This thread was inspired by a discussion going on in the Republican Primary thread. It's an interesting discussion that is only tangentially related to the Republican Primary so I thought I'd give it its own thread.
There is a prevalent belief among conservative Christians that Christianity is under assault in American society. I'm not sure I understand the origin of this belief. I'm pretty confident its overblown but not entirely without cause.
I see a very interesting contrast living in Trinidad. Here, the population is roughly half Christians, 30%Hindu's, 10% Muslim and a small fraction Jewish, Buddhist, Rastafarian, Vodoun and atheist. But people are very accepting of the fact we live in a multi-religious society. Christians join with their neighbors to celebrate Eid and Diwali. Hindus' and Muslims' enjoy the celebration of Christmas. I've never heard people complain that they those people who celebrate Christmas as a secular holiday are destroying it and no one seems to worry about wishing Muslims and Hindus a Merry Christmas. It hasn't always been this way. Christianity used to be the state religion and other religions were officially suppressed. Christianity has unquestionably lost influence and power in this society over the past half century but Christians aren't going around whining about being under attack. For the most part, they see recognition and acceptance of religious diversity as a good thing.
So why is it so different in the US? Why are American Christians so paranoid about being oppressed? Why do conservative American Christians see themselves as under assault from religious diversity and secularism?
I suppose I could just as well ask why religious minorities and non-religious people feel they are under assault from Christians, but the answer to that question is far more obvious to me.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Also, I love the saying on this t-shirt. Its just so literal it makes me laugh.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Should be noted, if you were to walk around the Middle East and ask them how the American war on Religion is going. They'd probably think you were referring to the *actual* war that America is waging in several *stan countries and Ir* countries.
Then when you look at countries like Canada and the UK, well we do have the "War on Christmas" meme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_controversy It's just not as strong.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Why do conservative American Christians see themselves as under assault from religious diversity and secularism?
like I quoted before:
quote:I have to say, as someone who is not a Christian, it’s hard for me to believe Christians are a persecuted people in America. God willing, maybe one of you one day will even rise up and get to be president of this country — or maybe forty-four in a row. But that’s my point, is they’ve taken this idea of no establishment as persecution, because they feel entitled, not to equal status, but to greater status. - Stewart
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: (in the Republican Primary thread) . . . schools (not school loudspeakers, but school campuses) are generally purposed to be used by students as a place to learn and grow. Part of learning and growing is being exposed to new ideas and outlooks, including ones that you might find wrong or offensive. So I'm pretty firmly opposed to restrictions on student speech, including religious speech.
Since I'm worried I may be misread, let me repeat that at this point I suspect I'm speaking more abstractly and less about this SCOTUS decision, because it sounds like there were many other factors in this case that led to the decision being made the way it was. That's fine! I'm really just trying to make a distinction in principles, not in the particulars of this case. Okay?
You hit on one of the problems of perception. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the right of individual students to free speech, including religious speech, in the public schools. They have repeatedly ruled that restrictions on religious speech from students violate the first amendment. But very few people seem to know that. There is a popular perception that its forbidden for an individual student to pray or discuss religion in schools. That is absolutely untrue and the courts have ruled that such restriction violate the constitution.
The problem, as I see it, is that some people are trying to justify using government institutions to promote religion by claiming its a free speech issue. They are deliberately muddying the waters by claiming that things like prayers at football games are "student initiated" free speech. As a result, people get the false impression that students are forbidden to offer private prayers in public schools, which is nearly the opposite of the truth.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Sam: You don't think there is any backlash occurring in our society? A reaction against the historic hegemony Christianity has enjoyed in the US? I absolutely agree that the idea that there is a "war" on Christianity is patently absurd, but I do think that we sometimes overcompensate when trying to be more inclusive of other religions.
I don't know how accurate what he said was, but I also saw an interesting talk Penn Jillette gave about religion, and one thing I remember him saying was that if you go further back into our history, there was much less of a concept of "Christianity" as a unified force, and much more division between the sects. I do remember people making a hullabaloo that JFK was Catholic, so this seems plausible.
According to Penn (or Penn's source, I guess) the fight over abortion was a unifying force for Christians of all sects, and since then they realized that they can accomplish a lot more invasive laws if they work as a team. Some time after they unified would be when I see the backlash as having occurred, but I could be wrong. This could easily be one of those cases where I live in an ultra-liberal area so the "backlash" may actually be restricted to a comparatively small cluster that I am attributing to a larger group.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: (in the Republican Primary thread) . . . schools (not school loudspeakers, but school campuses) are generally purposed to be used by students as a place to learn and grow. Part of learning and growing is being exposed to new ideas and outlooks, including ones that you might find wrong or offensive. So I'm pretty firmly opposed to restrictions on student speech, including religious speech.
Since I'm worried I may be misread, let me repeat that at this point I suspect I'm speaking more abstractly and less about this SCOTUS decision, because it sounds like there were many other factors in this case that led to the decision being made the way it was. That's fine! I'm really just trying to make a distinction in principles, not in the particulars of this case. Okay?
You hit on one of the problems of perception. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the right of individual students to free speech, including religious speech, in the public schools. They have repeatedly ruled that restrictions on religious speech from students violate the first amendment. But very few people seem to know that. There is a popular perception that its forbidden for an individual student to pray or discuss religion in schools. That is absolutely untrue and the courts have ruled that such restriction violate the constitution.
The problem, as I see it, is that some people are trying to justify using government institutions to promote religion by claiming its a free speech issue. They are deliberately muddying the waters by claiming that things like prayers at football games are "student initiated" free speech. As a result, people get the false impression that students are forbidden to offer private prayers in public schools, which is nearly the opposite of the truth.
I did say in my first response to Lyr in the other thread that I am aware that students are allowed to pray privately in schools, and that many members of the religious (as you said) believe the literal opposite of the truth in this regard. I saw the case in question as being an interesting middlepoint between the two sides, and one where perhaps we had erred too hard against prayer. After reading your analysis I think SCOTUS probably made an alright call here.
Generally speaking, I'm in favor of everybody being able to say whatever they want whenever they want, because I think that's an integral part of a free and open society, and I think that the best theories will win out in the end. But I recognize that schools are already pretty much the antithesis of a free and open society, sooo... it's a sticky situation, and I'm no more fond of the idea of cheerleaders being forced to listen to a prayer than you are. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Back in Michigan, there was a kerfuffle over a new anti bullying law because it made exceptions for religious views. So taunting the fat kid is a no no, but taunting the Jewish kid is state sponsored. I hope the first case in court is a Muslim kid in dearborn making fun of a Christian kid so we can watch fox news flip out about it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
That seems stupid.
But then, you can probably guess my opinion of anti-bullying laws!
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I don't think there is an actual effort to oppress Christianity, however I do understand why some people would to think there was.
There are many in the Christian community that treat atheism as a religion, and any effort to make us a more secular country as those atheists forcing their religion onto them.
While I believe everyone should have the right to worship how they choose, I do believe that school wide programs that promote religion are wrong. If some football players wish to have a prayer before a game and it is not mandatory, I am ok with that. If there is a student that does not wish to pray with the rest, that is fine. Do I think the school should put a stop to it because the kid complains or does not feel comfortable with it? Nope. He has his right to believe what he wants just as the other kids do.
That being said, I do not think it appropriate for the paid staff, such as the coach, to participate or encourage the players to pray.
There is a case right now in Eastern Texas in a small town. They have had a nativity scene displayed near the courthouse for over 35 years, and now a Wisconsin based group is trying to get them to remove it because one person complained.
Can you blame these people for thinking that there are people warring against their religion? Right or wrong, these people believe that the will of one person is more important than the rest.
There are schools that if you mention your Christian beliefs in school you are suspended, yet rolling out a prayer mat and praying is ok. The difference is that one is defined as pushing beliefs on others, and the other is considered tolerance.
I really don't fall on either side of the isue, because it is too complex. Can I understand why some Christians would feel that there is a war on religion? Absolutely. That doesn't mean they are right, or that the people fighting for a more secular society are saints themselves.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Sam: You don't think there is any backlash occurring in our society? A reaction against the historic hegemony Christianity has enjoyed in the US? I absolutely agree that the idea that there is a "war" on Christianity is patently absurd, but I do think that we sometimes overcompensate when trying to be more inclusive of other religions.
Overcompensate? Not exactly.
Often I think the issue is that people have a poor understanding of what is entailed in multiculturalism- that it consists of a mutual celebration of cultures, rather than a broad suppression of a majority culture.
Interestingly, I think probably the ultimate reason for the commercial version of the "war on Christmas:" specifically such things as corporate secularization of sales and decoration, is *because* of Christians and their expectations, and not because of sensitivity to minorities.
