View Full Version : atheists going too far?
poetry_writer
6-21-11, 6:38pm
This is politcal correctness gone mad. I say these atheists are cruel and insensitive to victims of 9/ll and utterly arrogant. Comments?
A group of New York City atheists is demanding that the city remove a street sign honoring seven firefighters killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks because they say the sign violates the separation of church and state.
The street, “Seven in Heaven Way,” was officially dedicated last weekend in Brooklyn outside the firehouse where the firefighters once served. The ceremony was attended by dozens of firefighters, city leaders and widows of the fallen men.
“There should be no signage or displays of religious nature in the public domain,” said Ken Bronstein, president of New York City Atheists. “It’s really insulting to us.”
from Fox news
I say these atheists have too much time on their hands, jmho as a person who isn't religious in the traditional sense. I suppose now they'll have to root out all uses of the word "heaven" and banish them (hog heaven, seventh heaven, heavenly hash ice cream.....) But gosh, Fox News loves stories like this, don't they?
But gosh, Fox News loves stories like this, don't they?
I wonder why all the other news outlets don't?
Faux News does indeed love this garbage as does the American Public, it gives them something to talk about while they stuff Twinkies in their mouth and drink their diet Coke.
Just more atheist bashing! :~)
I got a better idea - Let's get 'In God We Trust' off the money!
Peace
rosarugosa
6-21-11, 7:17pm
I guess every group has its lunatric fringe. I make no apologies for being an atheist, but nobody should have to apologize to me for being religious. I probably wouldn't dig the sign either, but I just wouldn't spend much time looking at it.
atheists going too far?
Not all atheists are alike - just like not all Christians are far-right nutters.
Fox news? Consider the source. http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=171&d=1294631413
treehugger
6-21-11, 7:39pm
Not all atheists are alike - just like not all Christians are far-right nutters.
Well poetry_writer did say "these atheists" so I think it's clear the OP is just talking about that group.
And yeah, I agree that that group has too much time on its hands. Pick your battles, geez (yeah, the whole "In God we Trust" thing, plus the "under God" in the pledge of alliegence would be better targets).
Now, I'm not a member of that group doing the protesting, nor would I be, but I think it's a pretty dumb name for a street and I could think of lots of better ways to honor those firefighters. But that's just my opinion, which isn't worth much. :)
Kara
Fox news? Consider the source. http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=171&d=1294631413
If the information is accurate, why would the source be questionable?
poetry_writer
6-21-11, 8:52pm
Faux News does indeed love this garbage as does the American Public, it gives them something to talk about while they stuff Twinkies in their mouth and drink their diet Coke.
Just more atheist bashing! :~)
I got a better idea - Let's get 'In God We Trust' off the money!
Peace
Dont understand the Coke and Twinkies comment.
poetry_writer
6-21-11, 8:53pm
Well poetry_writer did say "these atheists" so I think it's clear the OP is just talking about that group.
And yeah, I agree that that group has too much time on its hands. Pick your battles, geez (yeah, the whole "In God we Trust" thing, plus the "under God" in the pledge of alliegence would be better targets).
Now, I'm not a member of that group doing the protesting, nor would I be, but I think it's a pretty dumb name for a street and I could think of lots of better ways to honor those firefighters. But that's just my opinion, which isn't worth much. :)
Kara
Evidently the firefighters didnt think it was dumb.
poetry_writer
6-21-11, 8:55pm
Not all atheists are alike - just like not all Christians are far-right nutters.
Fox news? Consider the source. http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=171&d=1294631413
Are you saying Fox news lied? As Alan pointed out, if the facts are accurate, why question the source?
loosechickens
6-21-11, 9:09pm
No, I think the poster meant that Fox News could be counted on to rush to publicize this, while they wouldn't rush at all to question why a sitting governor of a state in his official capacity would plan a prayer extravaganza, praying to one particular religion's deity, and sponsor said prayer extravaganza with a group with major religious objections to a segment of society, well represented in said governnor's home state. And in fact, if they mentioned it, it would be in a very positive way.....
But I wouldn't argue that because Fox News said it, it isn't true....only that, like the hoorah about people "killing Christmas" by saying "happy holidays", they can gin up outrage and upset in their target audience, who will then be amenable to acceptance of their conservative programming.
Of COURSE this particular group is over the top on this, and there are WAY more important places to focus on the separation of church and state........so I'll agree with you (and I have no belief at all in some deity in the sky, but also don't consider myself an atheist, because atheists are just as sure there IS no god as the religious people are that there IS one, and I take the position that we don't have any idea, so neither group can be sure that their belief is TRUTH.....as, since the said god is not appearing in the sky or anyplace other than things like grilled cheese sandwiches at present, none of us can know).
So, in answer to your question, poetry_writer, yes, I think it's kind of ridiculous. Especially when there are really SERIOUS assaults daily on the separation of church and state. Folks should pick their battles and put their energies where it matters, IMHO.
Dont understand the Coke and Twinkies comment. Sorry, but my mental image is of big fat pasty white people watching Fox News - stuffing their face, belching, and wearing a bib! :0!:0!
Peace
poetry_writer
6-21-11, 9:17pm
Sorry, but my mental image is of big fat pasty white people watching Fox News - stuffing their face, belching, and wearing a bib! :0!:0!
Peace
Why do you have this image of people who watch Fox? Its odd
Why do you have this image of people who watch Fox? Its odd
You must be new here.
There are certain unwritten truths which must always be acknowledged. One of them is that you must always demonize the opposition. Another one is that conservatives, especially religious conservatives are the opposition.
ApatheticNoMore
6-21-11, 9:37pm
Getting upset about the issue is also a case of too much time on your hands. I mean fine if you actually live in New York and it's a local issue to you, ok I respect caring about local issues, but otherwise, it is a non-issue when put in perspective. Btw, we don't actually know the religious beliefs of the firefighters do we? (especially considering it is a multiracial multicultural city like New York).
loosechickens
6-21-11, 9:49pm
You can have whatever image you choose to have, zigzagman, about how viewers of Fox News look....plenty of people believe that the viewers of PBS are Birkenstock wearing, nuts and berries eating, vegan, coastal Liberals. It doesn't mean that is fact, for either group. Or that voicing such a view is all that appropriate, although, as in religion, we are all entitled to our beliefs.....so, however inaccurate it may be, you can say, "My image of Fox News viewers is...........", but you can't state as fact that they are all fat, pasty white people.
You CAN look up the demographics of any particular news organizations listeners or watchers, and state something like "the large majority of Fox News viewers are white and middle-aged" if that is provable and true (I have no idea whether or not it is), or post a study of the demographic of income and/or education of PBS viewers (I have no idea what that would be, either)........
But.....it doesn't help the discussion to characterize people that way, especially if you can't back it up with facts. Just needlessly offensive, especially to Fox News viewers. JMHO
loosechickens
6-21-11, 10:04pm
Just to lighten things up a little......thought this was really cute, especially the look on the First Lady's face......gotta wonder if Fox News gave THIS a whole lot of play, hahahahaha.......
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/obama-baby-crying_n_881288.html
Zigzagman
6-21-11, 10:12pm
I can't prove it but that is my mental image and it doesn't have anything to do with demonizing anyone - it is just the image I think of when I think of Fox Viewers - not sure why? The Atheist/Christian debate is merely an example of the disrespect each has for the other. I think the world would be far better off without religion.
Peace
You can have whatever image you choose to have, zigzagman, about how viewers of Fox News look....plenty of people believe that the viewers of PBS are Birkenstock wearing, nuts and berries eating, vegan, coastal Liberals. It doesn't mean that is fact, for either group. Or that voicing such a view is all that appropriate, although, as in religion, we are all entitled to our beliefs.....so, however inaccurate it may be, you can say, "My image of Fox News viewers is...........", but you can't state as fact that they are all fat, pasty white people.
You CAN look up the demographics of any particular news organizations listeners or watchers, and state something like "the large majority of Fox News viewers are white and middle-aged" if that is provable and true (I have no idea whether or not it is), or post a study of the demographic of income and/or education of PBS viewers (I have no idea what that would be, either)........
But.....it doesn't help the discussion to characterize people that way, especially if you can't back it up with facts. Just needlessly offensive, especially to Fox News viewers. JMHO
Can you make this thread a sticky? Someday I might not remember which of your posts I actually agreed with.:+1:
(plus, this might be a useful reference sometime soon)
loosechickens
6-21-11, 10:16pm
well, as long as you can accept that when many folks think of weed smokers, they see layabouts, slackers, ne'er do wells, and no motivation........ ;-)
I've always been of two minds regarding religions, all of 'em......they've certainly done a lot of good, and helped many people have a standard for living their lives, but most have been sources of a lot of discord, and even lots of wars and killing, so on balance, the jury is still out, as far as I am concerned. But that's just my personal opinion.
loosechickens
6-21-11, 10:18pm
we probably have a lot more areas of agreement, Alan, than you realize........just as most other people. Both of us are very logical thinkers, try to have an open mind.....look to argue facts as opposed to emotion, but come from very different worldviews.....room for everybody.
Maybe we should both file these occasions in some word file on our computers so that when we are going at each other hammer and tongs we can remember these moments. ;-)
gotta go fix some dinner for my sweetie........then head to the pool for a swim....more tomorrow. g'nite.....
Zigzagman
6-21-11, 10:26pm
well, as long as you can accept that when many folks think of weed smokers, they see layabouts, slackers, ne'er do wells, and no motivation........ ;-)
I resemble that remark!! :)
Peace
Atheists, Muslims, and Satanists have the same right to be obnoxious and inflammatory as everybody else.
This is politcal correctness gone mad. I say these atheists are cruel and insensitive to victims of 9/ll and utterly arrogant. Comments?
A group of New York City atheists is demanding that the city remove a street sign honoring seven firefighters killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks because they say the sign violates the separation of church and state.
The street, “Seven in Heaven Way,” was officially dedicated last weekend in Brooklyn outside the firehouse where the firefighters once served. The ceremony was attended by dozens of firefighters, city leaders and widows of the fallen men.
“There should be no signage or displays of religious nature in the public domain,” said Ken Bronstein, president of New York City Atheists. “It’s really insulting to us.”
from Fox news
I wonder what the response would have been if the street sign had been somehow blatantly atheist - or pagan - or muslim- but honored the firefighters as well?
If we're going to go after taxpayer funded street signs that cross the boundary of church and state lets at least go after one that serves NO purpose other than promoting one particular religion. Back when i was still a taxpayer in Colorado it infuriated me to no end that they put a state funded sign on I-25 in Colorado Springs advising people of the Focus on the Family Visitor's Center. The sign referenced in the OP's post is completely different. As an atheist I personally have no problem with it. I may not agree with the predominant sentiment, but understand that there's much more in the overall sentiment than just espousing a particular religious belief, unlike my aforementioned visitor's center sign.
I wonder why they went after that particular sign when there's so many other bigger fish to fry? How about whole cities such as St. Paul, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa Fe, St. Charles, Bethlehem, or maybe the entire state of Louisiana where every county is a Parrish?
These guys just aren't ambitious enough.
The Storyteller
6-22-11, 8:04am
I wonder why all the other news outlets don't?
Because it's a non-issue.
Just like this entire thread.
Because it's a non-issue.
Just like this entire thread.
I disagree that it's a non-issue, as I suppose a group of atheists in New York would as well.
I would also disagree that the entire thread is a non-issue. This is just the sort of thread that helps put valid discussion points, with far-reaching implications, out for the community to examine/discuss/debate, you know, the things that discussion forums are designed to do.
Of course, no one is forced to participate if they don't think it's worthwhile.
Sorry, but my mental image is of big fat pasty white people watching Fox News - stuffing their face, belching, and wearing a bib! :0!:0!
Peace
Just so you know Zig, I rarely wear a bib.
The only thought that popped into my mind regarding the street name "Seven in Heaven Way" is that it sounded, well...corny. I'm all for honoring fallen comrades, I just tend to lean more toward the scholarship fund method of doing it. I didn't know any of those firefighters so this may very well be exactly appropriate for them. Myself, I only use street signs for navigation so probably wouldn't think any more of the name than the aforementioned "corny". The atheists seem to have found a way to shed some light of publicity on their cause. Stirring the pot a little bit is an age old method for doing that. I don't know them either so can not comment on their level of sincerity, but they do have every right to oppose this if they want to.
It is interesting to see the reaction of some of our more liberal posters regarding Fox News. I think Zig was joking (a little bit anyway), but there definitely is a tendency to dismiss stories brought from Fox quicker than those from other sources like CBS or the New York Times or even something like Huffington. Just a case of reading the news through blue tinted glasses? They all spin everything, it's just a matter of which direction. Except NPR, of course. I'm an NPR junkie because, as everyone knows, anything they say is above reproach.
I would also disagree that the entire thread is a non-issue. This is just the sort of thread that helps put valid discussion points, with far-reaching implications, out for the community to examine/discuss/debate, you know, the things that discussion forums are designed to do.
