| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No offense, but I disagree that religious symbols should not be allowed on public property. As long as preferential treatment is not given to one group over annother, I have no issues with things like nativity scenes being put up in public squares. The problems come with things like these 10 commandments, which got specific approval from the legislature to be put up without accommodations being made for other faiths.
Allowing religious symbols to be on public property IS preferential over irreligion. Unless you're okay with me, as an atheist, putting up a sign that just says "the rest of this is a bunch of b!*@%%&$"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is nobody concerned about the guy saying "this is a faith-based state"?
It has become such common rhetoric among the Republican party that most of us more or less tune it out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is nobody concerned about the guy saying "this is a faith-based state"?
Not especially, no. For two reasons.
1) There's a strong tradition in the United States of freedom of speech, including freedom to make an idiot of oneself.
2) Statements like that are exactly why he's going to lose the resulting case on first amendment grounds.
Basically, he can say anything he likes, and no one will stop him from saying it. He will and should be stopped from enacting his religious beliefs as public policy.
Is nobody concerned about the guy saying "this is a faith-based state"?
I like his partial honesty. (which is a lot for a politician)
I just wish he'd go the next step and admit he uses faith in place of "christian... and oh yeah the jews too"
No offense, but I disagree that religious symbols should not be allowed on public property. As long as preferential treatment is not given to one group over annother, I have no issues with things like nativity scenes being put up in public squares.
Fair enough. How are you going to give equal time, space, and approval to the secular humanist viewpoint that there are no Gods and that the nativity scene is a worthless piece of folklore?
That's the problem. In theory, you're right. In practice, there's no way to avoid giving preferential treatment. How do you erect a statue to agnosticism?
I think the atheists are taking the wrong approach to that one. As long as it IS god and baphomet and zeus and santaclause it sends the pretty clear message that they're all the same thing.
No offense, but I disagree that religious symbols should not be allowed on public property. As long as preferential treatment is not given to one group over annother, I have no issues with things like nativity scenes being put up in public squares. The problems come with things like these 10 commandments, which got specific approval from the legislature to be put up without accommodations being made for other faiths.Allowing religious symbols to be on public property IS preferential over irreligion. Unless you're okay with me, as an atheist, putting up a sign that just says "the rest of this is a bunch of b$~$%~@$"
No. Arround me, a lot of public land can used upon request by any organization provided it meets certain requirements (no vulgarity, no profanity, ect.). Assuming the rules are applied to religious and non-religious organizations equally and are consistent within a local, why should religious organizations be descriminated against?
The atheist sign you mention would not be allowed not because it is atheist, but it would probably be banned for being an attack against annother group. It would be banned for being intentionally antagonistic. A sign that called to question the existence of god or espoused the virtues of atheism probably could get through.
Similarly, non-religious organizations can request use of the public land. Some of the places get used for small community gardens with a plaque saying who sponsers it.
Other areas may explicity prohibit all religious organizations from using the space for religious purposes (but they may be able to use it for non-religious purposes like the garden). It is up to the people in charge of the space if they are willing to get into those discussions.
Personally, as long as the rules are clear and apply to people and organizations equally, why is there a problem?
No offense, but I disagree that religious symbols should not be allowed on public property. As long as preferential treatment is not given to one group over annother, I have no issues with things like nativity scenes being put up in public squares.Fair enough. How are you going to give equal time, space, and approval to the secular humanist viewpoint that there are no Gods and that the nativity scene is a worthless piece of folklore?
That's the problem. In theory, you're right. In practice, there's no way to avoid giving preferential treatment. How do you erect a statue to agnosticism?
Have a statue of an agnostic philosopher with quotes about why he believes what he believes.
It is up to the agnostic organizations to come up with how they want to send their message in a way that does not attack others. Once they do, they are perfectly welcome to request a place to put their stuff.
Personally, as long as the rules are clear and apply to people and organizations equally, why is there a problem?
Because clear and equally-applied rules may still not be fair ones. I invite you to meditate on the classic phrasing of Anatole France: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread." The rule seems clear enough, yes?
As an example -- prayer at public events. If we let the people vote on what kind of prayer to offer, 100% of the time it will be the type of prayer that 51% of the population wants -- 49% of the population will be 100% disenfranchised. The rule of majority voting is clear, it applies to all people and organizations equally, and it's also entirely discriminatory. (And, no, this isn't a hypothetical case.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have a statue of an agnostic philosopher with quotes about why he believes what he believes.
It is up to the agnostic organizations to come up with how they want to send their message in a way that does not attack others. Once they do, they are perfectly welcome to request a place to put their stuff.
Please explain to me how a monument to the ten commandments, first among which is "thou shalt have no other gods before me," isn't attacking other viewpoints?