Stores do a simple kind of math: If we decorate for *Christmas,* we will be missing out on welcoming and impressing the vast number of non-Christian clients whom we would like to serve, not to mention making our own non-Christian and/or secularist employees possibly uncomfortable. We could then decorate and advertise for other faiths, but this would be a) impractical, b) confusing, and c) off-putting to our majority of Christian clients- so that's a non-starter. OR, we could just decorate and advertise for a secular holiday, and avoid the whole thing, and people will still shop here because it's not like we're *anti* anything, we're just not playing a part in religious festivities.
That's an *easy* decision, and it's the right one. I guffaw at those who see it as a sinister plot, particularly some sort of sinister athiest/jewish/multiculturalist/liberal/socialist/fascist plot to destroy Christmas. We atheists and Jews, Muslims and Hindus, and probably the fascists and socialists, are all minority groups. We don't dictate the agenda to anyone, but we *are* paying customers, and it's only perfectly reasonable to want and pursue our business, especially given that it's so easy to appeal to everyone in a secular fashion.
quote: I don't think there is an actual effort to oppress Christianity, however I do understand why some people would to think there was.
This is getting said a lot, and I want to know what it means. Does it mean that you understand, as in comprehend, the faulty reasoning behind this kind of thinking, although you reject it, or that you are sympathetic to those feelings, even if you don't have reason to believe that they are based on an accurate assessment.
Because honestly I *don't* understand people who think this is a conspiracy. The reasoning behind the argument is facile, and stupid, in my opinion, and I don't understand people who rely on facile stupid reasoning. I guess I *comprehend* how this reasoning works, but I share no sympathy with it, at all. So I'm curious what is meant by "I understand, those feelings/thoughts/views/ideas."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:There are schools that if you mention your Christian beliefs in school you are suspended, yet rolling out a prayer mat and praying is ok.
I need a reference because suspending a student for mentioning their Christian beliefs is in clear violation of the 1st amendment: a point that has been repeatedly clarified by the supreme court. If such a student were to sue in court, they would clearly win. Many school officials, parents and students don't clearly understand the laws so this may be happening. But I said before, the devil is in the details. Every time I've seen a case that was presented a Christian being punished for religious expression, the details showed a very different picture.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Sam: You don't think there is any backlash occurring in our society? A reaction against the historic hegemony Christianity has enjoyed in the US? I absolutely agree that the idea that there is a "war" on Christianity is patently absurd, but I do think that we sometimes overcompensate when trying to be more inclusive of other religions.
Overcompensate? Not exactly.
Often I think the issue is that people have a poor understanding of what is entailed in multiculturalism- that it consists of a mutual celebration of cultures, rather than a broad suppression of a majority culture.
Interestingly, I think probably the ultimate reason for the commercial version of the "war on Christmas:" specifically such things as corporate secularization of sales and decoration, is *because* of Christians and their expectations, and not because of sensitivity to minorities.
Stores do a simple kind of math: If we decorate for *Christmas,* we will be missing out on welcoming and impressing the vast number of non-Christian clients whom we would like to serve, not to mention making our own non-Christian and/or secularist employees possibly uncomfortable. We could then decorate and advertise for other faiths, but this would be a) impractical, b) confusing, and c) off-putting to our majority of Christian clients- so that's a non-starter. OR, we could just decorate and advertise for a secular holiday, and avoid the whole thing, and people will still shop here because it's not like we're *anti* anything, we're just not playing a part in religious festivities.
That's an *easy* decision, and it's the right one. I guffaw at those who see it as a sinister plot, particularly some sort of sinister athiest/jewish/multiculturalist/liberal/socialist/fascist plot to destroy Christmas. We atheists and Jews, Muslims and Hindus, and probably the fascists and socialists, are all minority groups. We don't dictate the agenda to anyone, but we *are* paying customers, and it's only perfectly reasonable to want and pursue our business, especially given that it's so easy to appeal to everyone in a secular fashion.
I completely agree!
My problem with the concept of multi-culturalism is not that I fear the majority culture will be suppressed. It's simply that I don't think all cultures are worth celebration.
Edit: Oh also I guess I don't completely agree about whether or not there is any overcompensation. I do think there is a certain level of that, though I find your argument about businesses totally compelling. I don't think the backlash I mentioned is coming from businesses.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, Dan, multiculturalism resides in the legal framework, and the interpretation of that framework, of our rights and duties as citizens. It presupposes that we can and should coexist as separate cultures that enjoy mutual commerce, and live under a single legal framework, which will ensure our stable relations. Multiculturalism does not entail the forced homogenization of culture- it frees individual subcultures from having to appeal completely to a single cultural paradigm in order to have good standing in society.
Trust me, I live in a country that is having struggles with multiculturalism that Americans have *no* concept of these days. Where very reasonable and educated people wouldn't give a black person the time of day; and not out racism, but out of cultural superiority.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Also, I love the saying on this t-shirt. Its just so literal it makes me laugh.
I would submit that not all cultures can freely coexist, enjoy mutual commerce, and operate under a single legal framework. That's precisely the problem! Any that can, I don't really have a problem with. I don't think that individual subcultures should have to appeal to a single cultural paradigm per se, but I do think there is a basic barrier of entry for any liberal society, and I think that some cultures have a strong tendency to fail that test. I have no problem with those cultures reforming that failure while still maintaining their heritage, but I have a huge problem with acting as though it is wrong to call this failure what it is.
Also, is there some reason you think your example is not simply an example of (appallingly heinous) racism? Race ≠ Culture. And making assumptions about someone's culture because of their race is, fundamentally, racist.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rabbit: Sorry if you feel like we're hijacking, by the way. Just let us know if you feel we are. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Back in Michigan, there was a kerfuffle over a new anti bullying law because it made exceptions for religious views. So taunting the fat kid is a no no, but taunting the Jewish kid is state sponsored. I hope the first case in court is a Muslim kid in dearborn making fun of a Christian kid so we can watch fox news flip out about it.
No, it really didn't. I mean, that's what a lot of the bloggers were saying the law said, but it was mostly a classic case of people overreacting to language.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think that Ta-Nehisi Coates hit on a very important element that is fueling the feelings of a "War on Christianity" in his post here.
quote:But what if there's something else? What if the conservatives are more perceptive and honest than the moderate liberals? I love Grant and Lincoln, but they were dead wrong in claiming that emancipation did not promote "social equality." Meanwhile the bigots who asserted that emancipation meant that Sambo would be "marryin yer daughters" were right. I wouldn't be shocked if Grant and Lincoln knew this, but also knew that to admit as much would be suicidal.
Andrew, himself, has talked about the rigorous challenge atheism presents to Christianity. Are Christians in this country actually under-siege? Will Barack Obama's grandchildren, for instance, be as Christian as he is?
I think that many key components of conservative thought are "under attack" by changing social mores. Look at how quickly the status of interracial marriage has changed; I occasionally see bigots react to me, but it's not illegal in my state anymore. I suspect that it won't be an issue in *any* way by the time my generation's children are dating. Acceptance of homosexuality has rocketed, and, while it'll still be an issue in a few decades, it'll be a world away from what it was when I was a kid.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I understand why some people feel there's a war on religion not unlike I understand why some people believe there was a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam, or that the moon landing was faked.
They're all profoundly bad, inaccurate ideas, but they seem kinda sensible from a certain point of view. I understand how, viewing the world from certain perspectives, it can feel like there's a war on religion in the USA today. But I don't at all understand it in the way we understand how someone else could arrive at a valid opinion we disagree with.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Jhai, I think that's very accurate. I think that in the long term, in any truly open society, atheism is going to eventually become the norm, because atheism is the only rational conclusion. Frankly, for all of these issues, I think the only thing you really need to do is strike down the systematic crushing of the rational viewpoint (be it on issues of race, sexuality, or religion), and the superiority of the egalitarian theory in question will win out in the end.
I think that when you push too hard trying to legislate people into believing something that you could just as easily persuade them using logic (because your side has the logic!), you run the real risk of generating more resistance and backlash than if you'd simply let all ideas stand or fall on their own merits.
When someone starts saying something terrible and stupid, the correct response is not to tell them to shut up. It's to let them keep talking, so that their terrible ideas can wither under the glare of reason and criticism.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:atheism is the only rational conclusion.
