Since no one really addressed this in the topic about the recent florida senator's statement, I wanted to address it here.
A common statement from conservative chritians in the political arena is that "separation of church and state" is a lie that is being abused by secular society.
As with most political statements, this is only part of what could be considered the truth.
The actual statement itself that there needs to be a "separation of church and state" has never actually been written into any official US laws.
However, the idea is still prevailent when you look at various amendmants talking about freedom of religion.
This idea has been represented in many ways. The more conservative route is that the main purpose was to keep the government from messing with religious organizations. The more secular route is to say that it was to keep religious organizations from messing with the government.
As for me, I go with the usual route that the truth is actually somewhere in the middle. There is a lot of wisdom in christian beliefs and other religious beliefs that would be foolish to ignore when looking to govern people. However if the majority of the nation feels that a religious law is wrong such as polygamy, then obviously the religion shouldn't dictate the law, as the moral majority doesn't agree with the idea.
What do you guys think... am I missing something here?
Also, you can find more info on separation of church and state here. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I would probably not be defined as a conservative christian, but I think that "separation of church and state" is very much being abused in the modern era. It's purpose should be to prevent the state and church from intermingling in a way that allows them to oppress religious minorities (like the Puritans were in England) or that allows political officials to use religious authority to circumvent democracy (like kings claiming God's mandate).
The problem is that in the modern era it has expanded beyond this, to the point that it has now become a separatation between religion and public society. Instead of just keeping the institutions of governments and churches from intermingling, it is being used to transform religion into a private thing. The phrase is used to attack those who base their political opinions on religion, for instance. It is used to keep religious expression out of schools and other public institutions. In general, it being used as if the goal is to insulate each individual citizen from the religious beliefs of everyone else.
This is abuse of the concept of "separation of church and state". One's religion is a very important set of beliefs. They are the grounding in which are values are based. If we do not base our values in religion of some sort, we run the risk of valuing things that conflict with some of our deepest beliefs about the universe. Thus religion should be influencing your actions and political opinions. It should be influencing the way we vote. It should be visible to those around us. It should be expressed. Schools and other public institutions should celebrate the religious cultural heritage of its members, in the same way that it would celebrate any other cultural tradition that its members engage in, whether it is playing football instead of soccer or learning square dancing rather than ballroom dancing, or whatever. Separation of church state should not be applied to mean "no religion in public."
Curiosly enough, while separation of church and state has been overapplied in the above ways, it has also been violated at the same time - through political parties. The trouble is that political parties are not official parts of the government, so they are allowed to favor one religion openly and strongly. Yet they have become a part of our government system. As a result we have the Republicans openly being linked to Christian churches, and thus violating the church-state divide. This is dangerous to our religious freedom. If a church controls a political party, and that party has power over it's representatives in office, then the church's officials could effectively control the government.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the drive for a secular society has gone way too far. It's one of the few things I blame Liberals for, but I also parcel out some blame to the radical conservative. They responded to a perceived threat by going even further to the radical right, and their I think they use their beliefs as both a shield and sword.
There needs to be a separation, so the state doesn't force bishops and priests to marry gays when it violates doctrine, and so religious anti-homosexuality doctrine can't influence the state of civil unions. And any and many other situations that are similar.
I blame the ACLU for it's dramatic overreacting to some of this too. But on the whole I'd still rather have them than not have them. People just need to stop taking EVERYTHING so personally. The reason there shouldn't be a 10 commandments on the grounds of a federal court isn't because of religious issues, it's because the ten commandments have virtually nothing to do with US law. Murder and theft predate the ten commandments, and I don't even think the other eight are federal laws. So why have them there?
The desire for PC is ridiculous, and has gone way too far.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The reason there shouldn't be a 10 commandments on the grounds of a federal court isn't because of religious issues, it's because the ten commandments have virtually nothing to do with US law.
It's also because of religious issues.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I might point out that the reason the commandments are not federal law is, basically, a religious issue. To wit, the first commandment, 'No other god before me', would interfere with the religious freedom of non-Christians.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Which should only lend more credence to why it's silly to want to stick them there. Putting them there seems like a purposeful response to secularization, which to me, means it shouldn't be there.
I know it ALSO has to do with religious issues, I just meant there was another reason, that had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with common sense. Though KoM makes a good point. Still, even if there wasn't a clear separation of church and state in America, how many European nations have no god but god laws?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The reason our founders put up a separation of church and state was not to protect the state from the church or the church from the state.
It was to protect one church from another, and to protect all of us from a too powerful force that is the theocratic government. The force of an imperfect human commanding not only with the ability to punish in this life, but into the next, is hard to resist.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Putting them there seems like a purposeful response to secularization, which to me, means it shouldn't be there.
So because people over-react in response to secularization, we have too much secularization? By that logic, burning a cross on someone's lawn is an indication that Affirmative Action has gone too far.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think discussion on the INTENT of the founding fathers is worthless. Perhaps seperation of church in state was intended to simply keep religion from controlling the govt, but perhaps its still a better situation that this seperation DOES go as far as it does.