I completely agree Alan and, in fact, this type of discussion is the very reason I joined this community. But we all have different motivations so YMMV.
... Back when i was still a taxpayer in Colorado it infuriated me to no end that they put a state funded sign on I-25 in Colorado Springs advising people of the Focus on the Family Visitor's Center. The sign referenced in the OP's post is completely different. As an atheist I personally have no problem with it. I may not agree with the predominant sentiment, but understand that there's much more in the overall sentiment than just espousing a particular religious belief, unlike my aforementioned visitor's center sign.
Here in my state, organizations have to pay $$$$$ to get those highway signs. Not true for Colo?
The Storyteller
6-22-11, 9:28am
I would also disagree that the entire thread is a non-issue. This is just the sort of thread that helps put valid discussion points, with far-reaching implications, out for the community to examine/discuss/debate, you know, the things that discussion forums are designed to do.
Of course, no one is forced to participate if they don't think it's worthwhile.
What I mean to say, it's a complete joke. I can't believe anyone is even taking it seriously, either the issue or the thread.
Which of course is just my opinion.
So maybe they should call it "Seven Servings of Maggot Food Way?" Sorry for being disrespectful, but Heaven is a reference to a spiritual state, that's all. Do atheists concede that we have a spiritual side? (really, I'm asking). If atheists can have a higher power, as in 12-step programs, maybe atheist heaven simply means a void and release from human suffering. Can't they see it that way at least?
Heaven doesn't have to mean St. Peter standing at the Pearly Gates checking off access to the Big Guy. Geez.
Here in my state, organizations have to pay $$$$$ to get those highway signs. Not true for Colo?
Definitely true for Colorado. And they did. Not the government's fault.....it used to be a huge tourist attraction, as well. Though I don't agree with their stance on most things, of course.
You know, here's an experiment. I'll bet everyone posting on this thread could agree if they wanted to.
I'd volunteer Catherine's last post as an example. Do most people agree that
a) because "heaven" is a spiritual term used in many different (positive) ways, and
b) spiritual references are not all equivalent to a some malevolent merging of church and state, and
c) the NY Atheists are just making this into an issue to push their views into the public eye, knowing that the mouthpieces who disagree with them (i.e. Fox) will do a fine job publicizing their cause
....that it's unfortunate this is happening, and even more unfortunate that good people all over the country are choosing to rip at each other over it?
Just a thought. I rarely see people agree here on Public Policy, almost like it's verboten to find common ground on an issue.
Zigzagman
6-22-11, 10:03am
This topic reminds me of the recent 9/11 mosque controversy. Of all the things that could use some attention by the public these days, this is just media induced BS. I guess my question is why anyone would really care, one way or the other.
As far as my comments about the snicker-smeared faces of pasty white folks - it was just my perverted thoughts on Faux News - Fair and Balanced!
Peace
Zigzagman
6-22-11, 10:09am
You know, here's an experiment. I'll bet everyone posting on this thread could agree if they wanted to.
I'd volunteer Catherine's last post as an example. Do most people agree that
a) because "heaven" is a spiritual term used in many different (positive) ways, and
b) spiritual references are not all equivalent to a some malevolent merging of church and state, and
c) the NY Atheists are just making this into an issue to push their views into the public eye, knowing that the mouthpieces who disagree with them (i.e. Fox) will do a fine job publicizing their cause
....that it's unfortunate this is happening, and even more unfortunate that good people all over the country are choosing to rip at each other over it?
Just a thought. I rarely see people agree here on Public Policy, almost like it's verboten to find common ground on an issue.
Very True! I think that religion like politics is something that will never be a topic that will have a concensus opinion. That is probably why in the "old days" no one ever talked either much. I personally enjoy hearing other people opinions on these topics. It gives me insight into how people diferent than myself think.
Peace
poetry_writer
6-22-11, 10:19am
I appreciate all the replys, even the ones I dont agree with. Something as simple as a street sign points out the feelings about anyone expressing anything concerning God.
You know, here's an experiment. I'll bet everyone posting on this thread could agree if they wanted to.
I'd volunteer Catherine's last post as an example. Do most people agree that
a) because "heaven" is a spiritual term used in many different (positive) ways, and
b) spiritual references are not all equivalent to a some malevolent merging of church and state, and
c) the NY Atheists are just making this into an issue to push their views into the public eye, knowing that the mouthpieces who disagree with them (i.e. Fox) will do a fine job publicizing their cause
....that it's unfortunate this is happening, and even more unfortunate that good people all over the country are choosing to rip at each other over it?
Just a thought. I rarely see people agree here on Public Policy, almost like it's verboten to find common ground on an issue.
Agreed. I too think the name is goofy, but harmless (in a non religious way) I do think they should set their sites on 'In God We Trust" or even better, "Under God". Here was a religious stick poked into our secular nation's anthem during the 50's. Totally wrong and should be removed.
I would think, since NY is such a large city with many streets, why couldn't they just name 7 streets after these guys. Give each a street, maybe in a neighborhood they loved.
Of course, there is the problem that I'm sure will arise in that these 7 weren't the only ones to die, so where is the street sign honoring the others, and possibly their religion.
Zig...."snicker-smeared faces of pasty white folk"? I love it! This is how I picture folks who watch all those shopping channels.
I wonder what the response would have been if the street sign had been somehow blatantly atheist - or pagan - or muslim- but honored the firefighters as well?
That would be on Fox too! But I'm guessing the outrage would be on the other foot, so to speak.
I"m an atheist and could care less what someone calls a street. haha.
I wonder what the response would have been if the street sign had been somehow blatantly atheist - or pagan - or muslim- but honored the firefighters as well?
Me too. This reminds me of a recent Supreme Court case in Texas where a high school Valedictorian won the right to thank God & Jesus as her Lord and Savior in her commencement speeech as well as say a prayer. The Court ruled that as a private citizen she wouldn't be violating Church/State seperation. The school members, school board and most of the state of Texas :-) including the Attorney General - all of which strongly supported her right to pray in her speech - were very happy about this. However I wonder just how happy and supportive of this they would have been if she were a Muslim thanking Allah, A Hindu thanking Ganneesh, or even a Satanist thanking Lucifer. Now THAT would have been a commencement speech. "I wish to thank the Dark Lord for helping me get A's in Algebra". :devil:!! Freedom of religion has to cover and be accepting of ALL religions.
P.S. Personally I think the street sign is harmless and a bad target for that group of Athesists to focus on.
Me too. This reminds me of a recent Supreme Court case in Texas where a high school Valedictorian won the right to thank God in her commencement speeech. The Court ruled that as a private citizen she wouldn't be violating Church/State seperation. The school members, school board and most of the state of Texas :-) where very happy about this. However I wonder just how happy and supportive of this they would have been if she were a Muslim thanking Allah, A Hindu thanking Ganneesh, or even a Satanist thanking Lucifer. Now THAT would have been a commencement speech. "I wish to thank the Dark Lord for helping me get A's in Algebra".
That WOULD have been interesting! It almost makes me want to try it just for fun (except that I'm a million light years from my HS graduation and was almost that far from the valedictorian's seat when I was there).
I, personally, would have no problem if a Muslim speaker thanked Allah, or a Hindu thanked Ganesh. In my mind it's like one person calling a vehicle with an engine a motorcar and another person calling it an automobile.
When I was a director of communications for a public school system in NJ I was in charge of the school calendar. Because my area is SO incredibly diverse, I thought it would be fun to put all the different religious holidays on the calendar--not just Christmas and Yom Kippur (of course, we were already not allowed to call it Christmas Break--it had to be Winter Break. However, Yom Kippur didn't have to be That Holiday in the Fall that Always Has A Different Date).
Well, one person complained about one thing and another complained about another and so the Board of Ed told me not to repeat that in the calendar for the next year.
With 16% of the US "unaffiliated" and 84% who subscribe to some faith, I don't understand why we have to exert so much energy stomping out references that are so important to so many. Permitting people freedom of religion doesn't have to mean denial of the religious and cultural references of the majority by the government that serves them. My two cents.
With 16% of the US "unaffiliated" and 84% who subscribe to some faith, I don't understand why we have to exert so much energy stomping out references that are so important to so many. Permitting people freedom of religion doesn't have to mean denial of the religious and cultural references of the majority by the government that serves them. My two cents.
It may just be your two cents, but the wisdom displayed is priceless!
I, personally, would have no problem if a Muslim speaker thanked Allah, or a Hindu thanked Ganesh. In my mind it's like one person calling a vehicle with an engine a motorcar and another person calling it an automobile.
As a staunch supporter of sepereation of chursch and state, I would have a problem with ANy religious speech used in a government tax payer supported venue. I think it is disrespectful to all beliefs to assume that a prayer or thanks to a deity other than their own would be the same for everyone. A generic "prayer" which may not have all the aspects of a person's beliefs and traditions of prayer sort of sullies religion overall. I would think that the stronger one's beliefs are, the more they would want that seperation to keep their religious traditions pure.
Fallen Heroes Way? Respectfully vanilla.
I have to agree with everyone else here, making an issue of this is a media stunt. And I'd guess it never even occurred to the people who came up with the name that it might be at all objectionable. I'm agnostic and even if I were on the naming committee, I'm not sure this would have raised a red flag with me, I'd probably be thinking, "bleh, you people have no imagination", not, "breach of separation!!!" As a devil's advocate stretch, making people aware of when they're stepping on toes is not necessarily a bad thing, but this is the wrong venue.
I appreciate all the replys, even the ones I dont agree with. Something as simple as a street sign points out the feelings about anyone expressing anything concerning God.
On the contrary, I think the responses here have proven that there's no conspiracy against religion.
But on every issue - every kind of issue -- there will always be fringe groups protesting against one thing or another. Painting all people with the same brush is unfair. Which is why I dislike Fox News. Look at the facts, and then look at your conclusion: FACT: One small fringe group protested a sign that they feel has religious connotation. YOUR CONCLUSION: Everybody hates any discussion of God. That's what Fox News (and for that matter, Huffington Post) does......encourages people like you to think that everything is black or white, good or evil, all or nothing.
I can not make the connection that a high school student's expression of faith in a speech constitutes state support of his/her religion. It is simply an expression of gratitude and support from someone who accomplished a great feat. None of us accomplish anything worth doing alone. If s/he thanked parents, teachers, study partners, etc. no one would think anything of it. What if a minister was helpful? What if this person truly felt the hand of God guiding them to do great things? Some will scoff at that notion, but none has the right to deny that feeling in someone else. I can see an argument against any religious figure leading a prayer at a publicly funded event like a graduation, but to tell an individual who they can or can't thank in their speech would be diving head first down that slippery slope.
loosechickens
6-22-11, 3:25pm
I agree, Gregg......and there is a HUGE difference between that high school student thanking his/her god for helping them through those years, just as they would thank parents, teachers, etc., and say, an elected official coming to that graduation in a public school and saying something like, "only with the help of Jesus Christ (or "only by the goodness of Allah", or "only with the intervention of the divine Goddess", etc), have these students been able to get through their school years, and unless they continue to follow (name of god here), they will not meet with success in life."
One is a heartfelt admission from an individual person of their belief, and inappropriate for a government official. It doesn't seem all that hard to me. Government officials, as their own private person, can hold whatever beliefs they like, and govern their lives according to that belief, but in their official capacity as a government official can simply not elevate one religion over all others or over no religion at all, because this country is not a theological country, it is a pluralistic secular country with freedom of religion for all people, and freedom FROM religion for all people as well, in any official government capacity.
Government officials, as their own private person, can hold whatever beliefs they like, and govern their lives according to that belief, but in their official capacity as a government official can simply not elevate one religion over all others or over no religion at all, because this country is not a theological country, it is a pluralistic secular country with freedom of religion for all people, and freedom FROM religion for all people as well, in any official government capacity.
That's where I disagree with you. There is no prohibition against anyone in government expressing their religious beliefs.
loosechickens
6-22-11, 3:47pm
Well, it won't be the first time we disagree, Alan, ;-) And, to me, there is a world of difference between a person in government expressing their personal beliefs, and a person in government in their official role as a government official, bringing religion into their official duties at all. Not that it doesn't happen, but when it does, many people are going to object.
And when said official is part of a religion that is dominant in the country, with a large percentage of citizens sharing the same belief, they'll probably get away with it, and were the official to be a member of a minority religion, or an atheist, there would (literally) be H*ll to pay).
I wonder how Fox News would have felt if the road sign had been put up by some fringe Muslim group, and was called something like "Our Firefighters, Now Rewarded with 72 Virgins Way". The atheists would still be p*ssed off, either way, but Fox News....probably not covering the presence of the sign quite so positively.
This is so much just one of the ways that a small group manages to get a lot of publicity for their views, a media organization manages to gin up a big controversy about it, the little group gets publicity, the media organization makes money......the firefighters are still dead (regardless of their own religious philosophies), and the dance goes on.
