all of those are symbols which represent belief systems I don't hold.
If a symbol advoctating someone else's faith offends you - then I think the problem is more with you than with those displaying it.
Too many people 'choose' to be offended, and we get so many ridiculous lawsuits over them.
posted
No, it's not. Does displaying a Gay Pride flag indicate that you are not religious? Does it indicate that you belong to a particular religion of any kind? Does it constitute the endorsement of any given religion? Is displaying a rainbow triangle in one's window not only equivalent to displaying a cross, but exclusive of the latter?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends which denominations you ask, Tom - remember, there are some professed Christian denominations that accept openly gay clergymen.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Chad, why do you feel homosexuality stands in opposition to religious observance? Why is homosexuality equivalent to a religion?
I don't feel it stands in opposition necessarily. In the same way that religion may or may not stand in opposition to atheism.
I think the two (christianity/homosexuality) are parallel belief systems in that they both weigh very heavily on their adherents lives and decision making.
I don't think one should have the blessing/sanction or freedom of public operation, and the other should not.
I think that the separation of church and state was an over-reaction.
What should have been the outcome is the "Duality" of Church and State.
Instead of DIVIDING Church and State it should have been DIVERSIFYING Church and State.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, the example of Christian and gay pride symbols being displayed on public property wasn't about Christianity/religion and homosexuality in general. It was about the expression of belief. When and where are you allowed to express your beliefs, religious or otherwise? Are some manners of expression okay and others not? Is it okay to express certain beliefs but not others?
I sympathize, without entirely agreeing, with the frustration some religious people feel when it seems that certain forums and/or manners of expression of belief are made unavailable to them and yet opened to others who hold different (non-religious) beliefs.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think the two (christianity/homosexuality) are parallel belief systems
I'm in the camp that Relgion is a belief system...and homosexuality is not. All of my gay friends will tell you that being gay was not a choice.
I'm guessing that you are in the camp of that they 'chose' to live this lifestyle? and that then is part of your assumptions in your arguement?
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, I hear you. I think listening and understanding each other's fears is very important to holding the balance that Chad mentioned. I am sorry that there are so many that would not hear you. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Taalcon, whole-heartedly. And what Dan said in his opening post was both enlightening and intriguing.
Tolerance is a double-edged sword and there are many on both side of the religion debate who are too busy swinging the sword about to realized when they have cut themselves.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
The question can be boiled down to this: I can stick a Gay Pride Symbol in my office cubical at the government court house. I can not hand a Cross there. Is this fair?
The cross represents your religion, your beliefs.
The Gay Pride Symbol represents your view on sexuality. (not neccesarilly your own sexuality. You might have it in support of a gay friend or relative or just because you believe in the idea that sexuality is not reason for discrimination).
Both of these things are a part of you and who you are. Why do we ban one and not the other in our government?
The Cross is a symbol of a religion. We have legal separation of state and religion in this country for one reason. Most religions are exclusive. Most claim to have the one true way and any other is wrong. There is a long history of detrimental treatment given to people who differ with the religion of the government representatives.
The governmental employee represents our entire government when he is at work. If he does so with a religious bias, he is breaking that separation.
The Gay Pride Symbol is not a symbol of religion. It is a symbol of Inclusion, saying that everyone will be treated equally here, regardles of sexual preference.
It is a statement of support for people who's sexual preference happens to be considered a sin by some religions. Is this an attack on those religions?
Frying hamburgers or eating cheeseburgers are signs of disrespect for some religions.
So is cooking ham or driving a car.
We seem to have three choices.
1) We disallow anything that may be taken as an attack on any religion, hence showing no bias to any religion.
2) We allow all religions and anything that may attack those religions, within the bounds of social good taste (no pronography, graphic violence, etc). The question becomes, who gets to decide what gets the most attention. We plan on the big Cross and Manger scene on the court house yard, but the temple down the street wants a giant Menorah instead. Would it be understood why a Jewish man might be intimidated going to a courtroom where the Judge has installed a 6 foot tall Cross, with Jesus, in front of his bench. Could you see why the Arabic Public Defender would have trouble with cases there?
3) We realize that there is a difference between religious symbols and symbols that represent things that some religions consider a sin.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, you started off really well. Here's where I disagree:
"We have legal separation of state and religion in this country for one reason. Most religions are exclusive. Most claim to have the one true way and any other is wrong. There is a long history of detrimental treatment given to people who differ with the religion of the government representatives."
Any expression of belief automatically implies that all contrary/contradictory beliefs are wrong. Big deal. You can't stop holding/expressing beliefs because of it.
