posted
porter, There's a huge difference between not being able to buy pork (perhaps because no one is selling it) and getting fined or thrown in jail because you sold pork.
And you wouldn't think it was a pretty bad thing to be considered un-American (and, at least in the past, have people do a bunch of bad things to you both government approved and not) if you didn't want to face Mecca?
Both of these are to me indications that a country is wrong in principle and also in practice. And, I'm willing to bet were you on the receiving end as opposed to the giving end, you would too, much like it wouldn't have been funny if it wasn't a member of your religion mocking another and instead someone mocking yours.
quote:And, I'm willing to bet were you on the receiving end as opposed to the giving end, you would too.
Squick, I already said:
quote:I have lived most of my life in places where my religion was is not only an extreme minority, but sometimes outright persecuted. The customs and many times laws supported other religions.
Your assumption that I have never been on the receiving end is wrong.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Rutherford Institute expresses establishment clause views you would hate, but it also advocates for free exercise rights on behalf of non-mainstream groups.
Most groups associated with the religious right on establishment clause issues come down very strongly in this regard with respect to free exercise for non-mainstream groups.
quote: There is a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones' lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school. . . . Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon (the boy) as he ages," the bureau said in its report.
I am so confused by this reasoning. Plenty of non Catholics send their children to parochial school. It's a good education. I doubt the parents are pretending to be Catholic. If the school doesn't care, why should anyone else?
quote:What it boils down to is that by making laws based on ideas that are strictly religious in nature, the government is tacitly endorsing that religion and making it a state religion.
Could you give me an example of a law that 'Christians' and 'the right' have tried to pass that is strictly religious in nature?
Most of the instructions found in the Bible have as their primary reason, "God tells us so," but there are almost always a host of other good reasons to do so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was stubborn, and I fought it, but it was DEFINITELY a fight, and it definitely WASN'T just against my peers--the teacher was also involved.
Your teacher was wrong to do so and in fact could be construed as violating the law (well, at least I think so). This is a sign of a wrongheaded teacher, not a wrongheaded law. I think i would also define 'force' different than you are doing.
Sunday Blue Laws and the Pledge of Allegience are examples, but I don't think there are many more.
This kind of prohibition is not exclusive to the religious right, either, as much as some would like to think. Attempts to prevent fire trucks from displaying American flags comes to mind.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although Rakeesh sort of touched on it, why isn't any distinction made between making laws influenced by the lawmakers religion or making laws that enforce the militant atheism that seems to be other choice presented in this thread? This atheism isn't the opposite of the first choice, I would say that is actually closer to making law influenced by a different set of beliefs than making laws that are truly influenced by no beliefs (which just on the face of it, is absurd.) I fail to see how this argument is any different than saying "I don't like your beliefs, I'd rather see laws influenced on mine instead"--regardless of what these beliefs maybe.
At some point the fact that we elect whole people and not atomatons must come into play. I think it is somewhat absurd to expect anyone, even a politian to completely set aside personal beliefs when doing ones job (I am not saying the judge was right in this case, because he wasn't.)
(I'm not ignoring any responses, but I won't be back until ~9 tonight.)
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think there should be laws enforcing any sort of atheism. That would be wrong as well... Having laws not based on religious belief does NOT mean they are automatically based on atheism. It's not one or the other. The laws of the land should be based on basic human rights--you keep yours, I keep mine, and we don't infringe on each other. It doesn't have anything to do with religion, and it's something that most people can agree on--at least in theory, if not in practice.
quote:I think it is somewhat absurd to expect anyone, even a politian to completely set aside personal beliefs when doing ones job
I think that's a gross oversimplification of the issue. You don't have to set aside your beliefs, but you DO have to allow another person to follow their own beliefs. Following what you believe does NOT include making everyone else follow it. Enforced religion means nothing--a Christian or Muslim (or whoever) that forces other people to operate under their religious rules is not earning souls to their cause.
It's not a choice between Christian laws and Atheist laws. There's a nice middle ground that allows all people to believe and worship as they choose.
posted
A lot of the anti-gay stuff appears that way to me. Not necessarily that it comes from religion only, but either that or bigotry or both. For example.
Of course, up until the mid-60s athiests were prohibited from running for office or even being on the ballots in seom states.
Let's see, abstinence-only education, denying aid based on whether the organizations involved even mention abortion. I'm sure if I looked harder, I could find plenty of other cases. The ACLU is fighting them all the time.
And yeah, that comes from the other side. As I've probably made painfully clear by now, I really wish people were aware the Enlightenment and its revolutionary role in our country. Heck, I'd settle for it even being taught in our schools.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not a choice between Christian laws and Atheist laws. There's a nice middle ground that allows all people to believe and worship as they choose.