I think there's a difference between expressing belief and sculpting policy to the tune of that belief, potentially creating laws which favor one sect/group over another. But it's hard for me to assume that someone who is so fervent in the expression of their religious beliefs wouldn't take that extra step to making them into public policy, which is why I shy away from voting for anyone who is vehemently vocal about beliefs I don't share.
Well, it won't be the first time we disagree, Alan, ;-) And, to me, there is a world of difference between a person in government expressing their personal beliefs, and a person in government in their official role as a government official, bringing religion into their official duties at all. Not that it doesn't happen, but when it does, many people are going to object.
That's the problem with looking at the world through the lens of moral relativity and trying to justify it with talk of separation of church and state hyperbole. Sometimes we just need to acknowledge that people are allowed to object, whether it's justified or not.
And when said official is part of a religion that is dominant in the country, with a large percentage of citizens sharing the same belief, they'll probably get away with it, and were the official to be a member of a minority religion, or an atheist, there would (literally) be H*ll to pay).
There's no legal hell to pay, just public opinion. That's the way things work in a representative democracy.
I think there's a difference between expressing belief and sculpting policy to the tune of that belief, potentially creating laws which favor one sect/group over another. But it's hard for me to assume that someone who is so fervent in the expression of their religious beliefs wouldn't take that extra step to making them into public policy, which is why I shy away from voting for anyone who is vehemently vocal about beliefs I don't share.
That's why there are checks and balances built into the governmental structure, to prevent abuses.
I think you should shy away from voting for anyone who is vehemently vocal about beliefs you don't share, and if you are in the minority, it may not do you any good. Again, that's the way a representative democracy works.
That's why there are checks and balances built into the governmental structure, to prevent abuses.
I think you should shy away from voting for anyone who is vehemently vocal about beliefs you don't share, and if you are in the minority, it may not do you any good. Again, that's the way a representative democracy works.
True, very true. I think it's the startling rightward shift of politics in the past few decades that have me more vocal and frustrated as I find myself closer and closer to a fringe position. It just seems hard to believe that the center is now all the way "over there" and I am, indeed, in the minority.
OK, here's another case study that might provoke good discussion. This happened very recently in my great State of New Jersey.
There is a little mile-square beach community of Neptune Township called Ocean Grove. It was founded in the mid-1800s by the Methodists. They still "own" the town from a legal perspective (not sure what the legal terms would be). The centerpiece of this town is the Great Auditorium, which is a historic landmark. It was primarily built as a house of worship, but they have other events there, too--like music concerts and stuff.
The Neptune Township high school has, for YEARS, held their HS graduation there because it holds everybody. Well, last year someone complained because their son was "exposed" to religious symbols during the graduation--there are crosses inside and out, as well the oldest continuously-lit neon sign--with a Biblical passage.
So this year the ACLU got involved and sued the Methodist Camp Meeting Association (the governing board) to cover the crosses and turn off the neon light during the ceremony, citing separation of church and state. At first the town leaders said "no way--those symbols represent who we are and you are free to take the graduation elsewhere, but we won't cover up the crosses."
Well, eventually they buckled, and they decided to cover the crosses. They can't cover one outside cross, so the students will process into the building using a side door, to avoid walking in front of the cross.
As you can imagine, there was a lot of controversy about this whole incident. You can guess how I feel about it. If my kids had to graduate in the local synagogue or mosque or durgha temple, I swear to God I would never in a million years expect them to cover up their religious icons.
As you can imagine, there was a lot of controversy about this whole incident. You can guess how I feel about it. If my kids had to graduate in the local synagogue or mosque or durgha temple, I swear to God I would never in a million years expect them to cover up their religious icons.
+1
Really, really ridiculous. Is someone going to follow their child around for life, covering up any religious icons wherever they might appear so their sensitive little eyeballs won't have to behold them (and heaven forbid make their own judgment calls about it all)? Seriously, I'd kick people like this off the island.
Well, eventually they buckled, and they decided to cover the crosses. They can't cover one outside cross, so the students will process into the building using a side door, to avoid walking in front of the cross.
It is nothing more than lowering a religious symbol to the same level as pornography (which I would generally oppose my kids walking by). I am pretty much the poster child of agnostics everywhere, but I mean really; doesn't the ACLU have ANY bigger battles to fight than to stop kids from WALKING BY a religious symbol??? There is plenty of proof that porn can be damaging, but I've never seen any study that says that simply walking by a cross/menorah/pentagram/Stonehenge/etc. is harmful to our youth. The only two words that come to mind are... ****ing stupid. Not to mention breeding intolerance. Just my opinion.
The only two words that come to mind are... ****ing stupid. Not to mention breeding intolerance. Just my opinion.
Gregg, I actually TYPED that but then second-guessed myself. But I agree...a lot of these things are just really ****ing stupid. And you know that engaging themselves in issues like this has to leave fewer resources for them to press issues that really matter, like real discrimination cases. Sad.
Oh puglogic, feel free to express yourself any way you see fit. The forum software will see to it that we don't come across as total barbarians. ;)
iris lily
6-23-11, 12:37am
There was a newly opened grocery store downtown here that displayed a cross, not obviously, but in the store on the wall. There was lots an lots of discussion about that on the city chat lists and finally the local newspaper did a story about the controversy. Much ado about nothing, I think. It's odd how so many people are afraid of being offended or are afraid that someone else may be offended and are offended in advance for that potential offense.
iris lily
6-23-11, 12:40am
Gregg, I actually TYPED that but then second-guessed myself. But I agree...a lot of these things are just really ****ing stupid. And you know that engaging themselves in issues like this has to leave fewer resources for them to press issues that really matter, like real discrimination cases. Sad.
That's why the ACLU is hated in so many places because they've exhausted the coffers of small municipalities or other organizations and agencies. Might doesn't make right, but when the endless financial resources of the ACLU is brought to bear of a non-problem, it becomes a vanishing non-problem.
ApatheticNoMore
6-23-11, 2:23am
The ACLU is also the only organization out there fighting many pivotal fights (they were the first out there opposing porno scanners in the airports for instance). Again it's a matter of keeping perspective, so they may choose some dumb battles, but overall I want them there in my corner.
loosechickens
6-23-11, 2:55pm
Is the ACLU even involved in this upset about the street sign honoring the firefighters in NYC? I've looked at a number of articles, and a group of local NYC atheists is up in arms about it, and that group has threatened to sue (although no lawsuit has been filed), but in all the articles and blogs I read, there was no mention of the ACLU being involved at all.
Contrary to impressions that people have, the ACLU involves itself in only a small fraction of the cases that come up that involve free speech issues or separation of church and state issues. And I haven't seen any indication yet that they have any connection to this case at all.
The Storyteller
6-23-11, 3:27pm
Oh puglogic, feel free to express yourself any way you see fit. The forum software will see to it that we don't come across as total barbarians. ;)
As long as you don't act too ****sure of yourself.
As long as you don't act too ****sure of yourself.
It's like Mad Libs. We get to fill in the blank. ;)
rodeosweetheart
6-23-11, 5:34pm
But the firefighters did not choose the street name, right? I may be losing the plot, but I think it's a dumb name, too. I do not think it was dumb that the firefighters sacrificed themselves for others. Which is definitely an idea that gains importance if you are religious.
I wouldn't worry about the atheists or the firefighters, either-- firefighters are happily enjoying family reunions in heaven, and atheists--well, they will too, in time, unless they choose to NOT be in heaven, which I suppose happens too, although it is hard to fathom anyone making that choice.
As Kenneth said in30 Rock--now my Christmas is complete--My angry God has punished them!
So peace to all of us, firefigthers, atheists, Twinkie eaters, and those wishing God would punish eveyrone else.
The Storyteller
6-23-11, 6:05pm
I wouldn't worry about the atheists or the firefighters, either-- firefighters are happily enjoying family reunions in heaven, and atheists--well, they will too, in time, unless they choose to NOT be in heaven, which I suppose happens too, although it is hard to fathom anyone making that choice.
There is no heaven.
There is no heaven.
Heaven is here and now.
Heaven is here and now.
Ain't that the truth! You never know what is coming to "get ya"
Peace
The Storyteller
6-23-11, 7:22pm
Heaven is here and now.
There is no here and now.
There is no here and now.
Where are Xmac and din when I need them?
The Storyteller
6-23-11, 8:50pm
Where are Xmac and din when I need them?
Somewhere else, in the future and the past.
Somewhere else, in the future and the past.
:laff:
You got me there! (Or here. Or somewhere.)
Mangano's Gold
6-23-11, 9:29pm
I'd rather people don't go picking fights, but obviously it is a judgment call on what is worth a fight. I'm 99.9999% atheist and .00001% agnostic and rarely find these newsworthy fights worth fighting, no matter who is on offense or defense. Let them have their comfort thinking the victims are in a better place.
Is the ACLU even involved in this upset about the street sign honoring the firefighters in NYC? I've looked at a number of articles, and a group of local NYC atheists is up in arms about it, and that group has threatened to sue (although no lawsuit has been filed), but in all the articles and blogs I read, there was no mention of the ACLU being involved at all.
Contrary to impressions that people have, the ACLU involves itself in only a small fraction of the cases that come up that involve free speech issues or separation of church and state issues. And I haven't seen any indication yet that they have any connection to this case at all.
Must the ACLU be involved in this case for us to talk about it?
The topic was relating to Catherine's post.
Zigzagman
6-23-11, 10:30pm
Somewhere else, in the future and the past.
Cold hearted orb that rules the night,
Removes the colours from our sight,
Red is gray and yellow white,
But we decide which is right.
And which is an illusion?
Pinprick holes in a colourless sky,
Let insipid figures of light pass by,
The mighty light of ten thousand suns,
Challenges infinity and is soon gone.
Night time, to some a brief interlude,
To others the fear of solitude.
Brave Helios wake up your steads,
Bring the warmth the countryside needs.
Breathe deep the gathering gloom,
Watch lights fade from every room.
Bedsitter people look back and lament,
Another day's useless energy spent.
Impassioned lovers wrestle as one,
Lonely man cries for love and has none.
New mother picks up and suckles her son,
Senior citizens wish they were young.
Cold hearted orb that rules the night,
Removes the colours from our sight.
Red is grey and yellow white.
But we decide which is right.
And which is an illusion???.
Moody Blues -Days of Future Passed
Peace
Holy crap Zig...I had to run and grab my guitar to see if I remembered the chords to "Knights...". My wife asked if I was stoned. I told her I was just in the here and now a long time ago.
...so, however inaccurate it may be, you can say, "My image of Fox News viewers is...........", but you can't state as fact that they are all fat, pasty white people. ...
But.....it doesn't help the discussion to characterize people that way, especially if you can't back it up with facts. Just needlessly offensive, especially to Fox News viewers. JMHO
Or to fat, pasty white people...
I can not make the connection that a high school student's expression of faith in a speech constitutes state support of his/her religion. It is simply an expression of gratitude and support from someone who accomplished a great feat. None of us accomplish anything worth doing alone. If s/he thanked parents, teachers, study partners, etc. no one would think anything of it. What if a minister was helpful? What if this person truly felt the hand of God guiding them to do great things? Some will scoff at that notion, but none has the right to deny that feeling in someone else. I can see an argument against any religious figure leading a prayer at a publicly funded event like a graduation, but to tell an individual who they can or can't thank in their speech would be diving head first down that slippery slope.
I also don't have a problem with this. I think that personal/individual freedom of expression, even in govmint supported event, trumps pretty much all else and should have been upheld by the Supreme Court. What I was referencing was would the community, school, Attorney General, Etc allow and support that same personal freedom of expression if the Valedictorian was a non-Christian. I don't think so. Just as I don't think the OP (poetry writer, who is a Christian) would have an issue with the athist's protest if the street sign honoring the firefighters wasn't a Christian belief.
My main concern is about keeping church and state seperate in a state-supported venue BY the government. I feel it demeans ALL religions. I think that for most people their religious beliefs, history, culture, practices and rituals are sacred. To try and encompass ALL of them together in some sort of govmint sponsered generic prayer or historic representation would be not only ridiculus, but massively insulting. Picture the average nativity play many schools use to have. Now envision it as some sort of generic catch-all of many religious beliefs. Baby Buddha born in a manager on the Winter Solstice to Mary, High Priestess of Isis, and Jospeth, His Holiness the Pope, while the Druids wrapped the barn animals in holly wreaths, Ganesh and the Hastidic Jews danced the Chabad in the horse stall, the Three Wise Wiccans cast spells with their gold, frankenscense and myrr, while an Iman called the Faithful to prayer from atop the hayloft, and the Angel Moroni fluttered above it all. While it may make a great "Southpark" episode (with Cartman being the baby Buddha of course - "RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!!" :-)), it would be a great insult and sacriledge to everyone's religion. Keeping religion out of the public sector is the only way to preserve the sanctity of each person's relious beliefs IMHO, Now private schools are a different matter.