I'd rather dicuss the EFFECTS of that seperation rather than argue over what our founding fathers intended.
Having said that, I think I agree that the principle of the seperation of church and state has been taken to a greater extreme than that which is healthy. Seperation of Church and State helps prevent a religious tyranny of the majority. Its current use as a means to discourage ANY religious thought, and prevent the use of religion as a foundation for ones values is wrong. I went to a private Christian school and I appreciated that a Christian AND a Muslim could both disagree based on theological reasons, and the teacher was allowed to encourage mutual understanding. I would not have appreciated it a parent had run into the classroom and screamed at the teacher for allowing religion to be discussed in class.
In 7th grade I argued with the entire class in opposition to evolution and I must admit that although my arguements were primitive and not very well founded, the fact I could grow from that experience and learn to argue my ideas better was invaluable to me. I think in that situation the teacher stepping in and telling me that religion had no place in a classroom discussion would have not been in my best interests, and been very discouraging.
I think right now we are losing some valuable educational opportunities because of excessively rigid application of seperation of church and state.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I assume that those that are so against displaying the 10 Commandments, would also be against using Lady Justice symbols in public domain as well?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Do you really? That sounds like something that is very unlikely to be true to me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm not aware of anyone worshipping any blindfolded anthropomorphic personifications of justice. Until such a thing comes to my attention, I have no objection to Lady Justice. Perfectly secular symbol; it's a depiction of an idealised human judge, with the idealisation manifested in the blindfold and scales.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
You know, while Iraq is in the midsts of its holy war and Iran threatens holy atomic retribution on Isreal, while the most powerful Isreali fundamentalists seek to own the land of their neighbors, through cash or casualties, and while Osama and his friends plot to terrorize the world into Burkatizing all the women, I just can't take the argument that secularization is bad very seriously.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Tch, tch, Squicky, you edited! The snarky version expressed your point much better.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Putting them there seems like a purposeful response to secularization, which to me, means it shouldn't be there.
So because people over-react in response to secularization, we have too much secularization?
How on earth do you get that out of Lyrhawn's post, let alone the quoted portion?
I didn't seem him cite the overreaction to secularization as evidence of secularization proceeding too far. Could you quote the portion in which he actually said this?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: I assume that those that are so against displaying the 10 Commandments, would also be against using Lady Justice symbols in public domain as well?
Why? What do they have to do with each other?
One reason that religion in public schools etc. is inappropriate is that schools are publicly funded. You can't expect tax dollars of Jewish people, for example, to be spent on, say, a giant crucifix for the gymnasium.
Now some folks may argue that means that their tax dollars shouldn't fund the teaching of science. I would respond that there is no separation between State and science.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I'm not aware of anyone worshipping any blindfolded anthropomorphic personifications of justice.
I'm not aware of a Christian or Jew who worships granite monuments of the ten commandments either.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I believe Lisa, for one, would argue that her tax dollars shouldn't be funding education at all; which does have the advantage of neatly short-circuiting all the Evilution Is The Religion Of Godless Commies debates.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:I'm not aware of anyone worshipping any blindfolded anthropomorphic personifications of justice.
I'm not aware of a Christian or Jew who worships granite monuments of the ten commandments either.
Oh, come on. Deliberate obtuseness does not suit you.
Oh wait, on second thought, it does.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Sorry, I thought the parallel was obvious. Lady Justice is the Roman Goddess of Justice, there is a similar goddess in Greek mythology. A goddess is a religious symbol to an even greater extent than the 10 commandments. Therefore, I assumed, obviously erroneously, that someone who opposes the display of symbols tied to religion on public property (such as crosses or the 10 commandments) would be opposed to displaying a pagan goddess in a much more widespread manner.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Did you really assume that? It doesn't sound like something a rational member of our culture would assume.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Don't drag Lisa into this. Let her choose her own battles.
I have no problems with the 10 commandments on display. (ya know, killing and stealing actually ARE against the law. And lieing, adultry and coveting are generally bad ideas.)
I also have no problems with laws protecting churches from being forced to marry people they think shouldn't be married. Be they gay, interraccial, interdemonimational or just too ugly to breed.
I don't care if you pray in school.
I don't care if you have organized prayer in school so long as no one (or a tiny percentage) objects.
I try to respect religion and let them worship as they see fit.
But by the same token I ask they respect me and if they want to pass a law about something they have a damn good SECULAR reason for wanting to do it. "God told me so" is not a good enough reason to pass a law that affects those who God has told different things or nothing at all.
Pix
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BQT: No one still worships lady justice (what was her actual name?) so it's no longer so much a religious figure as it is a historical and cultural one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In fact, it's arguable that is was Christians who secularized her.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
They did kill off a lot of the people who worshipped her.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Actually modern day pagans and Wiccans do worship the Roman and Greek pantheon.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Did you really assume that? It doesn't sound like something a rational member of our culture would assume.