It is not.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I think that Ta-Nehisi Coates hit on a very important element that is fueling the feelings of a "War on Christianity" in his post here.
quote:But what if there's something else? What if the conservatives are more perceptive and honest than the moderate liberals? I love Grant and Lincoln, but they were dead wrong in claiming that emancipation did not promote "social equality." Meanwhile the bigots who asserted that emancipation meant that Sambo would be "marryin yer daughters" were right. I wouldn't be shocked if Grant and Lincoln knew this, but also knew that to admit as much would be suicidal.
Andrew, himself, has talked about the rigorous challenge atheism presents to Christianity. Are Christians in this country actually under-siege? Will Barack Obama's grandchildren, for instance, be as Christian as he is?
I think that many key components of conservative thought are "under attack" by changing social mores. Look at how quickly the status of interracial marriage has changed; I occasionally see bigots react to me, but it's not illegal in my state anymore. I suspect that it won't be an issue in *any* way by the time my generation's children are dating. Acceptance of homosexuality has rocketed, and, while it'll still be an issue in a few decades, it'll be a world away from what it was when I was a kid.
Is that an atheist principles winning over thing or is it religions just becoming more liberal? If a religion accepts homosexual marriage, are they less religious than one that doesn't?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:atheism is the only rational conclusion.
It is not.
I'm pretty confident that we will not settle this one here. I apologize if the way I phrased that was offensive, though. Wasn't my intent.
Edit: Just so you know, it took every ounce of willpower to not simply reply "Is too!" Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:atheism is the only rational conclusion.
It is not.
Atheism isn't the only rational conclusion, god speaks to me so I know!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:atheism is the only rational conclusion.
It is not.
No, it is. But I also think attempting to convince religious people of this is irrational.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Also, is there some reason you think your example is not simply an example of (appallingly heinous) racism? Race ≠ Culture. And making assumptions about someone's culture because of their race is, fundamentally, racist.
There are concommitant logical fallacies associated with racism that are not exclusively the domain of ethnic prejudice. it is possible to be prejudiced without being racist- but in order to explain That, I would have to dealve into an explanation of racism that few people actually like to hear, because it doesn't fit well with the popular shorthand for racism.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'm curious what you have to say. Perhaps yet another thread is in order? If you'd prefer not to discuss it here at all, that's cool too, no worries.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:atheism is the only rational conclusion.
It is not.
Atheism isn't the only rational conclusion, god speaks to me so I know!
There are medicines for that! :-)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In the grim future, there exists only children of the Republican Primary thread.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:atheism is the only rational conclusion.
It is not.
Atheism isn't the only rational conclusion, god speaks to me so I know!
That was surprisingly on the money. Congratulations!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Back in Michigan, there was a kerfuffle over a new anti bullying law because it made exceptions for religious views. So taunting the fat kid is a no no, but taunting the Jewish kid is state sponsored. I hope the first case in court is a Muslim kid in dearborn making fun of a Christian kid so we can watch fox news flip out about it.
No, it really didn't. I mean, that's what a lot of the bloggers were saying the law said, but it was mostly a classic case of people overreacting to language.
I read the bill, it wasn't very long. It could certainly be construed to mean what the bloggers were saying. It all depends on how a judge sees it.
Of course, that wasn't the only problem with it. It had enforcement issues. But that's neither here nor there.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Given how absurdly and exclusively Christian America is compared to most western countries, it's actually a bit funny. Especially considering countries like Canada and the UK don't have separation of church and state whereas the US clearly does. It's the law enshrined in that constitution that many Americans use to store a large amount of guns under their pillows. Why are people complaining?
I personally celebrate Christmas in an atheistic way. Tim Minchin accurately summarizes my approach to Christmas in his Christmas song.
I actually feel there are two Christmases: the secular one that involves presents, family and decorations, and the religious one which is the one about Jesus.
In a country like the UK, Christmas is more cultural rather than religious. It still struggles with its religious cousin, but aside from awkward school plays and religios guest speakers (who want to remind us of the 'gift that keeps on giving') most people recognise that Christmas is a holiday that can have nothing to do with religion. A Christmas tree covered with lights is more about pushing back the encroaching and early (!) darkness than about welcoming the Christ Child.
In the US, Christianity is so prevalent and so heartfelt that a Christmas tree is not an expression of holiday joy or connected to the pagan festivals that were centered around the Winter Solstice but only a symbol of religiousness at Christmastime.
As that form, I can understand that people of other religions might feel rather offended that despite that little piece of constitution, Christianity still gets to slap itself all over government buildings.
What the US needs to do to get more Christianity, ironically, is to be far less zealous about it. Stop appropriating everything related to Christmas as religious, regardlesss of their provenance. Sure, "Santa" is a saint but is anyone really committed to that fact anymore? Clearly not. Santa today is a modern invention.
We don't have to remember "the true meaning of Christmas" at all and if Christianity stopped trying to remind everyone of it all the time there would be far more public Christmas celebrations because atheists and people of other religions would participate more willingly. As Tim Minchin suggests, many atheists don't even mind carols; after all, rather a lot of them describe things that didn't happen in the Bible or absurdities like Jesus in the snow, so I think many people think the Christmas Carol crazy ship is one that that left a long time ago.
And yes, some of you may come along spluttering and saying, "But Christmas is a religious celebration, clearly."
No. Christmas was, in some locations, a religious celebration that coincided with other celebrations of a similar nature. There's nothing universal about the 25th of December, Christmas trees or Christmas cacti, shoes filled with candy or stockings filled with presents. What these things are are a cultural Christmas.
Stop trying to make cultural Christmas religious, and you'll get a lot more Christmas in your public life. Make it the precious preserve of the zealous few, and it will disappear from public eye.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Given how absurdly and exclusively Christian America is compared to most western countries, it's actually a bit funny. Especially considering countries like Canada and the UK don't have separation of church and state whereas the US clearly does. It's the law enshrined in that constitution that many Americans use to store a large amount of guns under their pillows. Why are people complaining?
Just for funsies, do you know where "the separation of church and state" appears enshrined in the US constitution?
Man, I wish the constitution explicitly allowed us to store lots of guns under our pillows. Firstly, because I like liberty and don't like it when the state tells me where I have to store my guns. But more importantly, I hate to be comfortable, and storing guns under my pillow would mean I could get rid of all the rocks and sticks I have there now. Which would be great.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
First amendment? Am I making a mistake?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As Tim Minchin suggests, many atheists don't even mind carols; after all, rather a lot of them describe things that didn't happen in the Bible or absurdities like Jesus in the snow, so I think many people think the Christmas Carol crazy ship is one that that left a long time ago.
Sophie and I have had this conversation already. She loves Christmas carols, but it's pretty clear to her that the things described in the carols are darned unlikely. She also figured out the Santa thing for herself three years ago, but interestingly is fascinated by the real-life "Saint Nicholas"; even though we've also discussed the fact that many of the most lovely stories about Nicholas are almost certainly no more truthful than the ones about Santa Claus, she likes to refer to Saint Nicholas as "the Santa who was sort of real".
Christmas and Easter are the two holidays that really drive it home for her that there are people who believe very strongly in things that her dad doesn't. We've had conversations about what Christians mean when they talk about "the reason for the season," and what Linus is describing in the Christmas special, and even why people have lamb-shaped cakes at Easter (although she finds that whole concept horrifying.)
But we still enjoy the holidays themselves enormously. I'm not even going to say that we enjoy the trappings of the holidays, because frankly I think we enjoy those two holidays for what they really are: a celebration of light and family in the darkness of winter, and a grateful outpouring of joy at the start of Spring. And Sophie gladly sings the carols along with me, even though she feels a little awkward doing it, because "people like nice stories."
------------
Teshi: the separation of church and state is a concept derived from the text of the First Amendment, but in reality the First Amendment's religious protections are not as strongly worded as they have been interpreted. Many Christians like to assert, for example, that stamping the Ten Commandments all over a courthouse does not violate the written text of the First Amendment -- even though it's a clear violation of the concept of the separation of church and state -- because they do not consider it to be an establishment of religion.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Many people would like to ignore, for convenience, the process by which we interpret the constitution, and the actual body of law that is based upon it, in favor of some more comfortable interpretation, which has no basis in precedent.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In the US, Christianity is so prevalent and so heartfelt that a Christmas tree is not an expression of holiday joy or connected to the pagan festivals that were centered around the Winter Solstice but only a symbol of religiousness at Christmastime.
A christmas tree is only a symbol of religiousness here?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Huh, I personally wold buy a tree for the association with family togetherness that it represents. And we aren't really a Christian family- at least, if you asked any of us, that isn't the answer you'd get.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Just for funsies, do you know where "the separation of church and state" appears enshrined in the US constitution?.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think we all know that exact phrase never appears in the constitution. :yawn:
Neither do the phrases "separation of powers" or "checks and balances", but they are all phrases that were used by the founding fathers and which were guiding principles in the drafting of the constitution.