Which is exactly why I have a problem with so many of the current violations of free speech that schools (mostly, sometimes municipal governments) attempt to justify via raising the establishment clause.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let's see, abstinence-only education, denying aid based on whether the organizations involved even mention abortion. I'm sure if I looked harder, I could find plenty of other cases. The ACLU is fighting them all the time.
Neither of these are policies that can only be justified on religious grounds. Not even close.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but I think you can make the argument that they fall into the bin of things where the main basis is religious and the rest of the reasons tend to be bs people made up to disguise their religious basis. Not true in all cases, but true in many.
edit: And without the religious/prejudice support, I don't think either of these would even be an issue.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's what I was getting at, Dagonee. I'm not saying the justifications aren't primarily religious, but there are arguments-some more substantial more than others-without religious pretext.
Do you suggest otherwise, MrSquicky?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Yeah, but I think you can make the argument that they fall into the bin of things where the main basis is religious and the rest of the reasons tend to be bs people made up to disguise their religious basis. Not true in all cases, but true in many.
In that case, I think you can only look at the reasons you think are made up as the real reasons and argue for or against them. Ignoring or dismissing them is not an effective counterargument... Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, but I think you can make the argument that they fall into the bin of things where the main basis is religious and the rest of the reasons tend to be bs people made up to disguise their religious basis. Not true in all cases, but true in many.
I strongly contest that characterization as it applies to any abortion policy. Even if the only reasons to oppose abortion were religious (which their not - I'm assuming arguendo), there are still is a valid policy reason to not fund abortions or abortion referrals given that it is considered murder by a large percentage of the population, and otherwise immoral by another significant percentage of the population.
Your reasoning could certainly apply to some, maybe most or almost all, abstinence-only programs as currently taught, but not to the general principle. But on the abortion issue, you don't have even that basis for your statement.
posted
I put an edit in, Rakeesh, to say that without the religious justifications, the arguments for these things are far too weak to stand on their own. It's much more of a gray area.
Without religious things with the abstinence, mostly what you'd be left with would be, "Hey, these programs don't accomplish any of their goals."
Witohut the value-oriented anti-abortion arguments, we're pretty much saying, "We'll cut off your aid if you even talk to people about a medical operation which is legal in our country."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now it's 'value-oriented'? What law isn't 'value-oriented'?
I agree with your stance on abstinence-only sex-education, though. I think it's absurd to teach it, though not at all absurd necessarily to expect it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since we brought up abstinence education... It is, sadly, the world we live in where abstinence only education is woefully inadequate. It is certainly the BEST for our young people--physically and emotionally--but with a culture such as ours, kids are going to have sex. I'm in favor of a program that STRESSES abstinence and WHY...with education included in proper methods of birth control and protection from STDs. And no scare tactics. Be honest with the kids. There are a lot of lies out there about sex being harmless in our media...and there are a lot of lies about sex being evil from the other side trying to scare them away from it.
quote:Dag, I'm ignorant... what's the establishment clause you've been mentioning. Did you post on it already?
The establishment clause is the first clause of the First Amendment. It states that the government can make no law respecting the establishment of religion. It's the clause which prohibits establishing creation of state churches, prayer in school, etc.
Unfortunately, it's also used, sometimes successfully, to exclude private religious expression from public forums. Examples where it's been attempted and smacked down by the courts include refusal to allow a private entity to put up a "Jesus is the Reason for the Season" display of lights as part of a government-sponsored program where all secular private displays were allowed. Another example are the myriad attempts by public schools to hinder religious club formation and operation when they allow other student-created clubs. And of course, public colleges funding 15 magazines but refusing to fund a Christian magazine.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:n that case, I think you can only look at the reasons you think are made up as the real reasons and argue for or against them. Ignoring or dismissing them is not an effective counterargument...
Yeah, but Kat, that's like expecting people to judge a political party's performance on what they did and said as opposed to the excuses that people make up for them. It's one of the most frustrating things about democracy to me that people can support things for really crappy reasons and it doesn't matter.
People come up with tons of arguments for creationism and they are almost uniformly terrible. But that doesn't matter.
People do this all the time. They have an attitude. Their arguments aren't really important (or usually logical) or a basis for their belief and disproving them will not affect the belief at all.