:D Thank you, Spartana. But - sigh - you forgot the Atheists/Agnostics. Could we maybe have some part here ... I'm sure we could come up with a Hymn of Uncertainty with which to bless the child, if prodded. Away in a manger, the baby lay bare, surrounded by faithful, a victim of Prayer ....
:~)
And an interesting point, as well. Compromise of belief is not an appropriate way to worship, for anyone. A strict separation of church and state ensures that isn't on the table.
:D Thank you, Spartana. But - sigh - you forgot the Atheists/Agnostics. Could we maybe have some part here ... I'm sure we could come up with a Hymn of Uncertainty with which to bless the child, if prodded. :~)
And an interesting point, as well. Compromise of belief is not an appropriate way to worship, for anyone. A strict separation of church and state ensures that isn't on the table.
Well I guess the atheists and agnostics (of which I'm one) would be in the another animal pen with the Satanists, Pagaens and Santariaists slaughtering goats and chickens while we danced naked in a frenzed orgy. I mean, isn't that what atheists and agnostics do??:~)
Naw, I can't dance. I'm more of a lawless morally depleted mean and nasty blasphemous father raper type agnostic, myself. >8)
Naw, I can't dance. I'm more of a lawless morally depleted mean and nasty blasphemous father raper type agnostic, myself. >8)
Oh well, then you'll have to sit in the corner and smolder and pout with the Roman God-worshipping poly-theists. They NEVER play nice. Although they make the animals - especially the sheep - very nervous :-)! Ah the good old days: when men were Men, gods were Gods, and sheep were afraid.
I'm not much of a dancer either, but my moral bankruptcy was discharged years ago. Did someone mention sheep?
Oh well, then you'll have to sit in the corner and smolder and pout with the Roman God-worshipping poly-theists. They NEVER play nice. Although they make the animals - especially the sheep - very nervous :-)! Ah the good old days: when men were Men, gods were Gods, and sheep were afraid.
Siiiiigh ... well ok, but only if I get my own donkey. cow-hi Will the Greeks be there too? I don't want to sit next to Narcissus. He's such an asshat.
The Storyteller
6-24-11, 3:54pm
Finally, the thread has reached the level it deserves.
Finally, the thread has reached the level it deserves.
There's nothing wrong with someone bringing this up, I'm not bothered by it.
Iris Lily, aetheist
poetry_writer
6-24-11, 10:53pm
Some people mock when a certain topic makes them uncomfortable......
iris lily
6-24-11, 11:59pm
Some people mock when a certain topic makes them uncomfortable......
I think it's unfortunate that this topic has been mocked and diminished, I agree. But I think that you've had several people who agree that the atheists who are promoting this campaign are wasting everyone's time and using this to get them publicity, bad publicity, but like Madonna and Lady Gaga et al, bad publicity is usually huge.
poetry_writer
6-25-11, 12:11am
I think it's unfortunate that this topic has been mocked and diminished, I agree. But I think that you've had several people who agree that the atheists who are promoting this campaign are wasting everyone's time and using this to get them publicity, bad publicity, but like Madonna and Lady Gaga et al, bad publicity is usually huge.
I agree
iris lily
6-25-11, 12:11am
As a staunch supporter of sepereation of chursch and state, I would have a problem with ANy religious speech used in a government tax payer supported venue.
Oh really, that is extreme and I''m a bigger atheist than you are, so there! na nah nah nah, na. :)Sweet mother jesus it's not that big of a deal, and if you carry the logic of your point to the extreme, since it's practically impossible to find any building or organization that doesn't receive tax money in some form, religion is out of the public square and confined to dark, private places. Guess that's what you want. Reminds me far too much of communist Russia and that's intolerable.
Oh really, that is extreme and I''m a bigger atheist than you are, so there! na nah nah nah, na. :)Sweet mother jesus it's not that big of a deal, and if you carry the logic of your point to the extreme, since it's practically impossible to find any building or organization that doesn't receive tax money in some form, religion is out of the public square and confined to dark, private places. Guess that's what you want. Reminds me far too much of communist Russia and that's intolerable.
Iris, actually it was communist Albania that prohibited *any* form of religion. The dictator Hoxha banned *all* religion in 1967.https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/History_of_Albania#Banning_religion
I have a close friend (she is ethnic Greek) who grew up in Albania during Communism. The stories she's told would make your toes curl. Her maternal grandmother would sing her Orthodox hymns in Greek around Good Friday and Easter, but would never translate them into Albanian, even in the family, for fear of her life.
The Soviets banned religion, threw all sorts of Russian Orthodox from bishops down to simple believers into prison, as well as murdering them, but the Russian Orthodox Church was still permitted to exist, although in a greatly reduced fashion.
Some people mock when a certain topic makes them uncomfortable......
...and sometimes its as simple as people just wanting to clown around a little bit.
I just really don't see the renaming of a street as a marriage of church and state. Maybe its the first leak in the dike, maybe not. Either way someone was there to shove a finger in it. Thank God for the atheists.
Some people mock when a certain topic makes them uncomfortable......
I wasn't trying to mock any religion. I was trying to make a point that, to me, all religion - and the rites and history of all religions - are sacred to most of the people who follow them. And that mashing them all up together in some sort of generic fashion sullies that sanctitiy. Each faith, and all the many denominations and sects within each faith, have certain things they follow (rites, rituals, etc...) that are important to them. Whether it's cleansing themselves in a certain manner before prayer (washing their feet, etc...) or prostrating themselves in a certain way (the direction of Mecca, etc...), counting their Rosery Beads, wearing certain garments, having males and females worshiping seperately, lighting candles or whatever the myriad of practices each religion have, each should remain pure and true to that groups belief system. Those things should be kept holy and not muddied or mish mashed in some government sponsered politically correct way.
As far as your original post about the street sign, would you have cared if the atheists protested if the street sign was religious, but non-Christian, sign? Something like "Road to Reincarnation"? "Pathway to Enlightenment"? "Avenue to the 10,000 Blessed Virgins"? Again, I am not mocking. Just trying to make a point that what one person finds sacred, another finds sacreligious.
Oh really, that is extreme and I''m a bigger atheist than you are, so there! na nah nah nah, na. :)Sweet mother jesus it's not that big of a deal, and if you carry the logic of your point to the extreme, since it's practically impossible to find any building or organization that doesn't receive tax money in some form, religion is out of the public square and confined to dark, private places. Guess that's what you want. Reminds me far too much of communist Russia and that's intolerable.
Well I'm not an atheist, and I didn't say you should ban religion, I said I think it should stay in the realm of the Church, the Temple, the Synagouge, the private sector, etc... as well as within public places if it isn't a "sponsered" government activity. to be practiced according to each religions beliefs, and that it should be out of the realm of government sponsered programs that are funded by taxpayers. I don't see what's so hard about that. I don't want the government telling me how to worship, I don't want them in my religious - or lack or religious - spirtitual life at all. And I don't want my tax payer dollars going to support something that I may find offensive because it isn't my personal belief. I lived for many years in the third largest Asian community in the USA. Approx. 90% of the population were practicing Buddhists - that includes the local government. So, if I was going by the "majority Rule" ideal, then I would see everything that was Government sponsered as Buddhist related. If we had prayer in school it would be lighting insense and spinning the prayer wheel or putting out prayer flags. Our school play would depict the birth, life and death of the Buddha rather than any other minority religious beliefs - including the Christian Nativity. Keeping religion out of governement protects religion - irregardless if it is the majority or minorite breligion in your area.
poetry_writer
6-25-11, 4:21pm
I wasn't trying to mock any religion. I was trying to make a point that, to me, all religion - and the rites and history of all religions - are sacred to most of the people who follow them. And that mashing them all up together in some sort of generic fashion sullies that sanctitiy. Each faith, and all the many denominations and sects within each faith, have certain things they follow (rites, rituals, etc...) that are important to them. Whether it's cleansing themselves in a certain manner before prayer (washing their feet, etc...) or prostrating themselves in a certain way (the direction of Mecca, etc...), counting their Rosery Beads, wearing certain garments, having males and females worshiping seperately, lighting candles or whatever the myriad of practices each religion have, each should remain pure and true to that groups belief system. Those things should be kept holy and not muddied or mish mashed in some government sponsered politically correct way.
As far as your original post about the street sign, would you have cared if the atheists protested if the street sign was religious, but non-Christian, sign? Something like "Road to Reincarnation"? "Pathway to Enlightenment"? "Avenue to the 10,000 Blessed Virgins"? Again, I am not mocking. Just trying to make a point that what one person finds sacred, another finds sacreligious.
The post wasnt about whether I cared or not. The atheists were ranting at the fireman. That was offensive. They responded on 9/11 and should be respected.
"The post wasnt about whether I cared or not. The atheists were ranting at the fireman. That was offensive. They responded on 9/11 and should be respected. "
I thought the atheists were ranting about the sign - did I miss something?
The Storyteller
6-25-11, 6:16pm
it's not that big of a deal,
Exactly my point.
From the beginning.
Out of curiosity, just to see how "big of a deal" this was, I searched NewsBank for all 69 covered New York state news sources for mention of this topic. I came up with one. Just one. That's how overblown this whole thing is. Here is the article. Note not a single mention of atheists anywhere....
================================================== ============
STREET HONOR FOR 9/11 RED HOOK 7
New York Post (NY) - Sunday, June 12, 2011
Author: Joe Walker and Cynthia R. Fagen
Families of the seven Red Hook firefighters killed on 9/11 gathered outside their Brooklyn firehouse yesterday for the renaming of Richard Street as Seven in Heaven Way .
Aidan McShane, a West Islip, LI, high-school junior whose dad, Terrence, was among those killed from Ladder Co. 101/Engine Co. 202, did the honors.
"I love seeing these guys because they remind me of my dad," he said as some 50 firefighters stood at attention in front of the "Raiders" firehouse.
Lt. Joe Gullickson and firefighters Pat Byrne, Brian Cannizzaro, Sal Colobro, Tom Kennedy and Joe Maffeo were also lost that day.
Here is an argument for strict separation of church and state...from an entirely different point of view.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/26/my-faith-why-i-dont-sing-the-star-spangled-banner/?hpt=hp_c1
Although there certainly are diverse viewpoints among individual Mennonites today, we continue to advocate for the strict separation of church and state. Most Mennonite churches do not have flags inside them, and many Mennonites are uncomfortable with the ritual embedded in the singing of the national anthem.
That’s because we recognize only one Christian nation, the church, the holy nation that is bound together by a living faith in Jesus rather than by man-made, blood-soaked borders.
Here is an argument for strict separation of church and state...from an entirely different point of view.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/26/my-faith-why-i-dont-sing-the-star-spangled-banner/?hpt=hp_c1
YES! This has been what I have been trying to say all along - that irregardless of what "I" believe, it's important to recognize and support the beliefs of others even if I don't like it. And because we can't worship in just one way in a public setting like a school without infringing on the beliefs of others, it's important to keep religion out of government - and government out of religion. So, unlike Storyteller, I feel this IS a very important topic. Like most people here - and probably most of the protesting Atheists - I really could care less about the actual name of the street sign. But it's what that the street sign represents that is important - like seperation of church and state, freedom to protest, etc... - that they were protesting about, not really the name.
YES! This has been what I have been trying to say all along - that irregardless of what "I" believe, it's important to recognize and support the beliefs of others even if I don't like it. And because we can't worship in just one way in a public setting like a school without infringing on the beliefs of others, it's important to keep religion out of government - and government out of religion. So, unlike Storyteller, I feel this IS a very important topic. Like most people here - and probably most of the protesting Atheists - I really could care less about the actual name of the street sign. But it's what that the street sign represents that is important - like seperation of church and state, freedom to protest, etc... - that they were protesting about, not really the name.
There is no requirement to separate religion from government, only that there can be no state sponsored or sanctioned religion. Allowing a religious display or event on public property is not a violation as long as all religions are given the same consideration.
I agree that this is a very important topic because it allows a dialog which can help dispel mis-conceptions.
There is no requirement to separate religion from government, only that there can be no state sponsored or sanctioned religion. Allowing a religious display or event on public property is not a violation as long as all religions are given the same consideration.
I completely agree with that interpretation...so far. One curious point it brings up is representation at these public events and places. Does this interpretation mean that, say Rastafarians should expect to be represented at the same level as Christians in the US? Several thousand people having the same consideration as a few hundred million? Or does it get pro-rated based on followers? The practical aspect is probably that there would likely not be a lot of Rastafarian valedictorians wanting to quote the Kebra Nagast outside the very few areas in this country where that group of people tends to live, but what if there was? Sounds a little odd, I know, but I'm curious to work through that one because I don't know the answer.
It's simple, if a Rastafarian valedictorian wants to quote the Kebra Nagast, let her/him. If I am a Christian, it does me no harm to hear someone express their different faith. I'm not sure why a secular humanist or atheist would be offended by someone else's expression of faith, regardless of the venue.