I get very annoyed with people who treat the constitution likes its divine scripture. Its not. It's the furtherest possible thing. It wasn't dictated letter by letter by God. It doesn't have a single perfect author whose intent we must try to understand. It wasn't intended to be a permanent guiding principal of our political lives.
Its a compromise document drafted by men who disagreed about almost everything. The intent of the founding fathers was to produce a document that a super majority would support. That meant settling for some parts that were obviously clunky (like method for electing the President). It meant being intentionally vague on some points. It meant including some pretty vile stuff, like slavery. It meant completely ignoring some contentious questions (like session). The founding fathers knew it wasn't perfect and that it would have to be changed, that's why they included a means for amending it.
They knew that many of the contentious issues would have to be resolved in the legislature and courts rather than in the constitution itself.
[ December 09, 2011, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:In the US, Christianity is so prevalent and so heartfelt that a Christmas tree is not an expression of holiday joy or connected to the pagan festivals that were centered around the Winter Solstice but only a symbol of religiousness at Christmastime.
I find this statement completely baffling. I don't know anyone Christian who considers a Christmas tree to be a Christian religious symbol. In fact, I've often heard Christmas trees and Santa listed among the secular aspects of Christmas.
[ December 09, 2011, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I've never considered the tree a religious symbol, nor the presents under it. It takes thought and a little imagination to tie them into a religious Christmas theme, which I usually don't bother to do. And yet we put up the tree and put presents underneath it every year because that's our tradition, too, and such traditions are comforting. The kids love to decorate the tree and keep the lights on in the evening, and they sure as heck love seeing the presents.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
^ Ditto.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
On the other hand, renaming a Christmas tree to a "holiday tree" is deemed an attack on religion by some, despite the fact that it's not religious.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Yeah, not sure how that squares.
quote:The head of the Roman Catholic church in Providence also criticized Chafee's decision not to use the word Christmas. Chafee's decision "is most disheartening and divisive," Bishop Thomas Tobin said in a statement. He said it ignores American traditions and is "an affront to the faith of many citizens."
quote:"He's trying to put our religion down," Ken Schiano of Cranston, who came to the tree lighting after hearing about the controversy, told USA Today. "It's a Christmas tree. It always has been and it always will be, no matter what that buffoon says it is," he added.
(my emphasis)
[ December 09, 2011, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I am ok with Christmas being portrayed publicly has a secular holiday, and I think for the most part it is.
What irks me is the people that complain when you tell them Merry Christmas. When I tell that to someone it is wishing them well. I'm not trying to convert them to Christianity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I agree that getting angry about well wishes is pointless but why would you wish someone a Merry Christmas when they don't celebrate Christmas? It is rather like wishing someone Happy Birthday when it isn't their birthday. Wouldn't it make more sense to wish them a happy whatever they have? If you really wish them well, why not express that wish in a way that will please the recipient?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Has that actually happened to you? I thought that kind of stuff was just anti-PC urban legends. I can't imagine getting annoyed at being offered well wishes on a holiday celebrated by another culture.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:On the other hand, renaming a Christmas tree to a "holiday tree" is deemed an attack on religion by some, despite the fact that it's not religious.
This is my point. I recognise the tree as a secular symbol and I realise many other people who celebrate wholly or partially secularly do as well, but people who celebrate Christmas almost exclusively religiously would like to try to insist that the tree is part of a religious symbol, either to remove or preserve it.
These are the voices that seem to make the most noise in the US.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Stores do a simple kind of math: If we decorate for *Christmas,* we will be missing out on welcoming and impressing the vast number of non-Christian clients whom we would like to serve, not to mention making our own non-Christian and/or secularist employees possibly uncomfortable. We could then decorate and advertise for other faiths, but this would be a) impractical, b) confusing, and c) off-putting to our majority of Christian clients- so that's a non-starter. OR, we could just decorate and advertise for a secular holiday, and avoid the whole thing, and people will still shop here because it's not like we're *anti* anything, we're just not playing a part in religious festivities.
I still find this attitude perplexing. The celebration of Christmas as a secular holiday is already widespread around the world. They were playing Christmas carols in Japan when I was there in October. Trinidad is a far more multi-cultural than the US and stores here decorate for "Christmas". Almost all Hindus and Muslims here are happy to join in the secular aspects of the celebration as are almost all non-religious Americans.
I know lots of people (Christian and non-Christian) who dislike the overt commercial marketing of Christmas and the pressure to buy stuff nobody actually wants that comes with the season. I know plenty of people, both Christian and non-Christian, who are sick of the Christmas Muzak. I don't know anyone who would be willing to spend a lot of money on Christmas crap as long as it gets called "Seasonal" rather than "Christmas".
I can understand the need to be inclusive. Years ago when I first proposed making a hatrack charitable donation for Christmas, several of the forum Jews said they'd like to participate as long as it wasn't called a "Christmas donation". So I proposed "Holiday" or "Seasonal". Then a Jehovah's witness said they would like to participate but couldn't join in if we referred to any holidays or seasons, so we settled on "annual donation". I was more than willing to do that to make it inclusive but still wished it wasn't necessary. Note that the difficulty was caused solely by the word we used to describe the donation, not by the nature of the donation itself.
I have a friend who is Jordanian. The community he came from had a mix of Muslims and several different Christian denominations that celebrated different holidays. He said it was traditional to invite all your friends of every religion into your home for your important religious holidays. Someone in the family stayed home to entertain guests while the rest went around visiting friends. He said he actually enjoyed the holidays from other religions more because then you didn't have to entertain in your home so the whole family could go out visiting neighbors. I find it unfortunate that we can't be more like that in the US.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I agree that getting angry about well wishes is pointless but why would you wish someone a Merry Christmas when they don't celebrate Christmas?
Usually because I don't know, but shouldn't it be enough that I celebrate Christmas. When I greet someone with a "Good Morning, isn't it a beautiful day", I'm sharing my own good cheer not commanding them to enjoy it as well.
I enjoy Christmas. Should I keep that a secret to keep from hurting peoples feelings. If I throw a party in December, I'm celebrating Christmas. If I invite friends who are Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or athiest, should I need to hide that to make them feel welcome?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You don't need to keep anything secret. The beautiful day you are referencing is likely shared by that person you are greeting. You wouldn't say, "Isn't it a beautiful day!" to someone in a different time zone where it was still night or to someone whose weather was lousy that day. Their response would likely be similar to that of Rabbi Stein when you wish him a Merry Christmas. How silly it would sound to wish, "Good morning," when talking long distance with someone for whom it is late afternoon. Even if it is morning for you.
I get that you enjoy Christmas. So do I. But are your good wishes about you or about them? You might love peanuts, but you wouldn't give them to someone who is allergic to peanuts because you enjoy them. Right?
If you don't know, why not stick with, "Happy Holidays"?
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: When I greet someone with a "Good Morning, isn't it a beautiful day", I'm sharing my own good cheer not commanding them to enjoy it as well.
But you are suggesting that they enjoy it in the same way that you enjoy it, are you not? Isn't the implied meaning, "I wish you have a merry Christmas" rather than "I'm glad I'm having a merry Christmas?"
And it is different that wishing someone good day, which is a very generic greeting. It would be more like saying, "Good morning. Enjoy the game" to everyone you meet regardless of their situation. Not that it's worth getting upset over, but it wouldn't make sense to say that to everyone.
<edit> er, what kmb said.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I work with a number of Muslims; I don't wish them a Merry Christmas; I say, "Enjoy the time off!" or something like that.
That's what seems courteous to me.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How silly it would sound to wish, "Good morning," when talking long distance with someone for whom it is late afternoon. Even if it is morning for you.
I actually do this all the time... I've never had anyone correct me, get annoyed or suggest that it sounds the slightest bit silly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So do you think they have a good morning at 6 pm? Or are they just polite?
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Why would they care? I certainly don't mind when I'm wished good afternoon when it's barely dawn here (unless they wake me up at 4 am, which has happened more than once). It's sometimes a good idea for people to be reminded that NYC, Chicago or Atlanta isn't the center of the universe.
As for the holiday greeting issue, we've discussed that ad nauseam in past years here. I'm really not interested in rehashing all of that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I agree that people shouldn't get all bent about it. I am just saying that it doesn't make sense.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You wouldn't say, "Isn't it a beautiful day!" to someone in a different time zone where it was still night or to someone whose weather was lousy that day. Their response would likely be similar to that of Rabbi Stein when you wish him a Merry Christmas. How silly it would sound to wish, "Good morning," when talking long distance with someone for whom it is late afternoon. Even if it is morning for you.