It may be irrational to assume consistancy and rationality all right. That's kind of a mind-bender though.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:I'm not aware of anyone worshipping any blindfolded anthropomorphic personifications of justice.
I'm not aware of a Christian or Jew who worships granite monuments of the ten commandments either.
True, but I know millions who consider the ten commandments to be sacred, while I do not know of any of any individuals or modern religions that hold Themis (the goddess of justice) sacred.
It is unjust for any government to foster one (or more) religious society in preference to another. Any law or policy that givew the adherents of some religious views advantage over others is fundamentally. The advantage doesn't have to be a extreme as the right to vote or the the right to own public property. Allowing a some religions access to public resources gives is a way of fostering those religious views.
The first 4 of the ten commandments are purely religious in nature. Of the remaining 6, only three are part of modern US law. If public resources (including taxes and/or space) are allocated to display these fundamental religious tenets of Judaism and Christianity, it is unjust to Buddhists, Muslims, Pagans and any others who aren't given equal access to public property to display their religious codes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think the drive for a secular society has gone way too far. It's one of the few things I blame Liberals for, but I also parcel out some blame to the radical conservative. They responded to a perceived threat by going even further to the radical right.... People just need to stop taking EVERYTHING so personally. The reason there shouldn't be a 10 commandments on the grounds of a federal court isn't because of religious issues, it's because the ten commandments have virtually nothing to do with US law.... The desire for PC is ridiculous, and has gone way too far.
My interpretation of this is that Lyrhawn believes liberals have driven religious conservatives to the right by "overreacting" on issues like "the 10 Commandments in a courtroom."
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: True, but I know millions who consider the ten commandments to be sacred, while I do not know of any of any individuals or modern religions that hold Themis (the goddess of justice) sacred.
For those that don't want to take my (or my pagan friend's) word for it:
quote: Themis in Neopaganism Many modern Neopagans, particularly Hellenistic Neopagans, believe that Themis is the goddess of virtue and justice. In many modern sects Themis is thought to take part in deciding the afterlife of one's mortal spirit. She carries a set of scales which weigh a persons virtuous deeds against a persons ill deeds. Themis is also thought to give the final input before the fate of a mortal is decided by Hades (The Judge). Themis is often considered compassionate and virtuous towards mortals, and concerned with mortal wellbeing as well as mortal plights. Worship of Themis is not uncommon among many pagan sects in the United States, according to some pagan websites Themis may have as many worshippers that Artemis or Hera (two of the most popular pagan gods). Worshippers of Themis often attempt to lead virtuous and charitable lives.
Worship of Themis may take the form of chants, prayer, the burning of oils and incense, and the burning of food or spilling of drinks as offerings. Acts of Charity are also considered to be an active form of worship. Some sects that include worship of Themis encourage tithing, and many encourage proselytizing to non-believers. Proselytizing is typically rare among sects that do not include the worship of Themis. Followers of Themis often discourage hedonism, persecution, grudges, malice, spite, mockery, and revenge. Themis is thought to grant boons of good health, euphoria, virility, and charisma to her followers. Some pagan websites suggest that Themis is most commonly worshipped by males.
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Actually modern day pagans and Wiccans do worship the Roman and Greek pantheon.
The Wiccans and Pagans I know do not. They have made it quite clear that this is a misconception about their beliefs. I suppose that doesn't proclude the possibility that there maybe some pagans who worship the Roman and Greek Gods, but I like to see some evidence for it.
Edit: I wrote this post before I read BQTs last post. I stand corrected.
Still I would argue, that the goddess of Themis has become largely a secular symbol and that the overwhelming majority who see this statue holding the scales of justice do not think of it as a religious symbol. There maybe some religious group out there for whom "T" is a sacred symbol, but as long as the overwhelming majority of us continue using it a secular symbol used to form common words it would be ridiculous to ban its use in government because of the religious conotations.
The point is that the ten commandments, or at least the first 4 of them are explicitly religious. It is impossible to view them in any other way. "I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me... .." has a very clear and expressly religious meaning which has not simply become part of the secular landscape no matter how you twist it.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: Still I would argue, that the goddess of Themis has become largely a secular symbol and that the overwhelming majority who see this statue holding the scales of justice do not think of it as a religious symbol. There maybe some religious group out there for whom "T" is a sacred symbol, but as long as the overwhelming majority of us continue using it a secular symbol used to form common words it would be ridiculous to ban its use in government because of the religious conotations.
Oh my GOD I agree with Rabbit! NOOOOOO!!!!!!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BQT,
quote:It may be irrational to assume consistancy and rationality all right. That's kind of a mind-bender though.
I'm having trouble following your thought process here. You keep throwing out these bizarre statements.
First you apparently were assuming that people with a problem with 10 Commandment displays and the like would have a problem with the statues of Justice. As I've said, I don't see how anyone who is even somewhat familiar with our culture would assume that. It's immediately obvious that this is not the case.
Perhaps that's the problem I'm having with your statements, BQT. I was under the impression that you were an American or at the very least living in America, but perhaps I was wrong. Could you correct my misapprehension if there is one?