I'm good with that, Alan.
It's simple, if a Rastafarian valedictorian wants to quote the Kebra Nagast, let her/him. If I am a Christian, it does me no harm to hear someone express their different faith. I'm not sure why a secular humanist or atheist would be offended by someone else's expression of faith, regardless of the venue.
It's not that they/we are offended. Actually the ones who get offended are the good little Christians who get their knickers in a twist when anyone else wants to express their faith. Remember the 'ground zero mosque'? Which actually wasn't at ground zero or a mosque. Remember when it was rumored that a Muslim member of congress was going to be sworn in on the Koran? The biggest stink came from those champions of free speech/religion, the Christians.
That's the offensive part. It's the slippery slope of religion. It's used now as a litmus test for public office. At least for republicans. And where all politicians used to keep quiet about their religious life, it's used now openly to 'bash' people with. Think about how often President Obama's detractors mention (falsely) that he is a Muslim. It's said with disdain, along with his full name (just in case you didn't get it the first time) as an indictment. It's not atheist saying this. It's the Christians throwing red meat to the low information voters.
You and I both know that if a valedictorian were to read a prayer from the Koran, the ones up in arms wouldn't be the atheist. It would be the parents of all the little christian kids who would protest, withdraw their kids from school then appear Monday morning on Fox and Friends to be the persecuted christian du jour.
Personally I have no problem with religious displays in the park, as long as the Druids are allowed to dance at midnight, or whatever they do, in the same park.
Frankly, for all you who say there isn't an issue, I'd just love for a Rastafarian or Muslim valedictorian to say a prayer from their book. Then we can see if there is an issue.
It's not that they/we are offended. Actually the ones who get offended are the good little Christians who get their knickers in a twist when anyone else wants to express their faith. Remember the 'ground zero mosque'? Which actually wasn't at ground zero or a mosque. Remember when it was rumored that a Muslim member of congress was going to be sworn in on the Koran? The biggest stink came from those champions of free speech/religion, the Christians.
That's the offensive part. It's the slippery slope of religion. It's used now as a litmus test for public office. At least for republicans. And where all politicians used to keep quiet about their religious life, it's used now openly to 'bash' people with. Think about how often President Obama's detractors mention (falsely) that he is a Muslim. It's said with disdain, along with his full name (just in case you didn't get it the first time) as an indictment. It's not atheist saying this. It's the Christians throwing red meat to the low information voters.
You and I both know that if a valedictorian were to read a prayer from the Koran, the ones up in arms wouldn't be the atheist. It would be the parents of all the little christian kids who would protest, withdraw their kids from school then appear Monday morning on Fox and Friends to be the persecuted christian du jour.
Personally I have no problem with religious displays in the park, as long as the Druids are allowed to dance at midnight, or whatever they do, in the same park.
Frankly, for all you who say there isn't an issue, I'd just love for a Rastafarian or Muslim valedictorian to say a prayer from their book. Then we can see if there is an issue.
Peggy, I think we're talking about two different things. One is whether or not government should be restricting free expressions of religious faith in the public square; Two is whether or not people who may be offended should expect the government to protect them from offense.
My take on both is NO. What do you think?
...
You and I both know that if a valedictorian were to read a prayer from the Koran, the ones up in arms wouldn't be the atheist...
Oh I don't know peggy, this athiest might raise a stink for the entertainment value of it. Having grown tired a long time ago of Christian bashing, I think some representation of the other side just keeps things--balanced? Lively? Pig poking?
There is no requirement to separate religion from government, only that there can be no state sponsored or sanctioned religion. Allowing a religious display or event on public property is not a violation as long as all religions are given the same consideration.
I agree that this is a very important topic because it allows a dialog which can help dispel mis-conceptions.
I agree with you completely however, the problem comes in with the "as long as all religions are given the same considerations" factor. In many cases this either doesn't happen since the majority religion rules in most cases, or it can't happen because of the enormous number of belief systems and the rites and rituals they all encompass. And when you try to combine those many and varied religous rituals and beliefs into one for "same consideration purposes" something may happen as insulting to many religions as my (trying to be humourous) depiction of a school's "all religions included" nativity scene in an earlier post. I personally think it can't be done in a way that isn't disrespectful to many people's beliefs. And because religious rites, symbols or historical depictions really serves no purpose in such areas like education or board meetings or chamber of commerce events, etc..., then it isn't needed in the govmint arena IMHO.
Edditted to add: Of course many government arenas do depict relious symbols and wording in the state seals, emblems, on their buildings, etc... The Calif state seal has the Godess of Wisdom - Minerva - on it as well as other things. I personally don't know where you we should draw the line on religion in govmint venues - or even if you should (I personally think you should). So I struggle with this myself.
......
I personally think it can't be done in a way that isn't disrespectful to many people's beliefs. And because religious rites or historical depictions really serves no purpose in education or board meetings or chamber of commerce events, then it isn't needed in the govmint arena IMHO.
Is it necessary to respect other's belief's, and does the government have a duty to ensure that everyone does, or to censure religious expression in order to prevent it from happening?
Is it necessary to respect other's belief's, and does the government have a duty to ensure that everyone does, or to censure religious expression in order to prevent it from happening?
If I pay taxes towards it, if it is representaive of me, and it is there to reflect my political not religious beliefs then - YES :-)!! I also don't consider censorship the same as non-involvement. There is no need for a state seal or govmint building to have a religious symbol on it, or for a prayer to be said, as they serve no needed purpose for the running of the government. So, if you never place a symbol or say a prayer to begin with, then there is no censorship if it wasn't intended to be put there in the first place. Now in a private venue like business, on the street corner, etc... I really think govmint should keep their grubby little hands to themselves :-)! Other than to protect the rights of individuals and their right to free speech, freedom of religion, etc...
If I pay taxes towards it, if it is representaive of me, and it is there to reflect my political not religious beliefs then - YES :-)!! I also don't consider censorship the same as non-involvement. There is no need for a state seal or govmint building to have a religious symbol on it, or for a prayer to be said, as they serve no needed purpose for the running of the government.
Government buildings, federal, state & local, all over the country have religious symbols as part of the architecture, our money boasts religious sentiments and our House of Representatives has a Chaplin (http://chaplain.house.gov/) and the Senate does as well (http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm). Should all this be abolished, and if so, for what purpose?
Peggy, I think we're talking about two different things. One is whether or not government should be restricting free expressions of religious faith in the public square; Two is whether or not people who may be offended should expect the government to protect them from offense.
My take on both is NO. What do you think?
I have no problem with religious displays, means nothing to me. However, as Spartana pointed out, someone is going to be offended and chances are it's another religious person. So, in that we are paying for that public arena, and I'm guessing we are talking about a street corner, public park, that sort of thing, then yea the government needs to ensure everyone who pays for that street corner can use it without being assaulted by someone preaching or handing out flyer's. Again, it's not the atheist who are being offended by the display. (well except maybe Iris Lily;) ) One persons delusion is the same as another persons delusion. Christians are offended by the Muslims and the Muslims are offended by the Christians and if the government doesn't keep everyone at arms length then we have the mid-east. The offense is when some try to use my tax payer supported arena to promote their religious belief.
It's hard to please everyone. Example, I used to live in this small town that tried diversity at Christmas time on the town square one year. There were 4 displays facing north south east west. There was the christian cross, the Jewish star, the Muslim symbol, and a Santa Claus/Christmas tree. Guess who complained and guess what they complained about. Spoiled it for everyone.
The fact that many keep trying to say this is a christian nation tells us right away who's prayer they expect to say when it is allowed in the public venue. So yea it is the governments business to keep religious display out of our business where it really has no place being.
Religious symbols don't offend me. I see them everywhere all the time. In church yards, on private property, in homes, doesn't bother me a bit. These are the proper venus for religious display. This is where it belongs, and there is no lack of private property to put these displays on.
So let me ask you, why do you think these religious people insist on putting their religious displays on public property? Why? Why do they keep trying to have prayer in school, at public meetings, in public venues? It's not because they want to pray. They can pray any old time they want, silently, publicly, or shouting from their rooftop. Nope, it's not because they want to pray. It's because they want to make you pray. They want to make you acknowledge their religious icons.
Instead of asking why won't the government let them do it, ask why they keep insisting on doing it.
Government buildings, federal, state & local, all over the country have religious symbols as part of the architecture, our money boasts religious sentiments and our House of Representatives has a Chaplin (http://chaplain.house.gov/) and the Senate does as well (http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm). Should all this be abolished, and if so, for what purpose?
Well, since "in God we trust" was added to our money at the height of the Soviet scare and simply added as pedagoguery to differentiate us from the godless communists... yes, I think it'd be worth reverting to their original (traditional!) pre-1950's version. Along with the "Under God" addition to our pledge of allegiance added around the same time.
For the religious symbols in federal buildings, I'd need more concrete examples... along with a chance to understand if they were religious symbols or symbols that had been usurped by a religion.
If I supported the house or senate chaplins then, if the demand arose, I'd also be happy paying my tax dollars for rabbis and imams. However, I'm not sure if I want my tax dollars paying for an employment perk that can easily be met via private industry (their local church, synagogue, temple, etc).
Government buildings, federal, state & local, all over the country have religious symbols as part of the architecture, our money boasts religious sentiments and our House of Representatives has a Chaplin (http://chaplain.house.gov/) and the Senate does as well (http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm). Should all this be abolished, and if so, for what purpose?
I know you asked Spartana but if I may also answer this. Yes, we shouldn't be paying for congressional chaplains. It's not like Washington lacks for churches and spiritual leaders. This is an outdated expense that should be eliminated. I would think the tea party folks would see this as a no brainer for elimination. Saved some money there!
the religious sentiment on the money was just added in the 50's so, again, this should be eliminated, along with 'under god' in the pledge. Completely uncalled for and not exactly a 'tradition'. A lot of us were alive when that happened and I'm not that old! :~)
As far as the buildings go, well, that would be silly to try to remove these symbols as they are a part of the architecture. As far as I know none have giant neon signs pointing to the symbols and they are in fact just part of the architecture. However, no new public buildings should have these symbols as part of their construction.
For the religious symbols in federal buildings, I'd need more concrete examples...
Benhyr, I just wanted you to know that I giggled when I read this. I know you're serious but it would also make a good one-liner. :D
Benhyr, I just wanted you to know that I giggled when I read this. I know you're serious but it would also make a good one-liner. :D
Brick examples would be ok too!
Brick examples would be ok too!
How about erecting this instead of a street sign honoring the firefighters? For those not from the bible belt this is a a kudzu vine on a utility pole (http://www.kinston.com/news/jesus-74799-pole-bears.html)?
http://images.onset.freedom.com/kfpress/medium/lnizpl-lnizodkfp062911kudzujesus.jpg
Many Christians believe Jesus can be found anywhere. In southern Lenoir County, he may be found on a utility pole. Some say the kudzu-covered post bears a striking resemblance to Jesus’ crucifixion.
Kent Hardison, who runs Ma’s Hotdog House less than a half mile from the pareidolia, rides by the Christ-resembling post each day. He said when he first saw the kudzu growing he almost sprayed it with herbicide. “I glanced at it, and it looks like Jesus,” Hardison said. “I thought, ‘You can’t spray Jesus with Roundup.’ ”
The kudzu, which has thrived at the top of the pole, is all but dead at the ground. The source of the figure is only a few small vines of the uncontrollable plant.
“Maybe it’s a sign of the times,” she said while picking up lunch at Ma’s. “There’s been a lot going on in this area.”
Hardison agreed, “Maybe he’s looking out for us.”
While the site may not be considered holy the kudzu is symbolic. “It doesn’t matter what you do, it is going to be around,” she said. “Ain’t that a lot like Jesus?”
Peace
loosechickens
7-1-11, 5:49pm
off subject completely, but it's too bad that more people don't realize that "kudzu, the plant that ate the South" is good to eat....... In Japan, it's quite commonly eaten, and I remember from back in the 70s, "The Book of Kudzu" with lots of good recipes....
maybe it's just Jesus, tired of grilled cheese sandwiches, trying to call attention to some good food.......
http://cambree.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/kudzus-good-side/
http://www.azcentral.com/style/hfe/food/articles/2007/03/20/20070320cookingkudzu0320.html
http://www.kudzufest.net/kudzurecipes.html
Well, since "in God we trust" was added to our money at the height of the Soviet scare and simply added as pedagoguery to differentiate us from the godless communists... yes, I think it'd be worth reverting to their original (traditional!) pre-1950's version.
It's been on coins such as the silver and gold dollars since the mid 1800's. I don't think anyone was much worried about godless communists around at that time.
For the religious symbols in federal buildings, I'd need more concrete
examples... along with a chance to understand if they were religious symbols or
symbols that had been usurped by a religion.