I would like to take this time to point out that my home town is the headquarters of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and in our state capitol we erected a Festivus Pole (made of used beer cans no less!) alongside the xmas tree to make a right jolly mockery of the whole affair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to take this time to point out that my home town is the headquarters of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and in our state capitol we erected a Festivus Pole (made of used beer cans no less!) alongside the xmas tree to make a right jolly mockery of the whole affair.
Isn't using a northern conifer in winter to celebrate the birth of someone born in the desert in the spring enough?
Prayer is kind of a non-issue.
Offer up a few moments of silence for people to pray or not as they will.
It is up to the agnostic organizations to come up with how they want to send their message in a way that does not attack others. Once they do, they are perfectly welcome to request a place to put their stuff.
That's not how First Amendment law in this country works; the burden isn't normally on the person discriminated against to come up with a set of more even-handed rules. You can see why this is the case, of course. Imagine the outcry if the local Catholic mayor decided that anyone who liked could put up a statue of any saint they liked for public veneration, and when the local Lutherans complained, he pointed out that "well, just come up with a saint that you can venerate instead."
Prayer is kind of a non-issue.
Offer up a few moments of silence for people to pray or not as they will.
Kryzbyn, are you sure you're not trying to sneak religion in the back door? A lot of your suggestions have been very close to the arguments posed by the religious sides in a number of cases. Arguments that have been recognized explicitly as "shams."
Again I refer you to Jones' decision in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. And in this case, I also refer you to Wallace vs. Jaffree, which explored this specific question, and found it lacking.
Basically, what secular purpose is served by a (mandatory) moment of silence?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Prayer is kind of a non-issue. Offer up a few moments of silence for people to pray or not as they will.
When I taught high school in VA, we had a daily "minute of silence." I loved it; it was the only quiet minute I got all day. The agnostic kids were fine with it, because they could sit and think. A very few religious kids liked it, because it gave them some time to pray silently. Most of the Christian (read: Baptist) community HATED it, though, because the "silence" part meant they weren't allowed to have mandatory group prayer or aggressive in-your-face pray-a-thons. So instead, they formed clubs and blocked the hallways before school so they could make a properly loud spectacle of their supposed "faith."
Prayer is kind of a non-issue.
Offer up a few moments of silence for people to pray or not as they will.
Um...moment of silence is just a euphemism for prayer. Like, how does that go down.
"Ok everyone, let's be quiet for approximately 1 minute in remembrance of the people that died suddenly in that horrific plane crash. Like, if you want to pray for the souls of the deceased, that's cool. If you want to balance your checkbook, check your email, or play Angry Birds, you can do that too, just for goodness sake be QUIET about it."
Meatrace -- see above. In my experience, the people who want school prayer are also the people who can't (or won't) do it silently.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Prayer is kind of a non-issue. Offer up a few moments of silence for people to pray or not as they will.When I taught high school in VA, we had a daily "minute of silence." I loved it; it was the only quiet minute I got all day. The agnostic kids were fine with it, because they could sit and think. A very few religious kids liked it, because it gave them some time to pray silently. Most of the Christian (read: Baptist) community HATED it, though, because the "silence" part meant they weren't allowed to have mandatory group prayer or aggressive in-your-face pray-a-thons. So instead, they formed clubs and blocked the hallways before school so they could make a proper spectacle of their supposed "faith."
Hmm...on reconsideration, if Baptists hate it I'd tend towards allowing it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also like to say, every time I read the thread title I read "steakhouse" not statehouse, and giggle a little.
No. Arround me, a lot of public land can used upon request by any organization provided it meets certain requirements (no vulgarity, no profanity, ect.). Assuming the rules are applied to religious and non-religious organizations equally and are consistent within a local, why should religious organizations be descriminated against?
There is a vast difference between showing up, having a picinic, and leaving and putting an endorsement of a religious text rather literally in stone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's the problem. In theory, you're right. In practice, there's no way to avoid giving preferential treatment. How do you erect a statue to agnosticism?
A big question mark that plays Imagine there's no heaven since it never actually says there is no heaven...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or perhaps a giant fence with a saddle on it? :)
Personally, as long as the rules are clear and apply to people and organizations equally, why is there a problem?Because clear and equally-applied rules may still not be fair ones. I invite you to meditate on the classic phrasing of Anatole France: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread." The rule seems clear enough, yes?
As an example -- prayer at public events. If we let the people vote on what kind of prayer to offer, 100% of the time it will be the type of prayer that 51% of the population wants -- 49% of the population will be 100% disenfranchised. The rule of majority voting is clear, it applies to all people and organizations equally, and it's also entirely discriminatory. (And, no, this isn't a hypothetical case.)