I experience this on a regular basis and actually strongly disagree with the point. I talk on the phone to people in different time zones and don't find it in the least bit silly when someone says "Good Morning" when its morning by them and not by me. I enjoy comments from my friends about the beautiful snowfall they just had or their great ski trip, even though I'm living in the tropics. I routinely share my excitement over a day snorkeling on the beach with friends and family who are the middle of a winter storm. I don't have to share an experience with someone, to take pleasure in hearing about it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I work with a number of Muslims; I don't wish them a Merry Christmas; I say, "Enjoy the time off!" or something like that.
That's what seems courteous to me.
The Muslim's I work with celebrate Christmas with their neighbors. It would seem discourteous to exclude them from the festivities when they enjoy the secular aspects of the celebration.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have not made myself clear.
There is no problem at all with sharing your joy about your lovely day or celebrating their happiness about their experiences. It is wishing them a good experience that they aren't having that is nonsensical. Your friends, I hope, aren't saying, "Gee, I hope you enjoy the snow."
Let me try again. You are going on a trip and your friend is staying home. Sharing your excitement about your trip is lovely. Saying to him, "Have a great trip!" is silly.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I work with a number of Muslims; I don't wish them a Merry Christmas; I say, "Enjoy the time off!" or something like that.
That's what seems courteous to me.
The Muslim's I work with celebrate Christmas with their neighbors. It would seem discourteous to exclude them from the festivities when they enjoy the secular aspects of the celebration.
Obviously we work with different Muslims. Neat!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It should be noted that the two sentiments aren't exactly contradictory.
Maybe they appreciate either greeting as long as there is some thoughtfulness behind it. Maybe the dynamics of being wished "Merry Christmas" are different in the context of a majority culture where "a war on Christmas" is being fought as opposed to a much more fragmented culture where "Merry Christmas" might be viewed more as ethnic flair. It could even be the case that Muslims in either group might have a number of different opinions, opinions that we might ever find out because some might be too courteous or not want to make a big deal about getting the "wrong" greeting, which ever might be the case.
I also note that both examples involve Muslims that one works with. There are "friend friends" and "work friends" which can put another layer of difficulty on assessing the truth.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have not made myself clear.
There is no problem at all with sharing your joy about your lovely day or celebrating their happiness about their experiences. It is wishing them a good experience that they aren't having that is nonsensical. Your friends, I hope, aren't saying, "Gee, I hope you enjoy the snow."
Let me try again. You are going on a trip and your friend is staying home. Sharing your excitement about your trip is lovely. Saying to him, "Have a great trip!" is silly.
The analogy doesn't fit because the day is known as Christmas whether you celebrated it or not. If a Indian colleague brought you a plate of sweets and wished you a Happy Diwali, would it be inappropriate. If a French friend wished you a Happy Bastille Day, would you get bent out of shape? Should you query people about their position on Northern Ireland before wishing them a Happy Saint Patrick's Day? Would you wish a Canadian neighbor a Happy 4th of July? Could you enjoy being invited to a Seder, even though you aren't Jewish?
I know its not that simple. I'm saying it should be. There is no legitimate reason why Christians should get upset about non-Christians celebrating Christmas in a purely secular fashion. And there is no legitimate reason why anyone should be offended by other people celebrating their religious holidays publicly. I find it unfortunate that we can't do that in current American culture and wish I knew how to fix the problem.
[ December 09, 2011, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I work with a number of Muslims; I don't wish them a Merry Christmas; I say, "Enjoy the time off!" or something like that.
That's what seems courteous to me.
The Muslim's I work with celebrate Christmas with their neighbors. It would seem discourteous to exclude them from the festivities when they enjoy the secular aspects of the celebration.
Obviously we work with different Muslims. Neat!
I suspect that the big difference is that the Muslims I work with have been living among Christians for several generations.
I presume it would be much more difficult to enjoy Christmas as a Muslim immigrant in a majority Christian country in today's climate. In today's world, Muslim's have much much more justification in feeling their religion and culture are under attack than do Christians.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Seems to me that it's understandable why someone might be mildly irritated to be wished a Merry Christmas if they weren't Christian. A sort of, "Thanks, but we're not all Christians," sort of thing. Nothing to get into a froth over, but understandably a bit frustrating, especially if it happens a *lot*.
Given that the large majority of people you meet in the USA aren't going to mind being wished a Merry Christmas, it doesn't seem problematic to use that as a standard phrase in the holidays, but if you know someone isn't a Christian-that's without knowing if they have a problem with the phrase, that is-and you say it anyway, that strikes me as a bit rude. If you've got an Australian acquaintance, say, wishing them a happy Fourth of July would be odd. It's not their holiday.
Of course, the phrase is gonna get used reflexively because, well, of how usually appropriate it is. No problem with saying it by reflex, it's when (and I hardly think this happens often) you say it intentionally to someone who isn't a Christian more than once that actual, discussion-worthy rudeness has happened.
Not seriously rude or anything, just a bit inconsiderate, that's all. If y
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I wouldn't find it weird if an American wished me happy Fourth of July. I'd just wish it right back. Rabbit's right, it really doesn't need to be so complicated.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
They day you leave on your ski trip is known to your neighbor as the day you are leaving on your ski trip.
I have said at least a couple of times that people shouldn't necessarily* get upset about it. Nor is it about a public celebration. Of course, none of those greeting would upset me but I would not wish my Canadian neighbor a Happy 4th. I would, if I remembered to, wish him a happy Canada Day a few days earlier. Wishes, like gifts, should be given with the recipient in mind rather than the giver.
*Though I can see being annoyed at what could be seen as triumphalism from a dominant culture. You might want to watch who you wish what if you visit N. Ireland especially if you are wishing people a happy 12th.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
FWIW, I don't think I know anyone that doesn't celebrate Christmas that has actually been personally offended by being wished a Merry Christmas. I have, however, spoken with people who celebrate Christmas that have been offended by being told "Happy Holidays."
So anecdotally speaking, it seems that the people who are typically offended are the ones that celebrate Christmas, yet the perception is that it is ones that don't celebrate Christmas that are so easily offended.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I think the ones who complain about it on either side are the vocal minority as usual, the same ones forcing all the people in the middle who are fine with however they are greeted to walk on eggshells.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I've seen both, Shadowland. Anecdotally, I agree with you. I've seen a few more Christians offended by "Happy holidays!" than non-Christians offended by "Merry Christmas!" But that was working customer service, where I saw hundreds of people a day, and even with that I've actually seen very very little of either. The vast majority of individuals, it seems to me, don't actually care and aren't going to get offended one way or the other. Because honestly, what kind of tool gets offended when someone is trying to be nice to them?
Personally, I tend to let the person I'm talking to say it first and then use whatever they did, unless I already knew them and know what they are going to use. If neither option is available, I say Happy Holidays. Just because I don't think people have a right not to be offended, and just because I think it's a really dumb thing to get offended over, doesn't mean I actually like offending people for no reason.
Teshi/Rabbit/Orincoro/Etc... I'm well aware of the body of text, writing and decisions that support a separation of church and state. I also agree with them, for the most part! I just rankled a bit at the smug tone in which you (Teshi) acted as though anyone who objects to the extent to which we separate church and state is going against a law "enshrined" in that constitution they love so much. I think that's a pretty gross mischaracterization, given that the issue is not nearly that clear-cut.
Posted by vegimo (Member # 12618) on :
I have never been offended when someone greets me by saying "Happy Holidays." The offensive part of the issue is when they are forbidden from saying "Merry Christmas."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It depends on why someone is forbidden from saying, "Merry Christmas". I would need some context to know if it is appropriate or not.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Assuming that there aren't many Christians that are offended by "Happy Christmas" and vice versa, that would give about 38% of Christians that are offended by "Happy Holidays" and about 33% of non-Christians that are offended by "Happy Christmas."
So the claim that Christians are more sensitive about this may very well be true. The claim that these are vocal minority groups is also true overall, but they aren't trivially small either. That 32% overall could potentially mean majorities among smaller groups.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'm curious about what in either greeting people take offense at, how offended they are (enough to speak out publicly about it or just enough that it registers in their thoughts) and whether "offended" is always the right term for the emotion (perhaps they are mildly irritated but take no offense). I also wonder how many people would never have voiced their opinion and how many wouldn't have even really thought about that emotion if they hadn't been asked in a poll.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
Teshi, you wrote, “…if Christianity stopped trying to remind everyone of it all the time there would be far more public Christmas celebrations because atheists and people of other religions would participate more willingly.”