The picture below is taken from the east entrance to the Supreme Court. It depicts Moses (as the central figure), Confucius, Solon and additional allegorical characters.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/scotus4.jpg
off subject completely, but it's too bad that more people don't realize that "kudzu, the plant that ate the South" is good to eat....... In Japan, it's quite commonly eaten, and I remember from back in the 70s, "The Book of Kudzu" with lots of good recipes....
maybe it's just Jesus, tired of grilled cheese sandwiches, trying to call attention to some good food.......
http://cambree.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/kudzus-good-side/
http://www.azcentral.com/style/hfe/food/articles/2007/03/20/20070320cookingkudzu0320.html
http://www.kudzufest.net/kudzurecipes.html
No way am I advocating "eating Kudzu Jesus" :confused:
This whole question of "going too far" questioning religion in the public domain has for the most part been plainly political. I admittedly do have people in just casual conversation bring up things like "if we had prayer in the school" or maybe "we need to pray for rain" but for the most part it is usually someone or some organization that is promoting their outrage at the audacity of the "Christians" because you gotta admit they are not shy about "pushing" their agenda.
I've got the munchies so I wish I had this "Jesus Cheeto".....
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bella/jesuscheeto.jpg
Peace
You're making me hungry for a nun bun!!
Forgive me but, if Jesus appears on my grilled cheese, I'm eating him anyway.
I think kudzu is also used for some really attractive baskets. And it makes great fodder for livestock.
Fox news? Consider the source.
That's always a good idea. I know I consider the source when I come across something by CNN, MSNBC or the New York Times.
It's been on coins such as the silver and gold dollars since the mid 1800's. I don't think anyone was much worried about godless communists around at that time.
In the 1860's to be exact, at the height of the third great awakening. So, it looks like we like to do silly things with our money at the height of fervor in the country. Of course, that does explain quite a bit on both sides of the pendulum!
Of course, like one would imagine, the case of the phrase on money has gone before the supreme court and their ruling was that it didn't matter as it's so rote now as to have lost all meaning.
Is it necessary to respect other's belief's, and does the government have a duty to ensure that everyone does, or to censure religious expression in order to prevent it from happening?
OOPS! Once again my brain is slower than my reading speed :-)! I reread your post and realized I thought you were asking if "Government should respect other's beliefs" to which I answered "yes" since it is representative of many people and shouldn't hold it's own private opinion when in that role of representative. But what you were asking was "should government ensure that others respect it" and to that I answer a BIG "no". IMHO the government shoukl have nothing to do with religious beliefs other than making sure that each person (in their role as a private citizen) have the freedom to practice and express those beliefs. They should not force people to like or accept another's reglious beliefs but they should allow all people the freedom to express their beliefs - and their dislike of other's beliefs - in a peaceful way. That is why I don't think govmint should be involved in any religious activities such as prayer, putting religious symbols up on public (i.e. government) buildings, etc..
Also wanted to add that I apparently haven't been able to express my meaning very well here. I was sort of shocked when Iris Lily seemed to think in another post that I was avocating some sort of Orwellian "1984"ish police state when I was saying just the opposite - that government shouldn't be involved in religion at any level except to protect a person or groups right to practice and express their beliefs. I think the problem was that I used the word "public" to mean governmental and "private" to mean non-governmental. Where as my posts came across as "public" mean out in the open and "private" meant sequestered away in some secretive locked room. That is NOT what I meant at all. As far as I'm concerned if a person wants to stand on a street corner and shout their religious beliefs to everyone around them that's great. If the Hari Krishnas want to dance in front of the Taco Bell then that's how it should be. If Bill Gates wants to erect an 80 foot statue of a cross, a Star of David, Buddha, or Steve Jobs with a halo on his head in front of Microsoft, as a "private" person he has that right. But if a "public" (i.e. governmental) building were to do the same I'd have a problem with that since that building isn't owned by a private person or group. It is owned by ALL the people in the community and governed by a representative board. So, as a public (governmental) building, and with my somewhat broad interpertation of the First Ammendent, I feel that government shouldn't be involved in any way, shape or form with such things.
Forgive me but, if Jesus appears on my grilled cheese, I'm eating him anyway.
I think kudzu is also used for some really attractive baskets. And it makes great fodder for livestock.
ok, that made me laugh!
Government buildings, federal, state & local, all over the country have religious symbols as part of the architecture, our money boasts religious sentiments and our House of Representatives has a Chaplin (http://chaplain.house.gov/) and the Senate does as well (http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm). Should all this be abolished, and if so, for what purpose?
What the other's said. I think that if they can revamp the entire tax laws and all the forms and booklets every few years, they can find the time to simply remove the stamp in the US Mint that reads "In God We Trust" from the stamping machine. As far as religious emblems on govmint buildings and Seals,,, well... alot of those have some historic or symbolic representaion rather than religious (i.e. the courts use of the Roman Godess "Lady Justice" holding the Scales of Justice) so I guess it would have to debated. I know in Calif we had a very heated debate about the cross on our state emblem. Many argued that it was a religious symbol of Christianity, other's argued that it was a historic symbol depicting the Missionary Heritage of Calif. I don't remember what the outcome was but I don't see the cross on the Seal any longer. I also think that Chaplains aren't needed if there is another source for spiritual guidance nearby. However, out in the field in the military, I think that having a neutral religious advisor (i.e. not adhereing to any particular belief but educated enough to give comfort and advice to people of varying faiths) is needed. I think it's especially important for burial rites for those who die in the field and who's bodies can't be brought back. I know that my religious belief was one of the first things they put on my dog tags when I joined the service - right under my blood type - so having someone qualified to perform those rituals of ALL religions is very important.
What the other's said. I think that if they can revamp the entire tax laws and all the forms and booklets every few years, they can find the time to simply remove the stamp in the US Mint that reads "In God We Trust" from the stamping machine. As far as religious emblems on govmint buildings and Seals,,, well... alot of those have some historic or symbolic representaion rather than religious (i.e. the courts use of the Roman Godess "Lady Justice" holding the Scales of Justice) so I guess it would have to debated. I know in Calif we had a very heated debate about the cross on our state emblem. Many argued that it was a religious symbol of Christianity, other's argued that it was a historic symbol depicting the Missionary Heritage of Calif. I don't remember what the outcome was but I don't see the cross on the Seal any longer. I also think that Chaplains aren't needed if there is another source for spiritual guidance nearby. However, out in the field in the military, I think that having a neutral religious advisor (i.e. not adhereing to any particular belief but educated enough to give comfort and advice to people of varying faiths) is needed. I think it's especially important for burial rites for those who die in the field and who's bodies can't be brought back. I know that my religious belief was one of the first things they put on my dog tags when I joined the service - right under my blood type - so having someone qualified to perform those rituals of ALL religions is very important.
When you see "In God We Trust" do you see a Christian God or a Universal God? Also, is it possible to separate religion from specific faiths?
When you see "In God We Trust" do you see a Christian God or a Universal God? Also, is it possible to separate religion from specific faiths?
I guess what I see is a religious ideology that doesn't reflect everyone's personal beliefs (including atheists, agnostics, and other's who may have a god-less spiritual belief). I see it as a govmint sanctioned belief in a creator or spritual being on what I feel should not be in the realm of government. Again, I just don't see why government needs to have a religious saying on something that should be purely secular and representative of ALL the people IMHO.
I have always viewed the purpose of religion is control of the masses. Government uses that to it's advantage as much as possible as do almost all religions.
Peace
I guess what I see is a religious ideology that doesn't reflect everyone's personal beliefs (including atheists, agnostics, and other's who may have a god-less spiritual belief). I see it as a govmint sanctioned belief in a creator or spritual being on what I feel should not be in the realm of government. Again, I just don't see why government needs to have a religious saying on something that should be purely secular and representative of ALL the people IMHO.
+1
When you see "In God We Trust" do you see a Christian God or a Universal God? Also, is it possible to separate religion from specific faiths?
Well, the Chaplains for the House and Senate since the positions were created have all been Christians.
Well, the Chaplains for the House and Senate since the positions were created have all been Christians.
I'll take your word for that as it seems likely. Although I'm thinking more along the lines of the popular argument regarding the separation of church and state. Do you think it would violate the concept for the government to acknowledge a universal god? My belief is that it would not as long as it did not use it's power to force the citizens to make the same acknowledgment.
I'm also of the opinion that if the government allows proponents of a particular religion access to the public square in order to profess their faith, they are not violating the concept either as long as they allow all faiths the same access. What we're seeing these days is an effort to remove a universal god from the public square through the mis-application of the concept.
I'll take your word for that as it seems likely. Although I'm thinking more along the lines of the popular argument regarding the separation of church and state. Do you think it would violate the concept for the government to acknowledge a universal god? My belief is that it would not as long as it did not use it's power to force the citizens to make the same acknowledgment.
1. What benefit does it bring for the government to do so? What are the downsides of it failing to do so?
2. How does doing so represent that government's atheist, Buddhist, and Hindu constituents? That is, if the government takes a stance of acknowledging a universal god, then who is it choosing to exclude in it's populace?
3. I don't know that many are saying the government must block religion from public places but, rather, that the government must not sponsor religion. That is, Westboro Baptist is free to proselytize in the town square but the federal government is not free to install a cross.
It'd have to be such a watered down "hey, love is good, man" sort of message as to be pointless. What would the benefits be? I assume that it would at least pay lip service to the majority still. Is that worth it?
eta: I can see the senate bill now, though... something along the lines of "Joint Resolution to Acknowledge a Non-Denominational Universal Theistic Entity". I, honestly, can't imagine any group, in aggregate, that wouldn't be up in arms over such a measure.
"Do you think it would violate the concept for the government to acknowledge a universal god? " Exclusively? Yes. Monotheism covers a lot of religions - but it also leaves many out, and is in direct conflict with many - as well as being in direct conflict with atheism. Do you think it would violate the concept for the government to disavow a universal god? I think it would. The whole point of separation of church and state is that state not be promoting any particular religion, I think that also applies if the state is promoting religion in such a way that leaves a large group of religions and others out.
As far as giving religions access to the public square, I agree as long as they have the same access. In Boston I see it all the time - from those carrying "repent or else" placards on the street to Jehovah Witnesses handing out their pamphlets to the Falun Gong in the Commons displaying how they are persecuted in China to Hare Krishna's dancing in Copley Square on Fridays. But the only way government is involved here is staying out of it.
I'll take your word for that as it seems likely. Although I'm thinking more along the lines of the popular argument regarding the separation of church and state. Do you think it would violate the concept for the government to acknowledge a universal god? My belief is that it would not as long as it did not use it's power to force the citizens to make the same acknowledgment.
I'm also of the opinion that if the government allows proponents of a particular religion access to the public square in order to profess their faith, they are not violating the concept either as long as they allow all faiths the same access. What we're seeing these days is an effort to remove a universal god from the public square through the mis-application of the concept.
We ARE the government, and the government is us. And we are many religions, and no religions. We aren't declaring a universal god because plenty of us don't believe in one. At all. Now if you are asking if a certain religion which is heavily represented by congress persons should be able to speak for us all in acknowledging a universal god, then no. They may not speak for me and lots of other citizens.
Again I ask, why is it so important that we acknowledge a universal god? Why are you and your christian friends pushing this? Cause it's only the Christians who are pushing this, in schools and public meetings across the country. The only reason I can see is not so they can acknowledge their god, which of course they can do, but to force the rest of us to acknowledge their god. If their faith is so tenuous that they need the rest of us to recognize it in order for it to be 'real' then their problem isn't the rest of the world but within their own hearts. My knowledge that their isn't a god isn't threatened by your belief in one, and I certainly don't expect we the government to erect signs declaring there is no god.
How about on some of the coins it says 'In God We Trust' and on others it says 'There Is No God' Would that work?
Again I ask, why is it so important that we acknowledge a universal god? Why are you and your christian friends pushing this? Cause it's only the Christians who are pushing this, in schools and public meetings across the country. The only reason I can see is not so they can acknowledge their god, which of course they can do, but to force the rest of us to acknowledge their god. If their faith is so tenuous that they need the rest of us to recognize it in order for it to be 'real' then their problem isn't the rest of the world but within their own hearts. My knowledge that their isn't a god isn't threatened by your belief in one, and I certainly don't expect we the government to erect signs declaring there is no god.
How about on some of the coins it says 'In God We Trust' and on others it says 'There Is No God' Would that work?
I don't think it is important to acknowledge a universal god and I'm not pushing it on you or anyone else. Just asking questions to spark discussion and maybe challange a few mis-conceptions.
My entire interest in this discussion has to do with the supposed "separation of church and state", which I believe is mis-understood by more and more folks these days. I really don't care what words are displayed on our money as long as it spends, and I don't understand why anyone else would either.
It's been brought out in various discussions on this site over the years that our founders were not Christians per se, but rather that they were predominately Deists, which of course still requires a belief in creation and a creator. Their vision of individual rights were based upon certain inalienable rights granted by a creator and which therefore could not be taken away by man. They were right to construct a system of government that would not allow a theocracy but they never intended to remove what they considered to be each individuals responsibility to that creator. I think the original intent of our form of representative democracy within a republican governmental structure would leave the founders dumbfounded at the lengths we've come to take god out of the public square.