Since you were assuming that people would react similarily to these different cases and just now had this idea disproven, I could see how your thinking about it might be a little rushed and haphazard. It can be difficult to regain the thread of some issue when one of your fundamental assumptions turns out to not be true.
So I won't throw that much at you right now, except to say that it is not necessarily irrational or inconsistent to treat these situations differently. Many people see some pretty significant differences between the two that justifies treating them differently.
I hope that helps you understand the issue somewhat better.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: They did kill off a lot of the people who worshipped her.
And a lot of people who worshiped her killed a lot of Christians. Neither fact is relevant to the point I was making.
More to the point, Christians consciously converted her likeness to a symbol of the concept of justice rather than a representation of a diety.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chaz_King:
What do you guys think... am I missing something here?
Also, you can find more info on separation of church and state here.
No, I think you're right on! Thanks!
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote: One's religion is a very important set of beliefs. They are the grounding in which are values are based. If we do not base our values in religion of some sort, we run the risk of valuing things that conflict with some of our deepest beliefs about the universe.
What? I'm sorry, but this strikes me as a totally outrageous statement.
So, because I am an atheist and by definition without any belief in *any* religion, then obviously I base my values on something that is contrary to "our" deepest beliefs about the universe...? Or, maybe I don't have any values at all!
Given the remarkable similarity between world mythologies in cultures that grew up totally separated from one another, isn't it more logical to accept that we base our ideas about *religion* around our understanding of the *universe*? Or rather, that we have formed religious beliefs to find answers to our universal questions?
quote:Thus religion should be influencing your actions and political opinions. It should be influencing the way we vote. It should be visible to those around us. It should be expressed.
Should non-religion be visible to those around us, and be expressed? And influence our voting? Do you believe that my philosophy on life is less valid than yours? Why or why not?
quote: Schools and other public institutions should celebrate the religious cultural heritage of its members, in the same way that it would celebrate any other cultural tradition that its members engage in, whether it is playing football instead of soccer or learning square dancing rather than ballroom dancing, or whatever. Separation of church state should not be applied to mean "no religion in public."
That I agree with. There is nothing wrong with exposing people to other beliefs. In fact, it may help end prejudices. Where church and state need to be separated is in any arena where one might seek to take over the other or overtly influence the other. That includes making children pray in school - what about kids who don't pray, or who pray differently? Learning about and celebrating varying religious cultures is excellent - making people participate in them as if they are expected to believe in them is not.
You know what always gets me? In this church/state prayer-in-school thing, I've never heard any kind of "meditation time" proposed. Maybe it has been, but I haven't heard of it yet. If prayer in school is so important to some groups of people, why can't schools set aside a few minutes a day for quiet meditation time - students can pray, sit quietly and think, relax, doodle, whatever they feel is important to do during that time. Wouldn't that solve this whole mess?
quote: If a church controls a political party, and that party has power over it's representatives in office, then the church's officials could effectively control the government.
I agree with this statement. But how to dislodge church "control" over parties? Is it even possible? ...or likely? I wonder....
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:
The desire for PC is ridiculous, and has gone way too far.
I also agree with this.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I think the drive for a secular society has gone way too far. It's one of the few things I blame Liberals for, but I also parcel out some blame to the radical conservative. They responded to a perceived threat by going even further to the radical right.... People just need to stop taking EVERYTHING so personally. The reason there shouldn't be a 10 commandments on the grounds of a federal court isn't because of religious issues, it's because the ten commandments have virtually nothing to do with US law.... The desire for PC is ridiculous, and has gone way too far.
My interpretation of this is that Lyrhawn believes liberals have driven religious conservatives to the right by "overreacting" on issues like "the 10 Commandments in a courtroom."
You're off a bit. I believe that liberals, or mostly liberals, have gone too far in trying to whitewash everything in order to secularize it. I won't go into the reasons of why they did it, because quite frankly I don't know them all. But I also think that in response to that, radical conservatives went from just casually using God in their lives, public and private, to a far more in your face challenging style. Saying that liberals "drove them to it" is dishonest I think, it assigns intent on the part of the liberals. It just happened, and that's how they responded, and so a fight ensued.
But the ten commandments in the courtroom thing was just a really, really recent example. It's been going on for decades.
As for your other quote:
quote:So because people over-react in response to secularization, we have too much secularization? By that logic, burning a cross on someone's lawn is an indication that Affirmative Action has gone too far.
That isn't the conclusion I drew at all. I think we have too much secularization regardless of the response to it. What I see as the overreactive spread of secularization, and the reaction do it, are different issues. I mean, they ARE connected, but the logic you're trying to pin on this isn't the logic that I used at all.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:And a lot of people who worshiped her killed a lot of Christians. Neither fact is relevant to the point I was making.
More to the point, Christians consciously converted her likeness to a symbol of the concept of justice rather than a representation of a diety.