And I take issue with your claim as to the reason behind separation of church and state. There is not, in fact, only one reason for it. There are historical reasons involving the harmful influence that churches have had on governments and that governments have had on churches. But I think that one of the primary philosophical reason is one of loyalty. I think that the Framers recognized that, if a deeply religious person is forced to choose between his dedication to his religion and his loyalty to his homeland, the outcome of the decision might not be certain. Therefore, it is beneficial to the state to distance itself from involvement with religion.
"The governmental employee represents our entire government when he is at work. If he does so with a religious bias, he is breaking that separation."
No. Every citizen, no matter her position with respect to government, is entitled to both have a belief (religious or no) and to express it. There is no one who "represents" the government to such a degree that this fact should change. Besides, simply having a religious symbol at one's workstation (to use your example) does not constitute religious bias in one's work for the state.
"The Gay Pride Symbol is not a symbol of religion. It is a symbol of Inclusion, saying that everyone will be treated equally here, regardles of sexual preference."
Although it is not a symbol of religion, it is still a symbol of belief, and of a belief that many in our nation do not share anymore than they share the other worker's belief in Christianity. There is simply no justification in this case for treating them differently. Your description of this symbol as one of "Inclusion" is simply spin. The Christian might just as easily say his cross is a symbol of Inclusion, in that Jesus died on the cross for all mankind, extending certain opportunities to everyone. But, you see, you already set it up by painting religion as an inherent divider. There really is no distinction between the two beliefs on this basis.
"We seem to have three choices."
I can think of another. We can give treat all expressions of belief equally. If we ban one, we ban them all. If we allow one, we allow them all. Or, if we have to make a judgment between them, we make it on content-neutral criteria.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: No. I think Hatrack has demonstrated that, in general, the religious will team up against the areligious first, and only turn on each other later.
I submit that Hatrack is a pretty bizarre place, and not normal at all. I still say that if an evangelical protestant denomination got control of everything, things would be better off for the atheists and agnostics than for the "devil-worshipping" (a term I have heard used) Mormons.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Would it be understood why a Jewish man might be intimidated going to a courtroom where the Judge has installed a 6 foot tall Cross, with Jesus, in front of his bench. Could you see why the Arabic Public Defender would have trouble with cases there?
Yes, I can understand why they would have trouble, but having the cross or not having it is not going to change the fact that the judge is a Christian, nor is it an indicator of how he's going to try the case. The defendee might "feel" bad but it's only because the judge has laid his cards on the table. The only real complaint the defendee should have is if the judge is unfair because of his beliefs. Just because you're a Christian doesn't mean you can't follow the law when it comes to judging in a courtroom.
Why wouldn't the defendee want the cross in there? The only reason I can think is because it represents potential unfairness, and that potential is there regardless of whether or not the cross is there. What makes more sense to me is not the removal of the cross, but the removal of the judge, and that would be unfair to the judge, to say that he can't try a case because he's a Christian or whatever.
posted
There's display and there's display. I have no preoblem with, say, a judge who displays the ten commandments in his office, no matter how prominently. I have a big problem with a judge who wants the ten commandments on a pedestal on the courthouse lawn.
One is a display of personal belief, the other tantamount to endorsement.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well said Chris, it is a matter of proportion at times.
Let's take religion and sexual persuasion out of the discussion for the moment.
Let's say I am a really big fan of Cheet-ohs snacks. In my office, I should have the right to a Chester Cheetah poster and maybe a couple of pieces of Cheetoh memorabilia. That's fine, it's personal and on my own "turf".
But that doesn't give me the right to put up Cheetoh advertising posters in the hallways, or festoon the front of the building with "Eat More Cheetohs" banners.
And that's where a lot of this argument comes from. Some folks are simply stepping over the bounds established for living and working together in shared spaces. In government buildings, the workers share that space with all of the citizens as well.
If a court stenographer wants to keep a cross on her desk, or a driving instructor needs to wear a yarmulke (sp?), or a Departmental Secretary feels the need to keep a small statue of Vishnu on her desk, no problem.
But when they step outside of their own private part of a public space, they are intruding on everyone else, no matter how important or trivial their particular cause or inclination is.
When did it become okay for our own personal agendas to be more important than being civil?
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I think that's where the distinction should lie, Chris. I think people as individuals should not be expected to represent an entire nation, unless they're painted allegorical figures
Government employees are individuals just as any other citizen in the country is and should be allowed to display their own beliefs, in accordance with regulations for safety and regard for public decency. If someone can have a rainbow flag in a government office, that is an expression of personal belief and should be equated with the display of a personal religious symbol.