I can't prove this is true in any but individual cases, but that doesn't stop me from believing it happens in many many cases and to decry it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: college students publishing 15 magazines for the general purpose of giving students the experience of running a magazine but refusing to fund a Christian magazine Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky, My only point is that when they come up with those flimsy arguments, shoot them down with logic. Eventually, they're only left with the real reasons. And it also gives them the benefit of the doubt--maybe the reasons you think are made-up aren't so flimsy after all. Sure, after you've shot down the flimsy arguments, they still might cling to them... but whatever. You do what you can, ya know? -Katarain
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag: college students publishing 15 magazines for the general purpose of giving students the experience of running a magazine but refusing to fund a Christian magazine
Exactly. That's why we won: because there was no reduction in experience provided to students running a magazine (the government interest used to justify funding) based on the content of the magazine. No government interest = no viewpoint discrimination allowed. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was mostly just joshing, but it is an important distinction. A college could fund a slew of research magazines, for instance (say, out of departments) and not be required to fund a non-research christian magazine.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No problem, Katarain. The real problem analyzing the establishment clause is that, while there are clear cases where the motivation behind a policy is to "force religious views on others" (teaching mandatory bible class in public school) and clear cases where it is used as a club to prevent expression of private viewpoints, there are many more cases in the gray area where legitimate arguments can be made on both sides.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One interesting thing about the addition of Under God to the pledge is that we have the motivations for the leaders of that movement on record -- they were explicitly religious, and explicitly in order to reject atheism.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was mostly just joshing, but it is an important distinction. A college could fund a slew of research magazines, for instance (say, out of departments) and not be required to fund a non-research christian magazine.
True. Religion is really a distraction in cases like ours. The legal question is whether the restrictions of viewpoints allowed are narrowly tailored and serve a compelling state interest. If not, it doesn't matter what the viewpoint being excluded is unless it's in a category of lesser-protected speech (commercial, indecency, etc.).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anti-legalized-abortion arguments, abstinence-only arguments, and anti-gay-marriage arguments are not solely religous based. Cases can be made against each one that are wholly secular.
I disagree with the reasoning behind and/or conclusions in many of them, but there are secular arguments.
Disclosure: I am pro-choice, againast strict abstinence-only education, and for civil unions with the hope of later gay marriage when people can deal with it. But I don't dismiss or discount my opposite numbers as being solely religiously based.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Banning Gay Marriage (as you put it) has reasons against it aside religious reasons. Bear in mind I think all reasons-religious and otherwise-are either foolish, stupid, or hypocritical. Also remember, it is not just the religious that signed on that dotted line.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether those reasons exist or not...I have yet to see a non-religious based group come out against those positions.
Posts: 54 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
1lobo1, read some Nat Hentoff (used to be in the Village Voice, not sure if he's still there) to find an atheist who's a very strong pro-life voice. Or just check this out.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The establishment clause is the first clause of the First Amendment. It states that the government can make no law respecting the establishment of religion. It's the clause which prohibits establishing creation of state churches, prayer in school, etc.
Careful. Yes it clearly prohibits establishing state churches, but it doesn't prohibit prayer in schools per se. It prohibits schools from leading the students in prayer, or creating an atmosphere where students are coerced to pray.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, you are correct. I was typing "school-sponsored prayer," decided that wasn't a suitable summary, and forgot to go back and change it. Also, I left out that it applies only to public schools. I was imprecise. Dagonee
Also, when I speak of what it does, I'm speaking of it as it's currently interpreted. There are many colorable interpretations that would allow public school sponsored prayer with an opt-out clause, although such an interpretation now would be a radical departure from a long line of cases.
And, of course, there are many nuances I'm leaving out.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:Banning Gay Marriage.You mean not changing our current laws to civilly recognize gay marriage, don't you?
I see no way to draw the distinction you make here. Ohio and other states premptively passed laws specifically designed to prevent courts from interpreting the existing laws as requiring equal marriage rights to same sex couples. That's banning gay marriage.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope, that's codifying the present interpretation of the law. Was there gay marriage in Ohio prior to that amendment? (Actually, I bet there was, but let's restrict this to civil gay marriage.)
There were no civil gay marriages in Ohio prior to those votes. There are none now. Nothing has been banned. Not like polygamy has been banned, with criminal sanctions.
Gay marriage has been denied legal recognition that it never had. It's a crucial distinction.
posted
I've gotta wonder (back to the original topic) if judges like this could be kicked out based on a single decision, wouldn't it tend to eliminate judges with extreme positions on both ends of the spectrum, and leave moderate judges in place?
I mean, this guy is clearly acting well beyond the law by adding his personal religious stipulations in this case. Doesn't that violate his "oath of office?" (or whatever you call it for judges)
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, as a lawyer you know that what is not prohibited is legally allowed. Since there were no prohibitions against two men marrying, other than the fact that it had hardly ever been done, then it is legal.