Public prayer forces people to participate in an event that they may not want to participate in. It is a totally different situation than allowing unused public land to be used in a display. Personally, I also believe that events like singing the national anthem and the pledge of alliegence in schools should not be allowed. I find it a worse issue of forced indoctrination than most public prayer, but I don't live in Babtist country where public prayer issues usually occur.
It is up to the agnostic organizations to come up with how they want to send their message in a way that does not attack others. Once they do, they are perfectly welcome to request a place to put their stuff.That's not how First Amendment law in this country works; the burden isn't normally on the person discriminated against to come up with a set of more even-handed rules. You can see why this is the case, of course. Imagine the outcry if the local Catholic mayor decided that anyone who liked could put up a statue of any saint they liked for public veneration, and when the local Lutherans complained, he pointed out that "well, just come up with a saint that you can venerate instead."
I'm not saying the minority need to come up with more evenhanded rules. I'm saying it is on them to decide how they want to advertise themselves. The requirement of a saint would make your example obviously favoring religion. If the mayor said, however, that anyone may put up a statue and then the vast majority of them happened to be saints because relious people took advantage of it, that would be ok because then people who didn't want them to be saints would have the ability to put up their own.
Prayer is kind of a non-issue. Offer up a few moments of silence for people to pray or not as they will.When I taught high school in VA, we had a daily "minute of silence." I loved it; it was the only quiet minute I got all day. The agnostic kids were fine with it, because they could sit and think. A very few religious kids liked it, because it gave them some time to pray silently. Most of the Christian (read: Baptist) community HATED it, though, because the "silence" part meant they weren't allowed to have mandatory group prayer or aggressive in-your-face pray-a-thons. So instead, they formed clubs and blocked the hallways before school so they could make a properly loud spectacle of their supposed "faith."
When I was a junior in high school, the Christian Coalition got elected on a sleeper campaign to my town's School Board and, along with a bunch of other bullshiznit (no "positive depiction of homosexuality," no discussion of communism, etc., etc.) they also put in a moment of silence which was understood by the whole community, pro- and con-, as smuggling in school prayer.
They were booted out the next year.
I don't know how many Baptists were in our town, though.
No. Arround me, a lot of public land can used upon request by any organization provided it meets certain requirements (no vulgarity, no profanity, ect.). Assuming the rules are applied to religious and non-religious organizations equally and are consistent within a local, why should religious organizations be descriminated against?There is a vast difference between showing up, having a picinic, and leaving and putting an endorsement of a religious text rather literally in stone.
Well, considering most of these displays are temporary (like a nativity scene which is put up for ~ 2 months in a median the size of my cube at work in front of a church), I don't consider them significantly different than other event permits. The moment you make things permanent (like these 10 commandments I already said are a problem) you have to get into how to give equal time and not preferential treatment to different groups, which can be very difficult. If you force things to be temporary and have set dates for when they are to be removed, there is much less of a prbolem.
That being said, I'm really currious how the national parks can get away with christmass trees.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to take this time to point out that my home town is the headquarters of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and in our state capitol we erected a Festivus Pole (made of used beer cans no less!) alongside the xmas tree to make a right jolly mockery of the whole affair.
How very droll. You must be very proud. Nothing like making fun of someone else's beliefs. Aren't you doing the same thing you are fighting against? I am not certain how mocking someone else's beliefs is helping you fight against someone else who is forcing something on you. Seems to me that type of behavior is equal to the same people who are forcing their beliefs down someone else's throat. Doesn't seem too productive to me. But glad you told us about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Prayer is kind of a non-issue.
Offer up a few moments of silence for people to pray or not as they will.Kryzbyn, are you sure you're not trying to sneak religion in the back door? A lot of your suggestions have been very close to the arguments posed by the religious sides in a number of cases. Arguments that have been recognized explicitly as "shams."
Again I refer you to Jones' decision in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. And in this case, I also refer you to Wallace vs. Jaffree, which explored this specific question, and found it lacking.
Basically, what secular purpose is served by a (mandatory) moment of silence?
Heh, no I'm really not.
I don't know what probelms other Christians have with using non-grandstanding types of prayer, but I don't require permission to pray.I can shut my eyes for a few moments, and thats it. In any setting, no one has ever benn like "HEY! What's that you're doing there! Better not be prayer Mister!".
But, if in a public setting where you should not appeal to any particular form or faith or no faith, and you have to segment time for some reason, I don't see the harm in offering up an ambiguous moment or two of silence.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I always wondered was why they just didn't use those forty-five minutes of enforced silence that we had at least from middle school up. IIRC, it was called "study hall."
Public prayer forces people to participate in an event that they may not want to participate in. It is a totally different situation than allowing unused public land to be used in a display. Personally, I also believe that events like singing the national anthem and the pledge of alliegence in schools should not be allowed. I find it a worse issue of forced indoctrination than most public prayer, but I don't live in Babtist country where public prayer issues usually occur.