Umm...my thing was actually relevant though. See, the Christians killed off the people who worshipped Themis and then possibly did the conversion thing you're talking about. But without the persecution, torture, destruction of writings and holy sites, and slaughter, there would be no secularization by the Christians.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:You know what always gets me? In this church/state prayer-in-school thing, I've never heard any kind of "meditation time" proposed. Maybe it has been, but I haven't heard of it yet. If prayer in school is so important to some groups of people, why can't schools set aside a few minutes a day for quiet meditation time - students can pray, sit quietly and think, relax, doodle, whatever they feel is important to do during that time. Wouldn't that solve this whole mess?
Where I used to teach, they had a "moment of silence." I felt it to be a barely disguised moment of prayer--like they were being sneaky. But since they didn't mention prayer, I guess it was technically fine.
I was disturbed the first time I actually heard someone express an opinion that God SHOULD be in the schools, since this is a Christian nation, after all. Basically, she was saying that since this is a Christian nation, those other religions chose to move or stay here, and would just have to deal with it. I managed to make the point that if the situation were reversed, she probably wouldn't like it, and that it is infringing on the rights of the parents to raise their kids in whatever religion they saw fit. She reluctantly acquiesed, but I'm pretty sure she still has the same opinion.
But that is still the point I'd like to get into the heads of these Christians (genuine or not) who think that this country needs to be a theocracy. We might not always be the majority, if we even are right now. How would they feel being in a muslim theocracy or a jewish theocracy or a hindu theocracy, etc. etc. etc. I say it's much better to be in a secular state, where we have the freedom to worship or not as we please. Forced religion means nothing, anyway.
And if too much separation of church and public life is what we have to put up with to keep that freedom, then that's okay with me. It's better than going too far the other way.
(I say this as someone who believes in religious persecution in the end times--we won't enjoy religious freedom forever, so I'd like to keep it as long as I can.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But without the persecution, torture, destruction of writings and holy sites, and slaughter, there would be no secularization by the Christians.
I doubt you could make that case convincingly. many of the the Themis worshipers converted on their own to Christianity as well. As early as the end of Constantine's life this process was underway.
Either way, the killing off was not what secularized her. The secularization did not depend on the killing, nor was the killing sufficient to bring it about.
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: [QUOTE] Forced religion means nothing, anyway.
Indeed. Nothing to add to that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think we have too much secularization regardless of the response to it.
Why? What are the downsides of secularization?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I doubt you could make that case convincingly. many of the the Themis worshipers converted on their own to Christianity as well. As early as the end of Constantine's life this process was underway.
Either way, the killing off was not what secularized her. The secularization did not depend on the killing, nor was the killing sufficient to bring it about.
So, if I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that without the violent persecution over a couple of centuries, the pagan worshippers would all have eventually converted to Christianity anyway? I guess that's possible.
Ooh, I can play this game too. It's possible that they would all catch a plague that only affected pagans. Or maybe they would be all together in one place where there was a tremendous fire and they'd all die in it, along with their writings. Or how about a mutant strain of polar bear developed, migrated down to the Mediterranean and ate them all up?
The killing of everyone who professed the belief system was obviously not sufficient for the secularization of this symbol. The Christians killed off many other religious populations whose symbols did not become secularized. However, in the way that it developed the removal of this as a practiced belief system was necessary for the secularization of their symbols.
Now, how this actually happened was by a systematic slaughter of the followers and destruction of their writings and holy places, but I guess it could have also been those darn mutated polar bears.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: First you apparently were assuming that people with a problem with 10 Commandment displays and the like would have a problem with the statues of Justice. As I've said, I don't see how anyone who is even somewhat familiar with our culture would assume that. It's immediately obvious that this is not the case.
Perhaps that's the problem I'm having with your statements, BQT. I was under the impression that you were an American or at the very least living in America, but perhaps I was wrong. Could you correct my misapprehension if there is one?
Since you were assuming that people would react similarily to these different cases and just now had this idea disproven, I could see how your thinking about it might be a little rushed and haphazard. It can be difficult to regain the thread of some issue when one of your fundamental assumptions turns out to not be true.
So I won't throw that much at you right now, except to say that it is not necessarily irrational or inconsistent to treat these situations differently. Many people see some pretty significant differences between the two that justifies treating them differently.
MrSquicky, I can't tell if your post is being kind or patronizing. It comes across as being mostly the latter. I'll take it at face value that you're just being nice, but I thought I'd let you know how it comes across to me.
To answer your questions: I'm American. I used the word 'assume' deliberately in the initial post in order to spark discussion, so don't worry about me losing my train of thought because I was surprised about others disagreement. I fully expected it. I understand that the main reason that people don't have a problem with Lady Justice is that they view the statue as a secular symbol of justice, rather than a religious symbol of justice.