I have a couple issues with this. The first is this: You’re assuming that the “fault” of lack of participation is someone else’s. No one is holding these people at gun point, a gun pulled out from under a pillow no doubt, and trying to make them participate nor are they trying to keep them from participating. If traffic is backed up on a road to my office, I may choose to attempt an alternate route or I may choose to crawl forward with the rest of the cars in the backup. Whatever the cause of the backup, it’s my own choice how I react. I think it’s the choice of the individual, be they an atheist or a person who practices a religion other than Christianity, to not participate, willing or otherwise, in celebrating Christmas.
The second issue I have is that in many Christian sects, it is thought that the message of Christianity is not just for the Christian, but should be shared. I wouldn’t say that it needs to be shouted obnoxiously, but if asked about it, if asked about what Christmas is, the serious, practicing Christian will probably say something about the birth of Jesus. Do you really expect them to keep silent? Please clarify if I’ve completely read this wrong.
On a note somewhat related to one of Rabbit’s comments, I have one boss that is Jewish and one that is Catholic (there are only two partners in our firm). The Catholic one actually took a trip to Rome this past Spring and came back and felt free to say it was very special to him because of his faith. The Jewish one and his nephew, who also works in the office, get no grief when they talk about their beliefs and celebrations, and the Christians, mostly Catholic strangely enough, in the office get none when they do the same. In fact, my Jewish boss greatly dislikes avoiding mention of Christmas or the putting up of Christmas decorations. He feels that if people in the office felt they shouldn’t for his sake that would be more appalling. Instead, we all have a good time at the holiday party.
Edit: Fixed verb tense.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: [QB]Assuming that there aren't many Christians that are offended by "Happy Christmas" and vice versa, that would give about 38% of Christians that are offended by "Happy Holidays" and about 33% of non-Christians that are offended by "Happy Christmas."
While I think its a reasonable assumption that there aren't many Christians that are offended by "Happy Christmas", the vice versa is not true in my experience. I know several atheists who think "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings" is offensive. There are also some Christian sects, like Jehovah's witnesses, that eschew Christmas so I think there is considerable folly in the conclusions you are trying to make.
Even if the assumption were reasonable, I doubt the difference is statistically significant.
I have noticed that Christians who take offense at the generic greetings are usually under the impression that its something being pushed by atheists and liberal humanists who want to suppress religious expression. They've never really considered that it could be motivated by a desire to be inclusive of people from diverse religious backgrounds.
An awful lot of Americans have never really known anyone who was devoutly religious but not Christian and so it doesn't really occur to them that people might object to "Merry Christmas" for reasons other than a general opposition to religious expression.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
It should be simple. Is Christmas a federal holiday? IT IS! So I think it is perfectly acceptable to say Merry Christmas whether you celebrate it or not.
There has been one time that someone has said something back about it. I said Merry Christmas to a customer and she replied back "I'm Jewish." So I wished her a Happy Hanukkah, she thanked me, and left.
We tell everyone Happy Thanksgiving, Happy 4th of July, and Happy New Year. I don't ever remember hearing of Chinese people getting offended over being wished a Happy New Year when they don't celebrate it until almost a month later.
I'm with Rabbit. You are wishing the person well, and there shouldn't be anything wrong with it.
I'd be interested to see how much charitable giving increases during the month of December. If only we could find a way to convince everyone in the country to give like that all year long.... Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think atheists get blamed for a lot of stuff that is actually done to protect religious minorities not secularism. The Santa Fe Independent v. Does decision that banned student lead prayers at football games is a classic example of this. Its frequently used as an example of the liberal humanist war on Christianity, despite the fact that the lawsuit was initiated by two different Christian families. I've even heard Mormons complain about the decision and the horrible activities of the ACLU without ever recognizing that the ACLU was defending a Mormon student who was being persecuted at a public school.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: It should be simple. Is Christmas a federal holiday? IT IS! So I think it is perfectly acceptable to say Merry Christmas whether you celebrate it or not.
That's rather circular reasoning. It's a federal holiday because the majority of the culture (at least at the time it was made a legal holiday) identified as Christian. Part of what makes that kind of attitude obnoxious is specifically the marginalization by the majority of the minority.
I'm among the occasionally-irritated-but-almost-never-offended crowd afr alluded to above. I appreciate when someone makes the effort to say "happy holidays" instead, but don't usually think much of it when someone says "merry xmas". The few exceptions have been specific deliberately obnoxious individuals, and their obnoxiousness was about them, not their religion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'm with Rabbit. You are wishing the person well, and there shouldn't be anything wrong with it.
For me, its more than just this. I think its a pity that Americans can't simply relax and enjoy living in a multi-cultural, multi-religious society. It's a shame that a celebration like Christmas would be something people find divisive and offensive.
And honestly, I think Christians are primarily to blame for this. We can't really expect Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus and atheists to respect and appreciate Christian traditions when some Christians are so vocal in demonizing and even persecuting non-Christians.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Perhaps I'm naive, but think that expressions like "Jesus is the reason for the season" reflect more cluelessness than intentional proselyting.
In my experience, such sentiments are generally spoken with the presumption that everyone listening is some sort of Christian and the intent is to encourage Christians to focus more on the religious rather than secular aspects of Christmas.
Such expressions are completely appropriate when directed at a Christian audience but clearly insensitive and insulting when they are issued to a general audience.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I like it when a religious person says to me "God be with you". I could potentially take it as some kind of affront for neglecting to consider my beliefs, but that would be silly, since at the end of the day the person is just trying to be nice and is sharing something that's important to them with me. If a Jewish person wished me a Happy Chanukah, I'd probably respond with "Happy Chanukah and Merry Christmas", to respect what they're sharing with me and share my holiday back with them. I don't know why it has to be something people get annoyed about, but I admit that could be attributed to living in a country entirely dominated by the trappings of Christianity when it comes to holidays, much more so than the US is.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I agree that getting angry about well wishes is pointless but why would you wish someone a Merry Christmas when they don't celebrate Christmas? It is rather like wishing someone Happy Birthday when it isn't their birthday. Wouldn't it make more sense to wish them a happy whatever they have? If you really wish them well, why not express that wish in a way that will please the recipient?
Because "Merry Christmas" is a phrase that means more than "let's celebrate the birth of my God". I just wished a jewish person Merry Christmas, then realized I had, and THEY laughed and wished me one back. They weren't offended, they took it to mean I hoped they enjoyed the holiday season, which to me is at least as much about family and helping others as it is the birth of Christ.
I have no problem with enjoying the season, even if my own faith and beliefs are not completely in tune with a lot of mainstream Christians, because I respect the tradition, which has always been very important to my family.
When I ask someone how have you been, I don't really want a laundry list of every ailment they have either, but I still say it because it is one way of being polite and opening a conversation. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: It should be simple. Is Christmas a federal holiday? IT IS! So I think it is perfectly acceptable to say Merry Christmas whether you celebrate it or not.
:sigh: okay...
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I personally love Christmas. I will sing "We Three Kings" loudly and repeatedly to all of my coworkers. I don't have a problem with my friends wishing me a Merry Christmas because they know I will gladly celebrate any holiday that combines my love of shiny things and cookies.
However, I personally have a problem with strangers making assumptions about me. And since I work retail, I deal with ALOT of strangers on a daily basis. For the most part, I just smile and nod when someone wishes me a Merry Christmas. A kind customer may earn a "you too!" reply.
For me, this time of year is just one festive blur. I start the whole "Happy Holiday" thing just before Thanksgiving and will carry it right through New Years Eve. And since my family still acknowledged our Jewish roots when I was younger, we had a manger under the tree and a menorah on the serving table. My best friend growing up was Muslim so the whole "not everyone is Christian" thing is something I'm very conscious of. One of my favorite work stories happened a few years back when a gentleman walked around the store and shook every employees hand. The reason? We were the only store that was carrying Hannukah-themed gift cards. At the time, we also had Kwanzaa gifts cards and a dozen non-Christmas, winter-themed cards but every year that number seems to dwindle in favor of designs of Santa or nutcrackers.
And yet, every year, I have people who get upset with my personal choice to say "Happy Holidays." I've seen customers chase down my poor managers to express their opinion about how wrong is it to force employees to say Happy Holidays, never considering the possibility that my bosses were respecting my right to say whatever I want. I've had little old ladies who refuse to leave my counter until I wish them back a "Merry Christmas." When we run out of complimentary Christmas themed wrapping paper (little sleighs piled with gifts), people scoff or get downright upset when we offer the generic blue paper we keep on hand for Hannukkah gifts.