Clarifying the law to keep that non-written standard of one man and one woman is creating a new law--hence banning Gay marriage.
The only non-religious based reason I've ever heard for not allowing Gay marriages is that they are non-reproductive. However, since we have no statutes requiring every marriage to be reproductive, nor do we give fertility tests before handing out wedding licensces, I find that argument a cover used by a few Christians to confuse the issue.
I have another defence of what the judge was doing. He was not promoting any religion. He did not say "Take this child to a Christian church." He said, "Do not expose this child to any non-mainstream religions." In other words, don't put him in a cult.
Many people will agree that some cults are terrible. The most dangerous cults promote degredation, despair, and eventual suicide. This judge was not conversant with what Wicca is, and assumed it was a "cult". Hence he was doing what he thought was best.
He was, of course, wrong.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've gotta wonder (back to the original topic) if judges like this could be kicked out based on a single decision, wouldn't it tend to eliminate judges with extreme positions on both ends of the spectrum, and leave moderate judges in place?
I mean, this guy is clearly acting well beyond the law by adding his personal religious stipulations in this case. Doesn't that violate his "oath of office?" (or whatever you call it for judges)
Do you want that in place? The whole Supreme Court might have gone after Brown. Or, more likely, over half the Court after Roe.
It would have given DeLay's implied impeachment threats over Schiavo a lot more standing than they had. People would be seriously debating whether the judges met the standards for such removal, rather than getting pissed at him for merely suggesting it.
The idea holds a lot of appeal to me. But who could we trust to implement it?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Nope, that's codifying the present interpretation of the law
Unless there have been challenges to the status quo I'd say the bit hasn't been set. That is, there is no "present interpretation" of a law until someone has questioned whether existing law covers a situation that no one has examined before.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, as a lawyer you know that what is not prohibited is legally allowed. Since there were no prohibitions against two men marrying, other than the fact that it had hardly ever been done, then it is legal.
Are you telling me two men could have gotten a marriage license in Cleveland before that vote. I'd love to see you document that, although I won't be holding my breath.
If you're saying it was legal for two men to go to a liberal church and be married, then you're right. But since they can do that now, then clearly the law didn't ban that kind of gay marriage.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have another defence of what the judge was doing. He was not promoting any religion. He did not say "Take this child to a Christian church." He said, "Do not expose this child to any non-mainstream religions." In other words, don't put him in a cult.
As I recall, the Catholic religion uses the word "cult" to describe certain sub groups that pay particular attention to particular saints (correct me if I'm wrong). Just a comment on the word "cult."
I think we all agree that the judge was wrong from any number of perspectives, but would it have been ok even to stipulate that neither parent be allowed to expose the child to any religion without express permission from the other parent?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To clarify the situation I was in: I was 14, a freshman in high school, and, at the time, an agnostic in a suburban Atlanta high school heavily populated by southern baptists. Let me also add that I was, at the time, given to argue quite a bit with my classmates, seeing as how nearly everyone disagreed with me on nearly every point. They were prone to quite a bit of name-calling, as well. I really cannot count the number of times I was told, in no uncertain terms, that I was going to hell, and that nothing would ever save me. Imagine hatrack around election time, except add some vitriol and take away some intelligence (and add the fact that it was me against the world ).
Our school district had just instituted a "moment of silence" that occured every day at a certain time (a constitutionally acceptable substitute for school-wide prayer, essentially). If it had been what it claimed to be--merely a moment for silent reflection--there would've been no problem.
Unfortunately, here's how it worked:
The teacher would say, "Let's all bow our heads and [just-long-enough-pause] have a moment of silence." Now, bear in mind that I was 14, and was surrounded by people who thought as badly as anyone can about someone whose political, religious, and social beliefs are the complete opposite of theirs.
I refused to bow my head. I made a point of reading, writing notes, working on homework, etc., during the moment of silence. I was silent, but I refused to give in to the pressure to look as if I was praying.
Other students noticed, and harassed me for it (called me names--my favorite was, "atheist [technical name for female dog]--no matter how many times I tried to explain agnosticism, they refused to accept it as valid). This, as I should've stated earlier, was a social studies class, and the teacher (who was also a football coach) used my refusal as a point of discussion--and, along the same lines as his response to my refusal to actually say the pledge, said something to the effect of, "No matter how wrong Megan might be, it's her right to do what she did."
Fortunately, the "moment of silence" disappeared never to return my sophomore year, although students still held prayer groups before and after school, and during lunch (when they weren't talking about who they were going to do at the upcoming party).
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
Dagonee![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
).