If people don't believe in god or feel that their preferred religion is not represented fully within that system of governance, then I say, So What? No one is forcing you to believe a certain way or worship against your will.
I don't think it is important to acknowledge a universal god and I'm not pushing it on you or anyone else. Just asking questions to spark discussion and maybe challange a few mis-conceptions.
My entire interest in this discussion has to do with the supposed "separation of church and state", which I believe is mis-understood by more and more folks these days. I really don't care what words are displayed on our money as long as it spends, and I don't understand why anyone else would either.
It's been brought out in various discussions on this site over the years that our founders were not Christians per se, but rather that they were predominately Deists, which of course still requires a belief in creation and a creator. Their vision of individual rights were based upon certain inalienable rights granted by a creator and which therefore could not be taken away by man. They were right to construct a system of government that would not allow a theocracy but they never intended to remove what they considered to be each individuals responsibility to that creator. I think the original intent of our form of representative democracy within a republican governmental structure would leave the founders dumbfounded at the lengths we've come to take god out of the public square.
If people don't believe in god or feel that their preferred religion is not represented fully within that system of governance, then I say, So What? No one is forcing you to believe a certain way or worship against your will.
But the government has no business being in the god business. Religion is a faith belief, not rooted in fact what so ever. Our government does not acknowledge aliens either, although plenty of people, including scientist, believe them to exist. Again, not the realm of the government.
I think people now days understand separation of church and state better than before. The fact that it was OK to put 'In god we trust' on money shows that. It wasn't OK because we aren't a theocracy, as it turns out, and plenty of US citizens, who are also 'we' don't agree with that. For too long it's been separation of church and state, except of course for Christians. Christian holidays were celebrated, nativities erected, prayers said, and the 'Christmas story' told all across the nation, in all schools and public (gov) buildings. But now that people are really thinking about it, they are pointing out that separation means ALL religion, so of course it's an issue now. You say the government is driving god out of the government, but I say he/she should never been in there in the first place. Other religions, or non religions, were never represented and now we are just realizing no religion should be.
The government isn't trying to, nor could they ever, force people to not be guided by their particular faith in their daily lives. That's a straw man argument. If you want to wear funny underwear and pray before you eat lunch, that's your decision. And that's a government worker's decision as well. But that worker can't lead everyone in prayer or require them to wear the funny underwear, or not.
In god we trust doesn't belong on our money any more than 'there is no god' belongs on our money. Again, it's the whole 'christian exception' that people are questioning, and is what has caused the uproar. No one expects 'in Allah we trust' to go on the money, do they?
Peggy, I think that you're missing the point again. Our government recognizes that there are certain inalienable rights that are not dependant upon the good nature of men. Those rights are bestowed from a higher source than mere, tempremental humans. Without that important caveat, there could be no rights not dependant upon the fickle blessings of mankind. The concept of a creator, or god if you will, is an important aspect of our governmental structure. It belongs there.
Peggy, I think that you're missing the point again. Our government recognizes that there are certain inalienable rights that are not dependant upon the good nature of men. Those rights are bestowed from a higher source than mere, tempremental humans. Without that important caveat, there could be no rights not dependant upon the fickle blessings of mankind. The concept of a creator, or god if you will, is an important aspect of our governmental structure. It belongs there.
Not really Alan, cause this set of inalienable rights that were bestowed on you by your 'creator' doesn't apply to me because there is no creator. See, you have to acknowledge, and believe in, your religion in order to follow these rules of rights you say we are born with. But again, we don't all believe in a creator. And I am as much a citizen of this country as you.
As a point of fact, the government doesn't rely on this notion of 'inalienable rights', even if the founders wrote it down somewhere, because we rely on the rule of law. Written laws, written by men, not gods, and they pretty much cover everything. They don't really leave anything to chance or inalienability. They don't rely on some shared notion of rightness. Our government most definitely does not rely on the concept of a creator in any of it's aspects or rulings. There are rules about murder, theft, etc... that clearly spell out what is expected of us in this society. Now other societies expect other things. Usually the major ones are the same, like murder and theft, but the treatment of women, for instance, is quite different in many parts of the world. So, even if we say we have inalienable rights, it really means nothing without the weight of society and laws behind it, so in effect it is us who decides what our rights are. Saying it doesn't make it so. It might be a nice little notion to think about but so are space aliens.
And really, what is an inalienable right? What does that mean to you? How exactly is the acknowledgment of a creator an important aspect of our governmental structure. I think everyone should have the basic dignity of shelter, food and basic health care, but plenty of folks on your side of the isle don't agree. And lots of folks throughout the world don't agree.
The only rights that matter, that mean anything and in fact ARE rights are the ones we the government bestow upon ourselves.
See, I think what trips you and a lot of others up is this idea that if the founding father wrote it down, or believed it, it must be so. Well, they also thought women were second class citizens, blacks were only worth, what was it, 3/5th of a white man, and a lot of other very very wrong ideas. So most of them believed in a god. So what. They also believed blood letting cured most anything, but we still fund medical research. We don't let their modern-for-1776 beliefs dictate how to order 21st century lives.
This is an interesting discussion Alan, but I'm afraid we will just have to agree to disagree. I am an American citizen, and until there is an equal amount of money that says 'there is no god' I am not being represented.
Whether someone believes that something exists has little or nothing to do with the fact of whether it exists or not. I can refuse to believe that I have to pay taxes, for example, and may even be able to make arguments as to why I don't have to pay taxes, but the tax man is still going to come for me. In other words, you are free to believe - or not to believe- whatever you wish, but neither your beliefs or mine will change the reality, whatever that might be.
See, I think what trips you and a lot of others up is this idea that if the founding father wrote it down, or believed it, it must be so. Well, they also thought women were second class citizens, blacks were only worth, what was it, 3/5th of a white man, and a lot of other very very wrong ideas. So most of them believed in a god. So what. They also believed blood letting cured most anything, but we still fund medical research. We don't let their modern-for-1776 beliefs dictate how to order 21st century lives.
This is an interesting discussion Alan, but I'm afraid we will just have to agree to disagree. I am an American citizen, and until there is an equal amount of money that says 'there is no god' I am not being represented.
You're going off in different areas that have no bearing on the discussion. I'll admit that early in our history women weren't treated as well as they should have been, and blacks were only counted as 3/5ths of a person for representation purposes in the Senate, although that was widely seen at the time as a not-so-subtle means of force against the slave states to encourage them to change their ways. But you're still missing the significant point, that certain rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, rights that you have the luxury of taking for granted, could be taken away with the stroke of a pen without benefit of a government which was expressly set up with those rights reserved to a higher power.
I'm sorry you don't feel as if you're being represented. Perhaps you simply choose to believe that and don't realize just how significantly you are being represented.
You're going off in different areas that have no bearing on the discussion. I'll admit that early in our history women weren't treated as well as they should have been, and blacks were only counted as 3/5ths of a person for representation purposes in the Senate, although that was widely seen at the time as a not-so-subtle means of force against the slave states to encourage them to change their ways. But you're still missing the significant point, that certain rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, rights that you have the luxury of taking for granted, could be taken away with the stroke of a pen without benefit of a government which was expressly set up with those rights reserved to a higher power.
I'm sorry you don't feel as if you're being represented. Perhaps you simply choose to believe that and don't realize just how significantly you are being represented.
Yes those rights can be taken away, just as they were given, to us by us. Not inalienable, which means can not be taken away or transferred. God, or a higher power has absolutely nothing to do with that. How does a creator have anything to do with that? The founding fathers didn't leave it up to god. They left it up to us, the people, through our representatives that we elect.
You keep trying to start the discussion just shy of the goal post, where we have to first acknowledge and believe in your god in order to discuss the constitution or the governments position/role in all this. This isn't a theocracy. We don't start with god then go from there. There is no accepted knowledge of a creator.
OK, so they used the word 'inalienable'. It that the sticking point? I mean, it's only a word. They used that word, but covered their butts with laws and expectations. They also said all men were created equal, but they didn't really believe that either.
Take away the laws of men, take away this government with it's particular set of laws and rights/expectations, and your 'inalienable' rights go right out the window. Nothing to do with god, or any creator, other than us. We are the creator. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and no creator can be credited for this country. We need to stop putting our trust in god and start putting our trust in ourselves.
This is why, in a long way around, that the government cannot/should not talk about god, or Allah, or Buddha, or any religious deity, and why we should never vote for a guy who thinks praying is a way to solve the country's problems.
Well, I think we've both gotten of tract here. I'm off to the lake for the 4th. You have a good holiday as well.
Yep, I think we've both run our course at this point, even though the desire to point out that you made my case several times in your last post is strong, I'm pretty sure it would be a wasted effort to continue.
It's raining here in S/W Ohio on this 4th of July morning, although it looks like the afternoon will be mostly sunny. Once it is, I'll be outside prepping my motorcycle trailer and motorhome for a short trip (a week or so) to North Carolina & Tennessee later in the week. We'll be riding the Blue Ridge Parkway from around Asheville NC down to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, finishing up the motorcycle rides with another pass on the Tail Of The Dragon (318 curves in 11 miles) at Deals Gap NC.
Happy Independence Day to all!
loosechickens
7-4-11, 3:04pm
We've covered that ground ourselves, several times, Alan.....have a great time!!!!1
loosechickens
7-4-11, 3:53pm
very interesting opinion piece I saw today, from CNN, on America as a "Christian nation", the Founding Fathers, Jefferson, separation of church and state, etc. Some food for thought here:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/04/davis.jefferson.other.words/index.html?iref=obnetwork
Mangano's Gold
7-4-11, 9:11pm
You're going off in different areas that have no bearing on the discussion. I'll admit that early in our history women weren't treated as well as they should have been, and blacks were only counted as 3/5ths of a person for representation purposes in the Senate, although that was widely seen at the time as a not-so-subtle means of force against the slave states to encourage them to change their ways..
Also slightly off-topic, but do you think that the landless peasant* should have an equal say in government, via voting, as the landowners?
* The early 21st century version of the 'landless peasant' is the paycheck-to-paycheck worker who owns no assets and has little chance of ever accumulating assets.
Also slightly off-topic, but do you think that the landless peasant* should have an equal say in government, via voting, as the landowners?
* The early 21st century version of the 'landless peasant' is the paycheck-to-paycheck worker who owns no assets and has little chance of ever accumulating assets.
That's an interesting question and one that's not easily answered in a straightforward manner. In a true Democracy, every individual is entitled to a political voice. However, a true Democracy is always destined to destroy itself by allowing the takers to vote themselves benefits paid by the producers.
I always prefer to take the high road so I'm completely in favor of everyone having their political voice be heard, and recognize my responsibility to point out the dangers of taking that stand.
Mangano's Gold
7-4-11, 10:11pm
That's an interesting question and one that's not easily answered in a straightforward manner. In a true Democracy, every individual is entitled to a political voice. However, a true Democracy is always destined to destroy itself by allowing the takers to vote themselves benefits paid by the producers.
I always prefer to take the high road so I'm completely in favor of everyone having their political voice be heard, and recognize my responsibility to point out the dangers of taking that stand.
Hey, there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that demcocracies are imperfect! Everybody knows it, but it isn't polite to say it. Subtlety often fails, though. For example, I suspect many liberals have at least a mild level of contempt for southern white voters. They view them as under-educated dolts who are getting played for fools, and that the country would be better off is they stayed in their trailer parks and didn't vote. And Republcians? Well, it isn't exactly a secret that the reason they hate Acorn has nothing to do with corruption and everything to do with not wanting more poor blacks voting. Ditto Motor Voter,same day registration, etc...
IMO, different forms of government probably serve the people better at different times. Good luck getting the timing right, though.
... And Republcians? Well, it isn't exactly a secret that the reason they hate Acorn has nothing to do with corruption and everything to do with not wanting more poor blacks voting...
Twice.
We don't want poor blacks voting twice. Or thrice.
Iris Lily, at home in an Acorn city where voter fraud is rampant and Acorn is guilty as charged.
loosechickens
7-4-11, 11:37pm
well, I don't know about "landless peasants" as opposed to "landowners", but sometimes I do think that citizens before they are allowed to vote, should know some basic facts about their own country. We make naturalized citizens pass tests on our history, laws and form of government in order to become citizens, maybe our home grown ones should have to meet the same standard.
Just saw this today: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/poll-1776-date-puzzles-some-americans/?hpt=hp_t2
"Poll: 1776 date puzzles some Americans
By: CNN Political Unit
(CNN) - A slight majority of Americans know what year the United States declared independence, according to a new national survey.