Its enough to drive a person mad. Maybe its wrong that I hear "Merry Christmas" and just hear the selfishness in the statement. I also understand that 95% of people are saying it because that's what they celebrate and that's what they think most people celebrate, and so they're trying to simply share the joy. But it still rubs me the wrong way.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... in the conclusions you are trying to make.
I'm not really "trying" to make any particular conclusions. In this case, I'm noticed that at least two posters were relating anecdotes about proportions of people offended or the relative risk of different groups being offended, and I thought it would be interesting to see whether a quick search would find corroborating data.
I'm certainly not satisfied with the data, hence "guesstimating."
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Back in Michigan, there was a kerfuffle over a new anti bullying law because it made exceptions for religious views. ...
It would seem that bullying is bullying. Yes, certainly religious speech should be allowed, but if that speech exists to oppress, suppress, intimidate, or bully someone, then it should not be allowed. It is one thing to discuss religion and have opposing views, but quite another to use that speech to oppress another group.
Disagreements are fine, but hate speech is not. Yes, there can be a fine line between the two, but bullying is bullying, and religious bullying should not be an exception.
As to the central subject, I don't see a War on Religion, which of course actually means a War on Christianity. What I see is Christianity making war on the world. Christianity feels it has a right to dominate the world and suppress all other views.
Religion wasn't always like this, though if you go back a little father in time, this is exactly how religion was. It should take a live and let live attitude, but lately it is the Christian religion, or at least the fat idiots who claim to speak for Christianity, that have grown more fascist and oppressive.
I don't think those oppressive and dictatorial views reflect the rank and file Christians, but the Christianity has been taken over on the public stage by fanatics who want to use the authority of religion to push a particular political agenda.
Most of those who claim to speak for Christianity today, are so massively far from the teachings of Jesus as to be laughable. At least, it would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
I think the same it true of Islam, the rank and file do not support the radicals, but the radicals have claimed the public stage and further claim to speak for all Muslims. When, of course, they do not.
There is no War on Religion, instead there is a Religious war on secular society that wants to control and dictate every aspect of our lives.
If a fanatic like Michele Bachman where elected President, democracy would quickly give way to theocratic fascism. In my opinion.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Teshi/Rabbit/Orincoro/Etc... I'm well aware of the body of text, writing and decisions that support a separation of church and state. I also agree with them, for the most part! I just rankled a bit at the smug tone in which you (Teshi) acted as though anyone who objects to the extent to which we separate church and state is going against a law "enshrined" in that constitution they love so much. I think that's a pretty gross mischaracterization, given that the issue is not nearly that clear-cut.
And I am rankled at casual references to the US as a "Christian Nation" or "nation of Christians". It is fundamentally *not* a nation about religious belief. That's what I like about it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Teshi/Rabbit/Orincoro/Etc... I'm well aware of the body of text, writing and decisions that support a separation of church and state. I also agree with them, for the most part! I just rankled a bit at the smug tone in which you (Teshi) acted as though anyone who objects to the extent to which we separate church and state is going against a law "enshrined" in that constitution they love so much. I think that's a pretty gross mischaracterization, given that the issue is not nearly that clear-cut.
And I am rankled at casual references to the US as a "Christian Nation" or "nation of Christians". It is fundamentally *not* a nation about religious belief. That's what I like about it.
Rankle away, man! I agree. While I respect the influence that Judeo-Christian values played in our history and current culture (an influence that I think has been more positive than negative, taken in aggregate), I absolutely take exception when someone characterizes it as "A Christian Nation." I think you may have read more into what I said than was there. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Yes, certainly religious speech should be allowed, but if that speech exists to oppress, suppress, intimidate, or bully someone, then it should not be allowed
I pretty strongly disagree with this. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech, not freedom of speech except for the stuff you disagree with. I'm fine with schools having anti-bullying rules, but if we're talking about making it illegal, I think you're taking it way too far.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Teshi/Rabbit/Orincoro/Etc... I'm well aware of the body of text, writing and decisions that support a separation of church and state. I also agree with them, for the most part! I just rankled a bit at the smug tone in which you (Teshi) acted as though anyone who objects to the extent to which we separate church and state is going against a law "enshrined" in that constitution they love so much. I think that's a pretty gross mischaracterization, given that the issue is not nearly that clear-cut.
And I am rankled at casual references to the US as a "Christian Nation" or "nation of Christians". It is fundamentally *not* a nation about religious belief. That's what I like about it.
Rankle away, man! I agree. While I respect the influence that Judeo-Christian values played in our history and current culture (an influence that I think has been more positive than negative, taken in aggregate), I absolutely take exception when someone characterizes it as "A Christian Nation." I think you may have read more into what I said than was there.
I think a large part of people's reactions - and, a fair bit of time, overreactions - to Christianity in our culture draws from the active and politically powerful group of not very nice people who are aggressively trying to push Christianity on everyone else. I'm not on board with the idea that there is a war on Christmas, but there is pretty clearly a war of (certain) Christians against everyone else in our country. Without the provocation and need to defend against this, I think you'd see much less of a reaction to Christian things in the public space, even those that are somewhat over the line.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Yes, certainly religious speech should be allowed, but if that speech exists to oppress, suppress, intimidate, or bully someone, then it should not be allowed
I pretty strongly disagree with this. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech, not freedom of speech except for the stuff you disagree with. I'm fine with schools having anti-bullying rules, but if we're talking about making it illegal, I think you're taking it way too far.
It wasn't "disagree". I think bullying was the thing being discussed. You don't have absolute freedom of speech, but a freedom to express yourself without impinging on the freedoms of others.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Yes, certainly religious speech should be allowed, but if that speech exists to oppress, suppress, intimidate, or bully someone, then it should not be allowed
I pretty strongly disagree with this. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech, not freedom of speech except for the stuff you disagree with. I'm fine with schools having anti-bullying rules, but if we're talking about making it illegal, I think you're taking it way too far.
It wasn't "disagree". I think bullying was the thing being discussed. You don't have absolute freedom of speech, but a freedom to express yourself without impinging on the freedoms of others.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Could you unpack it a bit?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
My understanding of Orincoro's statement is that the speech mentioned goes beyond disagreement and into bullying. So the speech is not protected as such.
I'll just note that the law in question took this into account-- religious bullying would not have been tolerated.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Bullying, at least to the level of verbal assault or intimidation, is against most school's internal codes, and against the law. Students have a right to access education without fear of unequal treatment. I agree that student behavior should mostly remain within the purview of schools, but those schools themselves have legal requirements placed upon them, and students who practice intimidation should be dealt with; if not by the school, then by the law.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: My understanding of Orincoro's statement is that the speech mentioned goes beyond disagreement and into bullying. So the speech is not protected as such.
Exactly. Harrassing speech is not protected under the law. Disagreement, be it civil, is protected.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Bullying, at least to the level of verbal assault or intimidation, is against most school's internal codes, and against the law.
It is not against the law in most places and those where it is, I believe the law is overreaching its proper boundaries.
quote:Students have a right to access education without fear of unequal treatment.
Unequal treatment from the administrators (at a public school; private schools should, with reasonable exceptions, be able to set their own policies). But guaranteeing equal treatment among the students? That's crazy. I don't think we can or should try to make it illegal for kids to be mean to each other.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Threatening speech is against the law if there is sufficient reason to believe that the speaker intends to act on those threats and that the threatened action would be illegal.
When bullying includes threats of physical assault, it falls into that category. A lot of school bullying falls into that category but the most common types of bullying in schools don't.
I agree that its ridiculous to think schools could guarantee equal treatment or require all kids be nice to each other. But I think there are some types of harassment that should not be tolerated on school grounds or at school activities. In my high school (decades ago), there was an unofficial club of boys who sat in one of the halls during lunch and shouted degrading sexual comments to girls who walked past. This was a tradition that went on for years. The school could easily have stopped this and they should have.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm totally on board with the school having policies against verbal bullying. It's the idea that we should have laws against it that I don't agree with.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm totally on board with the school having policies against verbal bullying. It's the idea that we should have laws against it that I don't agree with.
Do you think we should not have laws against making actionable threats or sexual harassment?
If so, how do you think actionable threats and/or sexual harassment differ from the kind of verbal bullying you think should be legal.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Do you think we should not have laws against making actionable threats or sexual harassment?
If so, how do you think actionable threats and/or sexual harassment differ from the kind of verbal bullying you think should be legal.