I see Lady Justice as a religious figure that has come to symbolize justice. It reminds me of Greek and Roman influences on our laws, politics, and philosophies. The fact that a legitimate religion worships the roots of this symbol isn't an issue for me. Likewise I see the 10 commandments as a being a religious icon that has come to mean the law. It reminds me of the heritage of some of the first settlers in this country. The fact that this has its roots in two major religions also doesn't bother me. I just don't like that we feel that we have to erase (what is to me) the rich tapestry of symbols in our culture simply because they are associated with a majority religion.
When this happens it makes me think of the PRC and Taiwan. Taiwan's public arena is full of symbols from the traditional folk religions combined with Buddhism and Daosim as well as themes relating to ancestor worship. China shared much of the same culture. However, with the communist government deliberately eliminating any public displays of religion, I feel the culture lacks so much now. I just don't want us to end up the same way.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: You know, while Iraq is in the midsts of its holy war and Iran threatens holy atomic retribution on Isreal, while the most powerful Isreali fundamentalists seek to own the land of their neighbors, through cash or casualties, and while Osama and his friends plot to terrorize the world into Burkatizing all the women, I just can't take the argument that secularization is bad very seriously.
I don't know; 25 million in China, 15 million in Soviet Russia. Tamil Tigers and Khmer Rouge. I think there are equally awful things to be said about forceful secularization. Radicalization in general, whether secular or religious, seems (to me) to be the real problem.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Likewise I see the 10 commandments as a being a religious icon that has come to mean the law.
Except that it doesn't "mean the law." In what culture are the Ten Commandments synonymous with "law?"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So, you've given up discussing this then Mr. Squicky?
That's the only conclusion I can draw, anyway.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Is that really the only conclusion you can draw? It seems to me that's a pretty poor conclusion, especially in comparison with the dozens of other potential explanations.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Except that it doesn't "mean the law." In what culture are the Ten Commandments synonymous with "law?"
Pick a culture largely influenced by Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. The giving of the 10 commandments is a myth (please note that I'm not using this term in a deragatory sense) shared by large amounts of people in European cultures. In this myth, God Himself gives commandments to His people, thus laying down the law from the ultimate authority. So although the 10 commandments were no more integral to our legal tradition that dozens of other documents, they are interesting symbolically.
As a Mormon, the 10 commandments aren't really that significant to me. If I was wanting religious references put up, I could think of dozens of other passages or symbols I would use that have more religious relevance to me personally. It's cultural and traditional for me, not religious.
However, I do realize that it's a religious issue for people on both sides of the spectrum, and that's where the conflict arises.
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
Freedom of religion has as an explicit requirement the separation of church and state. This is not to say that the individuals involved with the government should give up their beliefs, or strip their actions of religious influence. What it does mean, however, is that the government as an organization at no time and in no circumstance must represent itself as affiliated with any particular religion. This exclusion includes religious ceremony; and contrary to popular belief, non-demoninational christian services do not constitute non-affiliation or non-exclusion.
In the end, Freedom of Religion expressly protects a citizen's rights of Freedom from Religion.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:So, because I am an atheist and by definition without any belief in *any* religion, then obviously I base my values on something that is contrary to "our" deepest beliefs about the universe...? Or, maybe I don't have any values at all!
No, just because you are an atheist doesn't mean you have no religion. It just means your religion includes no gods. But you still have beliefs about what the universe is, where it came from, and what matters within it.
quote:Should non-religion be visible to those around us, and be expressed? And influence our voting? Do you believe that my philosophy on life is less valid than yours? Why or why not?
Atheist beliefs should be visible, influence voting, etc. just as much as other religious beliefs are.
quote:But how to dislodge church "control" over parties? Is it even possible? ...or likely? I wonder....
I think it would be better to try to dislodge parties' control over the government. The only trouble is that the people in government, a.k.a. members of political parties, are the ones who can make laws to fight political party power.
quote:What are the downsides of secularization?
I think there exist worldly things and spiritual things in our lives. Religion, whether it be a mainstream church or an atheist's personal beliefs, is the thing that allows understanding of the spiritual components. In a totally secular society, you cannot discuss religion in public, thus we are left alone to try and find answers to spiritual questions. Some can find answers through introspection, but I think most who are left spiritually alone end up turning to worldly things.
This is a problem because value itself exists nowhere physically in the world - it is spiritual by nature. And thus we should or should not do in life is a spiritual question. But beyond that, human beings are spiritual beings - we have bodies, but we also have souls, identities, minds, etc. that are not fully described through any purely worldy description.
For this reason, secularization tends to impair our ability to understand ourselves and understand what matters in life. It places us on our own to try to figure out these things, because it discourages the public discussion of them. It does prevent the conflicts that inevitably arise from discussing such important matters, but at a high cost. Without religious and spiritual understanding, I think we would tend towards a shallow culture and would find outselves lacking meaning in our lives. For this reason, I think secularization should be used with some degree of moderation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Religion, whether it be a mainstream church or an atheist's personal beliefs, is the thing that allows understanding of the spiritual components....In a totally secular society, you cannot discuss religion in public, thus we are left alone to try and find answers to spiritual questions.
Hm. I disagree almost completely with both these assertions.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Why?