A courtroom is not a judge's office - it is a public space. If we're not going to allow displays of a religious nature in a public space (which is only fair), we can't allow displays of any other personal belief that has the potential to offend. You can say that a gay pride flag is a symbol of inclusion, but put a Christian housewife in that room and see how included she feels.
quote:Yes, I can understand why they would have trouble, but having the cross or not having it is not going to change the fact that the judge is a Christian, nor is it an indicator of how he's going to try the case. The defendee might "feel" bad but it's only because the judge has laid his cards on the table. The only real complaint the defendee should have is if the judge is unfair because of his beliefs. Just because you're a Christian doesn't mean you can't follow the law when it comes to judging in a courtroom.
Doesn't work for me, sorry.
A different example: reporters are human. Of course I expect any reporter covering the election to have personal opinions concerning the candidates. I also expect the reporter to report objectively and to mask any personal opinions he or she may have. I should not be able to read a story and tell what political party the reporter belongs to, if any. If I hear that the reporter is working for a candidate's campaign or is otherwise actively promoting one candidate over another, I would immediately suspect all of that reporter's stories of bias, regardless of their actual journalistic objectivity. I consider it the reporter's responsibility to avoid even the hint of bias for just that reason.
(The fact that so many reporters fail this test is why so few people trust the media.)
Another example: Doesn't bother me if a teacher wears a cross or keeps the Bible on her bookshelf. It would if the cross were on the wall of the classroom or the Bible was prominently placed on her desk. I don't mind if the ten commandments are posted along with other examples of moral codes (as it is in the Supreme Court) but I would object if it were the only moral code posted. See the difference?
[ September 24, 2004, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why not just let the judge *show* that he can judge fairly? Are you just going to throw him out because he believes in God?
Ah, excuse me. I see the problem. I thought the six-foot cross was an obvious exaggeration. I would not actually say that it's okay to have a six-foot *anything* in the courtroom that might be distracting.
posted
Because in certain occupations, appearances count.
In a different thread, Icarus was asking people in the Central Floridia clump about a get together. When one, possibly underage person responded, he replied that he'd appreciate proof-of-age or parental permission because, as a teacher, he cannot be seen meeting up publicly with underage people he met online. I can guarantee you any underage person would be perfectly safe around Ic. Not the point. Even the hint of it would affect how other parents, teachers, and administrators responded to him. He knows that and acts responsibly to address it even though it is unfair.
It's why judges recuse themselves when they have a personal stake in a case. Not because they can't judge it fairly, but because their judgment would be suspect.
When I enter a courtroom, I want to know that a judge has symbolically set aside his or her own beliefs in order to judge me by the laws under which we both live, and not by whatever laws the judge personally believes in.
Edited to add:
quote:Are you just going to throw him out because he believes in God?
No, I'd throw him out because he doesn't respect the office he holds enough to avoid public displays of personal belief.
[ September 24, 2004, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll go back and re-read this thread, but permit me to point out as an agnostic:
I identify Christians as the predominant religious group in America and the one most likely to confront me in some fashion or form.
If the Christians suddenly became less populous for some reason, I suspect any other religion would become pro-active in trying to convert me. Unless of course the Quakers became supreme.
posted
I hate to tell you this, but both the Amish and the Quakers are Christians (nominally, at least; I'm afraid I can't speak for them individually, as I don't know any.)
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, but Amish still rule in barn raising. Sure the quakers beat them in the oatmeal department... Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
None of us has the right to not be offended. If you don't like my Christian bumper sticker, get over it. I probaby don't like what's on the back of your car, but it's not my car, it's yours.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Constitution allows people who hold "offices of public trust" to offer an oath (religious), or affirmation (secular) before taking that office. The Presidency is the most obvious of these offices.
Every president to date has added the words "so help me God" while taking their oath of office, despite the fact that the constitution does not include these words. That the Presidents have all chosen to make their religious belief known to the public isn't the same as using their government authority to endorse or establish religion. It's just a personal statement.
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise" (of religion).
That includes wearing your religious belief on your sleeve, as it were. The Supreme court has upheld the right of a judge to display a religious emblem or quotation in his/her workspace, or on jewelry, etc.
There are two reasons I can see for declaring one's religious belief. One is merely honesty. I feel uncomfortable when someone isn't forthright about their religious beliefs. Like when someone refuses to identify their brand of christianity, as if there is only one type, and theirs is the right one. My experience says that this is the type of person who will insist that Catholics aren't Christians.
Also, when dealing with a judge, could you imagine an anti-semitic judge who hides his religious belief so that no one will question his motives in passing judgment on Jews?
So identifying your religion might simply let others know who you're dealing with.
The other reason to publicly declare your belief is sort of evangelism. You are "spreading the word" by wearing an emblem. I think these days this is the assumption people have when someone talks about a judge who displays religious items, like judge Moore. These are the guys that mess it up for everyone else.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Like when someone refuses to identify their brand of christianity, as if there is only one type, and theirs is the right one.