I'm surprised you don't see the differences. For instance, a bunch of kids standing around and singing about two kids "k-i-s-s-i-n-g" would be verbal bullying, but wouldn't remotely reach the level of actionable threats or sexual harassment in statutes. Or everyone calling someone a sissy, or any of a wide variety of verbal bullying options. Those are all verbal bullying, but I think it is obvious both why they don't fall under such statutes, and why they shouldn't: they aren't severe enough to override free speech. They can be dealt with at an administrative level in schools because the schools are acting in the place of parents in keeping order and providing guidance about civil behavior, but attempting to legislate that among children is repugnant. (On a side note, even sexual harassment only rises to the level of statutory violation in certain contexts -- between random strangers out in public, it generally isn't illegal).
This is before we even get to the public choice problems: passing such a law invites school officials to pass the buck upwards and outwards, to the courts and police, something we're already seeing more and more of. There are times the courts and police need to be involved in the behavior of children, but the general case of "verbal bullying" is not sufficient cause.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Actionable threats I have a few reservations on, but I definitely fall on the side of having blatant ones be illegal.
With sexual harassment, you'd have to specify what you are actually talking about. I think that we've rolled several different concepts into this term. The (I think) original meaning of a superior pressuring a subordinate to having a sexual relationship or punishing them for no agreeing to such a relationship definitely should be illegal. Workplace harassment that has sexual tones to it, I think should be illegal under the laws against general harassment/hostile work environment and not have specific laws concerning. I don't believe that people who are uncomfortable with the sexual language or imagery in the workplace rises to the level of laws and that we've gone done a bad path with condoning law suits for this.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
MrSquicky, Sexual harassment is treated by law as a form of illegal employment discrimination. Although there are criminal statues, the overwhelming majority of sexual harassment cases are civil suits. I don't know the details,
Its would be nice to say that general laws against harassment and a hostile work environment should be enough to combat sexual harassment in the workplace. But that's rather naive. Sexual harassment laws and policy aren't a response to an imagined problem. When I first entered the workplace as a teenager, it was pretty much accepted that having your butt pinched and listening to degrading sexual innuendo were just something you had to tolerate as a working woman. Thanks to sexual harassment laws and policies, it isn't that way any more.
These laws and policies have resulted in a significant improvement in the workplace environment for many women. Ideally, they wouldn't be necessary but the fact is that they are.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
By now you've probably heard about the controversy with the TV show "All-American Muslim".
I read the following at Florida Family Values (the group who persuaded Lowe's to pull its advertisements from the show) and I think it says some revealing things about the Christians who think there is a war on Christianity.
quote:The Learning Channel's new show All-American Muslim is propaganda clearly designed to counter legitimate and present-day concerns about many Muslims who are advancing Islamic fundamentalism and Sharia law. The show profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish.
One of the most troubling scenes occurred at the introduction of the program when a Muslim police officer stated "I really am American. No ifs and or buts about it." This scene would appear to be damage control for the Dearborn Police who have arrested numerous Christians including several former Muslims for peacefully preaching Christianity. Dearborn Police falsely arrested Nabeel Qureshi and Paul Rezkalla in 2010 and Sudanese Christian Pastor George Saieg in 2009 for preaching Christianity at the Annual Arab International Festival. Information on these two arrests are posted below.
They are upset because this show is portraying American Muslims as regular people not dangerous terrorists. They are deeply troubled by a Muslim police officer stating he's a real American.
I looked into the "false arrest" that happened at the Muslim Festival. I found a video of one of the arrested missionaries taken at the Muslim Festival where he was arrested. link. He isn't simply handing out Christian literature, he is arguing that Islam is a fundamentally violent dangerous religion at a Muslim festival. At the time of the arrests, he had drawn a large angry crowd and police claim he was shouting into the crowd and causing a riot. He was arrested for disturbing the peace and refusing to follow police orders. And evidently there was enough evidence to support this charge, that the courts refused a request for its dismissal.
These people are complaining about a war on Christianity while leading a war on Islam and seem completely blind to the irony of the situation.
I agree that people should have the right to express themselves in public places and thing the courts were probably right to find favor of this missionaries. But what the laws should allow people to do and what people should do are not the same thing. Its stupid, rude and inflammatory to preach about how evil and violent Islam is at an Islam festival. When you do something like that, its hypocritical to play the victim.
It reminds me of the way children will often try to get someone in trouble by deliberately provoking them. Except of course kids are smart enough to understand that this is what they are doing.
[ December 15, 2011, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Concerns that religious liberty is being eroded by government action and policymaking prompted the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to open a campaign in 2011 to head off what they consider dangers to the rights of people of faith and conscience.
Looks like it isn't just the evangelicals. The good news is that, while the bishops might be getting bent out of shape, from what I can tell, regular Catholics aren't. This was posted on FB and the comments ran like this:
quote:Speaking as one person, I think the bishops are dead wrong. This is a created issue at a time when...we have very real issues in this country.
quote: How about the rights of the poor to survive???
quote: As we've found from other comments, the right-wing is already running with this "religious liberty' issue and treating it as fact. It's a diversionary tactic and gets us away from the real issues facing us.
quote:Sadly many Catholics don't bother to check the facts and ARE "diverted" from real issues, believe the misinformation, take as fact that our Catholic faith and Church are under siege by the government, we are in danger of our freedom of religion rights being taken away, etc., etc., etc. My question is how can we break through in an organized voice?
Of course, my exposure to more right-wing Catholics is (by preference) limited.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Here are the things the bishops are worried about:
quote:- Interim rules issued by the Department of Health and Human Services in August that would mandate no-cost coverage of contraception and sterilization in most private health insurance plans, accompanied by a proposed religious exemption that Catholic and other religious leaders considered too narrowly drawn.
-- The denial of grant funding by the Department of Health and Human Services to the bishops' Migration and Refugee Services to continue providing case management services to foreign-born human trafficking victims because the agency declined to refer for or provide contraceptive service, abortion and sterilization if a client request such services.
-- The U.S. Agency for International Development's requirement that Catholic Relief Services and other contractors include condom distribution in their HIV prevention activities and provide contraception in a range of international relief and development programs.
-- The Department of Justice's actions to mischaracterize the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which states that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, as an act of bigotry and to actively attack its constitutionality.
-- The Justice Department's efforts to undermine the "ministerial exception" that exempts religious institutions from some civil laws when it comes to hiring and firing.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'd like to understand how much government funding the Catholic Relief Service and the Migration and Refugee Service receive. How many referrals do they normally get, and how are those referrals being handled now that the Catholic institutions aren't getting them?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Good questions. The bottom line, though, is that the Church denies itself those opportunities to be of service by clinging to outdated rules that most American Catholics disagree with anyway. We could, if we considered it a priority, continue providing assistance to those who need it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Here are the things the bishops are worried about:
I'll certainly agree that the government, right alongside with society in general, are currently taking stances and actions in opposition to the goals of the leadership of many religions in the USA, including the Catholic Church.
It's just that, when they do so, the rhetoric is often used in a way to imply that things are completely neutral and balanced in every other way, and that therefore a given current events political or social issue is an example of a sharp attack by society or government against them, rather than one piece in a very large, complicated relationship between the three that very often goes in religion's favor.
Sticking with the political angle, see how much control evangelical Christians have exerted over Republican politics over the past...well, decade, really despite the fact that they constitute a minority among American Christians, much less Americans as a whole.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: The bottom line, though, is that the Church denies itself those opportunities to be of service by clinging to outdated rules that most American Catholics disagree with anyway. We could, if we considered it a priority, continue providing assistance to those who need it.
Hm... This seems like an appeal to populism ("most American Catholics..."). Is that really a road you're comfortable walking, in terms of how you approach religion and its influence in society?
I am not, for the record. Religious action should be governed by doctrine, not by popular opinion.
Rakeesh: I'm not sure that it's not the opposite of your proposal-- I'm wary of the GOP's control over religion.
Tomatoes, potatoes, maybe.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, Catholic doctrine is, in part, determined by "populism". Here is an article that sort fo encapsulates this.
quote:Discussing Vatican II, Benedictine Bishop B.C. Butler acknowledged that if a teaching "failed in the end to enjoy reception on the part of the church, this would prove it had not met the requirements" for enforcement. And in 1969, the theologian Joseph Ratzinger (currently Pope Benedict VI) spoke about even infallibly proposed teachings: "Where there is neither consensus on the part of the universal church nor clear testimony in the sources, no binding decision is possible. If such a decision were formally made, it would lack the necessary conditions and the question of the decision's legitimacy would have to be examined." What Butler and Benedict are getting at is the very real possibility of legitimate non-reception.
Even if that weren't the case, there is the question of whether that particular doctrine should outweigh the clear mandate to serve the poor. And the question of whether not being allowed to have one particular doctrine of ours bind a secular government and whether that approaches the level of religious persecution.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)