What is understanding of the spiritual components of the world, if not religion?
And what is a totally secular society if not one in which questions regarding such spiritual components are excluded from the public sphere?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What is understanding of the spiritual components of the world, if not religion?
Spirituality. In fact, I think religion can be actively inimical to spirituality.
quote:And what is a totally secular society if not one in which questions regarding such spiritual components are excluded from the public sphere?
Is it impossible to imagine a society that doesn't legislate philosophical discussions?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're right. I neglected to include various qualifiers such as 'sincere' and 'serious' and 'mutual'.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I think we have too much secularization regardless of the response to it.
Why? What are the downsides of secularization?
Aren't so much downsides as it strikes me as just plain silly. We weren't created as a secular society, we didn't function that way for the first almost 200 years, and now all of a sudden to some people it's the most important thing that everything individual about religious folk be stamped out when it comes to public life, or that all references to god be stamped out in public view.
I don't know specific downsides, but I also don't like an organized whitewashing. It feels too much like we're erasing our roots, heritage, history, character, etc. It's who we are, why hide it?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I assume your 'we' means the US, so let me just point out that 'you' were also founded as a slave-owning society.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:all of a sudden to some people it's the most important thing that everything individual about religious folk be stamped out when it comes to public life
Hm. I don't see this attitude at all. Where are you picking up the idea that some people want to remove the individuality of the religious?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Obviously I mean the US, we're talking about the secularization of America.
There were divisions over America's slave ownership since BEFORE the Declaration of Independence was signed. The end of the slave tried was signed directly into the Constitution, and the institution was defeated less than a century later. There was no such division over secularization when the nation was founded.
quote:Hm. I don't see this attitude at all. Where are you picking up the idea that some people want to remove the individuality of the religious?
I don't mean the individuality of religions, as in all religious people are the same, but there IS an attitude in this country, from some anyway, whether it be vocal minority or not, that any exercise of the word 'god' even is a violation of some sort. Kids can't pray in school, even to themselves, before a test, can't pray before the big game, the President is criticized for using religious rhetoric in his speeches, and it goes on and on.
I'm surprised you DON'T see the drive for a secularized face on public life.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Lyr, I don't see that at all.
What I do see is a bunch of conservatives looking for the next Satan to fight. When there is a Satan to fight, the folks disregard the weaknesses of their political leaders and the shortcuts they have taken, and they obey.
So in the 50's that Satan to fight was Communism. In the 60's it was the Hippies. Recently it has been family-threatening gays, mad-scientist evolutionaries, and secularists.
This despite the fact that there are not many family threatening gays, mad-scientist evoltionaries, or people wanting to destroy all religions.
What few there are, to my experience, have been people who have been put through h$$$ by some religious group, and are wrongly backlashing against them all.
I have said it before and will again. Disregard the Wolf in Shepherds Clothing (Religious leaders who wish they were politicians), and the Centurian in Temple Garb.(Politicians who wish they were religious leaders) They preach that the way to heaven is to fight Satan. It certainly is easier than living a Christ-like life.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Great post, Dan. As usual.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dan_raven: While I mostly agree with you, I submit that you are perhaps downplaying too much the threat of of those who are too radical.
Are you suggesting that the right has nothing to fear but the radicals that are among them, who portray boogie men that DONT exist. Whereas there is not a single radical liberal that should be feared?
Its kind hard to tell group A they only enemy is within their ranks and that group b (on the opposite end of the spectrum) are all righteously seeking a eutopia for all.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: We weren't created as a secular society
No, we were created as a nation with secular laws.
quote:There was no such division over secularization when the nation was founded.
There sure was. Ever read Thomas Paine's "The age of Reason"? I can give you a rather long list of founding father quotes calling for secular government, as well as quotes from others at the time disagreeing.
I keep hearing this repeated lie: That separation of church and state is a lie. It's not. The constitution makes zero mentions of God (with the exception of the dating convention "the year of our Lord"). It forbids religious tests for public office. Every call for an oath is backed up by the option of "affirmation" rather than oath.
All this was in place before the 1st amendment was written. All of this was quite intentional, and it was discussed. Try reading the annals of Congress, or the Federalist papers.
Oh, and by the way, secular doesn't mean anti-religious. It merely means without reference to religion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Kids can't pray in school, even to themselves, before a test, can't pray before the big game.
You have been the victim of right wing propaganda that is absolutely untrue. The supreme court has repeatedly reaffirmed the right of students and all others to pray as individuals to themselves in every situation. Under the first amendment, students have the right to pray to themselves in school and in all public places. This has been repeatedly affirmed in the courts. The only thing that is prohibited is the use of public school (i.e. tax payer) resources for prayers.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I still think the overarching theme plays out.
Glenn, your point doesn't negate mine. We ARE a nation of secular laws, but I'm not talking about law. I'm talking about public image I guess, so much as anything else.