Personally, as long as the rules are clear and apply to people and organizations equally, why is there a problem?Because clear and equally-applied rules may still not be fair ones. I invite you to meditate on the classic phrasing of Anatole France: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread." The rule seems clear enough, yes?
As an example -- prayer at public events. If we let the people vote on what kind of prayer to offer, 100% of the time it will be the type of prayer that 51% of the population wants -- 49% of the population will be 100% disenfranchised. The rule of majority voting is clear, it applies to all people and organizations equally, and it's also entirely discriminatory. (And, no, this isn't a hypothetical case.)
Funny, I just ignore public prayer. I am not forced to participate. No one makes me bow my head, or say Amen or Praise Allah, or All Hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I seriously wonder how many people have actually read the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Everybody remembers the first part sort of, but no one remembers the second part. While the government can't make you pray, it also can't take away your right to pray. Banning the right of someone to pray in a public place is just as wrong as forcing someone to pray in a public place.
Public prayer forces people to participate in an event that they may not want to participate in. It is a totally different situation than allowing unused public land to be used in a display. Personally, I also believe that events like singing the national anthem and the pledge of alliegence in schools should not be allowed. I find it a worse issue of forced indoctrination than most public prayer, but I don't live in Babtist country where public prayer issues usually occur.
Personally, as long as the rules are clear and apply to people and organizations equally, why is there a problem?Because clear and equally-applied rules may still not be fair ones. I invite you to meditate on the classic phrasing of Anatole France: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread." The rule seems clear enough, yes?
As an example -- prayer at public events. If we let the people vote on what kind of prayer to offer, 100% of the time it will be the type of prayer that 51% of the population wants -- 49% of the population will be 100% disenfranchised. The rule of majority voting is clear, it applies to all people and organizations equally, and it's also entirely discriminatory. (And, no, this isn't a hypothetical case.)
Funny, I just ignore public prayer. I am not forced to participate. No one makes me bow my head, or say Amen or Praise Allah, or All Hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I seriously wonder how many people have actually read the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people...
By public prayer I was specifically refering to cases where officials of the state are holding the event, like at the beginning of town hall meetings, school, or school sports events.
People praying openly in public, while I personally find annoying, are perfectly with in their rights.
I'd also like to say, every time I read the thread title I read "steakhouse" not statehouse, and giggle a little.
That would be sacriLICIOUS!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course I've read the Bible and went through something of an obnoxious atheist phase so I sometimes had fun quoting "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others."
One of the most important things I read in the book. My time with God is just that, and I don't need bells and whistles to announce it to the world. Unless we're talking about my funeral. In which case, bells and whistles are mandatory. And yes, I will know if you show up without them.
What I always wondered was why they just didn't use those forty-five minutes of enforced silence that we had at least from middle school up. IIRC, it was called "study hall."
thank God it's not just me!!!
Prayer is kind of a non-issue. Offer up a few moments of silence for people to pray or not as they will.When I taught high school in VA, we had a daily "minute of silence." I loved it; it was the only quiet minute I got all day. The agnostic kids were fine with it, because they could sit and think. A very few religious kids liked it, because it gave them some time to pray silently. Most of the Christian (read: Baptist) community HATED it, though, because the "silence" part meant they weren't allowed to have mandatory group prayer or aggressive in-your-face pray-a-thons. So instead, they formed clubs and blocked the hallways before school so they could make a properly loud spectacle of their supposed "faith."
They obviously missed this bit in their non-stop reading of scripture:
“Whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, because they love to pray while standing in synagogues and on street corners so that people can see them. Truly I say to you, they have their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you” (Matthew 6:5-6).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They obviously missed this bit in their non-stop reading of scripture...
I think I've met a total of two who have ever actually even opened a Bible -- those two were into the whole Bible study thing, and were also the least obnoxious and most accepting of non-Christians I've met. Coincidence?
They obviously missed this bit in their non-stop reading of scripture...I think I've met a total of two who have ever actually even opened a Bible -- those two were into the whole Bible study thing, and were also the least obnoxious and most accepting of non-Christians I've met. Coincidence?
I sat down and read it cover to cover when I was about 15, and I slowly backed away from the religion shortly thereafter.
I am not certain how mocking someone else's beliefs is helping you fight against someone else who is forcing something on you. Seems to me that type of behavior is equal to the same people who are forcing their beliefs down someone else's throat. Doesn't seem too productive to me.
I might be an oddball, but personally I alays appreciate it, when I state some belief (taking myself too seriously as usual) and Mrs Gersen makes fun of it, to shock me into (a) thinking about it more objectively and (b) stop being so full of myself. Others might see that as an "attack" and respond defensively, but I've learned that when people do that to me, I'm usually better off if I stop and listen.