For the record, I use simply "Christian" to identify myself. I don't do it because I think everyone else isn't Christian, I do it because I'm not part of a denomination and don't really have another way to classify myself. I'm sure there are other people who do that as well.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: When one, possibly underage person responded, he replied that he'd appreciate proof-of-age or parental permission because, as a teacher, he cannot be seen meeting up publicly with underage people he met online.
The assumptions implicit in this saddens me beyond belief. It's always a few bad apples that make it unreasonably hard on the rest of us.
FWIW, my brother used to game with a high school teacher of his acquaintance when he went to high school. Maybe I misremember, but I remember doing things with high school teachers at their homes without parental permission when I was in High School.
My brother has gamed with some younger people off and on for a few years now and I don't know if he gets parental permission first. Maybe he should to protect himself from the 1 percent of the population that might make trouble for him, or just assume crap. Sigh.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I submit that Hatrack is a pretty bizarre place, and not normal at all. I still say that if an evangelical protestant denomination got control of everything, things would be better off for the atheists and agnostics than for the "devil-worshipping" (a term I have heard used) Mormons.
I definitely disagree. Maybe the Mormons would be next on the chopping block, but the "athiests" would definitely be the first target of a fundamentalist Christian theocracy. The right-wing news media has already done an excellent job of portraying Christians as the innocent victims of a God-hating liberal elite... and the anti-areligious voices are getting stronger every day. Even at Hatrack, which I submit to be far more open-minded and considerate than your average gathering of a few hundred people. It's certainly been a large part of my growing discomfort with the tone of the discourse here. I'm really uneasy about what conversations like the ones here sound like in "mainstream" America. Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Next time you're in a Christian bookstore, try and compare the books designed to outreach the 'unchurched', and then skim the ones claiming things like "Mormonism UNMASKED!" "What Mormons REALLY believe!" "The Kingdom of the CULTS!", etc. It'll be in the same section with books telling you how evil Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Islamics are.
In many people's mindsets, athiests and agnostics are just 'confused', whereas those of "seeming-Christian" faiths who teach doctrines that aren't in agreement of their own are "Dangerous DECIEVERS!"
Once the DECIEVERS are out of the picture, the 'confused' will be easier to 'help'.
Now, of course not all Christians are like this. Very few 'real' Christians are, and have any vehemence against Athiests OR those of other faiths. BUT... the 'crazy overzealous" type who would be bound to follow a TV Evangelist Prophet-type as you hypothesized would probably be the kind to follow this kind of example.
posted
It's a sign of the times, Storm. Back in the day, pedophiles were almost unheard of.
Today, they show up in the news every other day, quite often as authority figures who deal with kids.
Unfortunately, the old adage about smoke and fire rings true for too many people, which forces new precautions when before such things weren't necessary or deemed to be required.
I was having trouble with some of my earlier (Gay Pride/Christian) ideas and I think some of you hit them pretty well.
I like the idea of personal religious symbols representing the ideals of the people who work for our government, but I do not like the idea of large, institutional monuments to various religions being installed.
I still think that a Gay Pride symbol, saying "Gay people are people first" should not be an ideal that is anti-christian.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
TMedina -- as far as I can think of, every major time period has had a pretty decent number of pedophiles (and that's just that we know of).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, but how often were the crimes publicized?
There is a phenomenon of mass media - the more we see particular crimes reported, the perception is those crimes are on the rise.
Statistically speaking, crimes happen every day and we only see a tiny fraction of those stories in the media, but people don't understand that concept.
So with the influx of stories regarding pedophiles and the truly disturbing positions of authority they hold, people are more sensitive about even the appearance of impropriety because even if an accusation is found to be baseless and is ultimately dismissed, the person's reputation will be stained, complicating anything they try to do in the future.
posted
Going back to the original topic, I suspect that extremist Protestant Christianity is not organized enough to take over the country. They'd be too busy arguing about whether to burn gays, wiccans or abortion doctors first . If the religious right does not have the power to push the gay marriage ban through Congress with the support of the President, then how on earth will they take over? They don't seem particularly well-equipped for violent revolution.
I would however, be worried about extremist Christians resorting to terrorism. It's a lot easier than taking over the goverment. Doesn't require any positive public opinion, or a lot of people, or stockpiles of nuclear weaponry. I think it's better to focus less on those trying to use the government to push religion and more on people who perceive themselves as marginalized and persecuted. Although I will say that I am concerned about people trying to use the public schools to spread their belief system, whatever that may be.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. If the religious right does not have the power to push the gay marriage ban through Congress with the support of the President, then how on earth will they take over? They don't seem particularly well-equipped for violent revolution.