I'm NOT religious, I don't care to have religion shoved in my face. But I also don't think "In God We Trust" should be removed from money. I don't think god should have been added to the pledge of allegiance in the first place, so I don't mind it being removed. I'm picky, and choosey, too bad, I'm allowed to be. But just because I'm not religious doesn't mean that I think we should all be publicly secular. If the president wants to lead the nation in a prayer, let him. If politicians want to use religious rhetoric, it's their right.
If the president wants to lead the nation on a Crusade in the name of God...well then I draw a line, as he is clearly serving his own religious interests, and not those of the nation.
But the whole fight is giving me a headache, especially since I view it as an extension of the extremes of both parties. The Extreme Left is trying to remove religion from public life, and the Extreme Right reacts by injecting it everywhere feasible, and not feasible, and both scream bloody murder when it doesn't work.
Dan -
I agree with you about the next big Satan to fight...but I think part of the problem there is that many of them view the next big Satan as LIBERALS, which just feeds into the problem. Ann Coulter is their Shepard in many ways, and when she does things like call Liberals Godless, and when Orson Scott Card says they aren't godless, after all, their religion is Global Warming, it only makes everything worse.
Everyone in the middle suffers, whilst the wings play out a culture war.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Ooh, I can play this game too.
It's pretty obvious what game you're playing, as evidenced by this piece of crap which you can't begin to support:
quote:The killing of everyone who professed the belief system was obviously not sufficient for the secularization of this symbol.
emphasis added, but probably not necessary.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Lyr, I don't see that at all.
What I do see is a bunch of conservatives looking for the next Satan to fight.
I've see both things - a lot of each. I also see a lot of the less extreme people on both sides downplaying the extent of what the other side is doing, with some people downplaying those trying to establish a near-theocracy and some people downplaying those trying to drive almost last vestige of religion from the public square.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Lyrhawn,
Rereading the thread, I guess you were reacting to this:
quote:And what is a totally secular society if not one in which questions regarding such spiritual components are excluded from the public sphere?
And I was actually agreeing with you. I just didn't know it. Our society isn't secular, our laws are. But people keep repeating that ditty about separation being a lie, and atheism being a religion, in an attempt to make it the truth.
quote:The Extreme Left is trying to remove religion from public life, and the Extreme Right reacts by injecting it everywhere feasible,
Maybe it's a subtle difference, but I see it as exactly the opposite. The fact that religion is the dominant social force that it is makes it seem that "secularism" is the rebellious force attacking the establishment.
But the founding fathers created a secular government, and the religious right (or whatever is was called at the time) has been trying to undo that ever since, starting with congressional chaplains (one of the things that they argued about very shortly after the constitution was ratified). George Washington's oath of office had "so help me God" added to it by Washington Irving, The Gettysburg address had "under God" inserted by an editor, "In God we Trust" was put on money over U.S. Grant's objections, and of course there's "under God."
The fact that atheists are asserting our right not to be forced to pray is a reaction to religion being injected into our lives. We didn't start it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I guess maybe it just doesn't bother me as much. But then sometimes it does. I'm fickle. Giant Ten Commandments displays annoy the hell of me, it's silly and seems a melodramatic attempt by the person putting it there to pretend that our laws are more a product of Christian laws than they are anything else. You might as well put up a stone monument with a recitation of Drakonian law on it, it predates Christianity by several centuries.
On the other hand, it doesn't bother me to have the President lead the nation in prayer. It doesn't bother me to hear speeches where FDR talks about "crusades for liberty" and "righteous might." The fact that we were founded as (in society I mean, not law) a Christian nation isn't a secret, and it's not something to hide, just as it isn't something we need emblazoned on a banner somewhere.
Somewhere in the middle we need to find a balance. That balance doesn't include monuments to Bible law, and it doesn't involve the silencing and removal of everything remotely religious from the public sphere.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But I also don't think "In God We Trust" should be removed from money. I don't think god should have been added to the pledge of allegiance in the first place, so I don't mind it being removed.
What do you see as the distinction between these things? Is it that one is more ostentatious than the other, and at heart you're not bothered by the meaning of something as much as you are by a showy display?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:On the other hand, it doesn't bother me to have the President lead the nation in prayer.
That doesn't bother me either. He's not creating a law, or policy, so we are not compelled to obey the way children are in class. I do object to declaring "a national day of prayer," however. It may not be a law, but it has the gravity of an official proclamation.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Would you feel better if he asked a Cardinal to declare a national day of prayer? I see a national day of prayer applying to me in the same way that Secratary's Day does. I'm not religious, nor am I a Secretary, so it doesn't really bother or effect me one way or the other.
Tom -
Honestly? I really don't know what the difference is. But if I had to take a stab at it, and like I said, I'm fickle, I don't really have a distinct policy on the subject, but I like the originals. I don't like things being altered after the fact just for the sake of religion, be it to add it or subtract it. Maybe it's the Historian in me, but I hate seeing things altered like that just for the sake of some ulterior motive, especially things that have been around for a long time.
I don't know if that's a satisfactory answer or not, but it IS how I feel. It's the best I can do.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)