The Marist Poll released in honor of America's Independence Day, July 4, showed 58 percent of residents aware their country declared independence in 1776. Twenty-six percent were unsure and 16 percent named another date. Younger Americans, those under 30 years of age, were less likely to have the correct answer with 31 percent, compared to Americans between the ages of 45 and 59 who said 1776 75 percent of the time.
One in four Americans also didn't know from which country the United States seceded, with 76 percent correctly naming Great Britain, 19 percent unsure and 5 percent naming another country.
The survey of 1,003 adults was conducted between June 15 and June 23 via telephone and had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points."
---------------------------------
Iris Lily, can you provide some factual cites for your charge that in St. Louis, voter fraud is rampant, ACORN did it, and that it's "poor blacks" doing the fraudulent voting, please? I know that in the ACORN scandal, there WERE people paid to go out and register voters, and some filled out the forms fraudulently, some as "Mickey Mouse", etc., but I never saw any information that any of those fake registrations actually resulted in "Mickey Mouse" showing up to vote, let alone voting "twice....or thrice"......
If you make that accusation, it's really up to you to back it up, if you want it to be considered. If you're just making noise, then don't bother.
Happy Fourth of July, everybody!!!!!!
It was heartwarming to watch our newest naturalized citizens take their oaths of citizenship in various locations today......definitely a Happy Fourth of July for them......
well, I don't know about "landless peasants" as opposed to "landowners", but sometimes I do think that citizens before they are allowed to vote, should know some basic facts about their own country. We make naturalized citizens pass tests on our history, laws and form of government in order to become citizens, maybe our home grown ones should have to meet the same standard.
Just saw this today: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/poll-1776-date-puzzles-some-americans/?hpt=hp_t2
"Poll: 1776 date puzzles some Americans
By: CNN Political Unit
(CNN) - A slight majority of Americans know what year the United States declared independence, according to a new national survey.
The Marist Poll released in honor of America's Independence Day, July 4, showed 58 percent of residents aware their country declared independence in 1776. Twenty-six percent were unsure and 16 percent named another date. Younger Americans, those under 30 years of age, were less likely to have the correct answer with 31 percent, compared to Americans between the ages of 45 and 59 who said 1776 75 percent of the time.
One in four Americans also didn't know from which country the United States seceded, with 76 percent correctly naming Great Britain, 19 percent unsure and 5 percent naming another country.
The survey of 1,003 adults was conducted between June 15 and June 23 via telephone and had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points."
...........
The state of public education took a big dive over the last 30 years or so. Maybe we need the federal government to get involved, we could create a new bureaucracy and call it the Department of Education.
Oh, wait. Never mind!
The right-wing hyena mob is working itself up again, this time over some long-overdue common sense that, predictably, offends their smug, religious sense of entitlement.
There’s a deep strain of angry Christians in this country that simply cannot abide the notion that their religion isn’t universal and mandatory, or that religious tolerance requires not imposing public displays of, let alone mandated allegiance to, their religious beliefs in areas that properly fall within the individual’s sphere of private conscience. And the merest request that they should actually keep their religious ceremonies to themselves, still less at someone else’s funeral, is an attack on their rights, or religion in general.
(http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7635750.html)
This is the policy that caused the fuss. Note that it explicitly declares that families can have the flag thing read at funerals by government staff – if they request it. It also notes that it was a “gross error” in the text (referring to Isaac, Abraham, and Jacob as “gods”) that caused the complaint – obviously by a religious family. And it does not even cite religious neutrality as the reason for the directive (it cites the lack of any official definition of “the meaning of the folds of the flag”). This is what has caused the entire outrage among the shriekingly ignorant and apparently illiterate right-wing.
Department of Veterans Affairs
Date: September 27, 2007
From: Director, Office of Field Programs
Thru: Each MSN Director
To: Each Cemetery Director
Subj: The Meaning of Each Fold of an Honor Guard Funeral Flag
It has come to my attention that cemeteries may be distributing a handout entitled, “The Meaning of Each Fold of an Honor Guard Funeral Flag” and/or posting the handout in cemetery buildings. I have also learned that our volunteer honor guards may be using the handout as a script and reciting the meaning of the thirteen folds of the flag while the interment flag is folded during the committal service.
There are various versions of the script circulating by anonymous authors. Some of those scripts are religious in nature and also ascribe meaning to the individual folds put into the flag. We have recently received a complaint sent to the President of the United States that there was a gross error in the handout with reference to the 11th fold “…glorifying the Gods Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”.
There are no federal laws related to the flag that assign any special meaning to the individual folds of the flag. The National Cemetery Administration must not give meaning, or appear to give meaning to the folds of the flag by endorsing or distributing any handouts on “The Meaning of Each Fold of an Honor Guard Funeral Flag.”
Effective immediately all national cemeteries are to refrain from distributing any handouts on “The Meaning of Each Fold of an Honor Guard Funeral Flag”; remove any postings from all cemetery buildings and discontinue our VA-Sponsored Volunteer Honor Guards from using the handout as a script at a committal service during the folding of the flag.
The only time the reading of “The Meaning of Each Fold of an Honor Guard Funeral Flag” is authorized in our national cemeteries is when the next-of-kin arranges for military honors with their local VSO and requests the reading during the committal service.
Peace
The right-wing hyena mob is working itself up again, this time over some long-overdue common sense that, predictably, offends their smug, religious sense of entitlement.........
The commentary seems to go well beyond the facts of this 4 year old incident. If we want to simply bash "right wing hyena's", couldn't we find something a little more recent?
The commentary seems to go well beyond the facts of this 4 year old incident. If we want to simply bash "right wing hyena's", couldn't we find something a little more recent?
LOL - In my zeal to show an example of "going too far" I got the before mentioned story mixed up with the one I intended. This (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/military/7639350.html#ixzz1RFbBNTHF) happened just yesterday in Houston (4th of July). Notice that the "Liberty Institute" is filing suit. They are an afiliate of "Focus on the Family" which is the leader of the pack of hyenas. They seem to think that public praying is a every important issue for our country? There are so many examples of this type of thing daily around the country.
Peace
Hundreds of flag-waving demonstrators converged on Houston National Cemetery on Independence Day to protest reports of religious censorship at burial services there.
"We felt it was one of the best ways we could have spent this time of the Fourth of July," said Marine veteran Steve Cranston, a 58-year-old pastor from Houston who attended the protest with his wife, Judy, 66. "We feel like it's our duty."
"And I believe the ones who are already buried here would be right with us," his wife said.
The Houston Area Pastor Council planned Monday's protest in support of a federal lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Liberty Institute on behalf of American Legion Post 586, Veterans of Foreign Wars District 4, and National Memorial Ladies, a volunteer group that attends burials at the cemetery.
The suit accuses U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs officials and Houston National Cemetery director Arleen Ocasio of banning members of these groups from invoking the names of "God" or "Jesus" at burials, and forbidding the recitation of religious messages unless the deceased's family submits the text to her for approval.
"Poll: 1776 date puzzles some Americans
By: CNN Political Unit
(CNN) - A slight majority of Americans know what year the United States declared independence, according to a new national survey.
The Marist Poll released in honor of America's Independence Day, July 4, showed 58 percent of residents aware their country declared independence in 1776. Twenty-six percent were unsure and 16 percent named another date. Younger Americans, those under 30 years of age, were less likely to have the correct answer with 31 percent, compared to Americans between the ages of 45 and 59 who said 1776 75 percent of the time.
Resolution of independence passed on July 2nd, 1776, Declaration of Independence ratified on July 4th, signed by all delegates by August 2nd. Now, how does knowing these dates help me compete in a global economy?
for that matter, in this time of multi-national corporate control of so much of our economy and agriculture, is nationalism a good, neutral, or bad thing? Maybe we're better off teaching more important dates.... like when Kraft unveiled mac & cheese !Splat!
The state of public education took a big dive over the last 30 years or so.
Data shows this to be incorrect: http://nationsreportcard.gov/ltt_2008/ltt0002.asp
Now, I will buy that you don't think things don't seem as great as when you were a kid, but there are several biases at play there.
LOL - In my zeal to show an example of "going too far" I got the before mentioned story mixed up with the one I intended..........
I'm confused. Is it "going too far" to ban these groups from invoking the names of God or Jesus, or is it "going too far" to file a lawsuit over it?
Data shows this to be incorrect: http://nationsreportcard.gov/ltt_2008/ltt0002.asp
Now, I will buy that you don't think things don't seem as great as when you were a kid, but there are several biases at play there.
Yes, my bias is that most of the rest of the world does education better than we do these days, although I'm happy to see from your link that math scores for 9 to 13 year olds are getting nominally better. I wonder what happens by the time they turn 17? By that time they seem to be at the same point that they were 35 years ago.
http://broadeducation.org/about/crisis_stats.html
Yes, my bias is that most of the rest of the world does education better than we do these days, although I'm happy to see from your link that math scores are getting nominally better.
http://broadeducation.org/about/crisis_stats.html
But your statement was that we "took a dive." I see no dive on the charts I provided.
Additionally, the link you provided intermixes percentages and absolute numbers which, while entertaining, hardly make for relevancy.
So 1.2 million students drop out every year. Is that a high percentage or not a high percentage? How does that percentage compare to other countries with a similar makeup to the US? (not just industrialized, as we may have more immigrants, as a percentage, than some countries, and less than others). How does it compare to others that don't attract immigrants?
Our students rank 25th in math according to your link. First, is this a problem or not? Not every country can be first. Suppose they're basing test scores on an international test with an arbitrary 100 point scale. If the difference between the top 30 countries is, say, 5 points, then that might not be worth caring about. On the other hand, suppose on a force-fit bell curve, we end up just marginally better than non-industrialized nations and far behind the top 5 countries. That might be a cause for concern.
And, there's no history there. Have we been declining over the years or have we been static? That is, 30 years ago, were we in the same percentile, higher, or lower? And, are countries that were in our percentile 30 years ago still in our percentile? If not, we should examine why. If so, then again, maybe it's not a big deal or maybe it is.
I have some more fun statistics for you... I started college when I was 14 and never actually completed much of my high school curriculum, which we selected based on how I fared with the state's standardized placement tests (I was home-schooled). So, statistically, 100% of my class failed to finish high school.
But your statement was that we "took a dive." I see no dive on the charts I provided.
Because your charts do not reflect the 30 or so years of educational decline, outside of math, that I originally mentioned.
See the United Nations report Human Development Research Paper, Graphical Statistical Methods (http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2010/papers/HDRP_2010_39.pdf)for the Representation of the Human Development Index and its Components (http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2010/papers/HDRP_2010_39.pdf)
Since it is a pdf document, I cannot pull out the graph showing the world educational rankings from 1970 to 2005 and post it here, although you can find it on page 21.
What it shows is a steady decline in the United States educational rankings from it's #2 spot in 1970 to #18 in 2005.
Because your charts do not reflect the 30 or so years of educational decline, outside of math, that I originally mentioned.
See the United Nations report
The reading graph on the same site also don't show a decline, at all. So, as far as readin' and addin' are concerned, it seems that, at worst, we've been static for the last 35 years.
Regarding the HDI report, page 41 is much more interesting. Statistically, there's really not much of a drop. Sure, we've moved from spot #2 to spot #18, but the standard deviation is so small that I'm not sure there's much cause for alarm.
Certainly, something we could stand to improve on greatly, but by the same charts we'd also do well to concentrate on factors the study references in regards to life expectancy as our decline has been fairly pronounced in that area as well.
Peggy, I think that you're missing the point again. Our government recognizes that there are certain inalienable rights that are not dependant upon the good nature of men. Those rights are bestowed from a higher source than mere, tempremental humans.
Sort of
Not really Alan, cause this set of inalienable rights that were bestowed on you by your 'creator' doesn't apply to me because there is no creator.
Also, sort of.
The start of the Declaration of Independence....
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
In this context, they're stating natural law (as opposed to common law) holds truth to be self-evident that we're all equal. It's a universal truth, not defended by man's law, it's just a fact that is... which drastically assaulted the aristocratic rule of the day. However, both in the first paragraph (Nature's God) and the start of the preamble, they do hold to a deist, monotheistic world view:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Here they're appealing to the higher authority and stating that those rights are endowed on everyone by their creator.
Of course, though, the Declaration of Independence is a static document from a certain time period and it very much reflects people with a different worldview than any of us hold today. For instance, Jefferson, who framed much of the Declaration, was quite fine to continue as a slave owner (although, he did later make a case for repatriating slaves, even those born in the US, back to Africa as he largely felt free blacks would incite slaves to revolt). It's a bit tough to nail down Jefferson's thoughts as he was often cagey and ornery to get a reaction.
The Constitution, on the other hand, is a living document that grows and is shaped in response to how our country grows and is shaped (e.g., prohibition and then the lifting thereof). The Constitution, or more specifically it's amendments, goes out of its way to state that the government shall not establish a religion. It also states that no test of religion is required of any elected officials. Of course, the wording is vague and not necessarily actionable. In fact, one of the supreme court cases that tackled it does make for some interesting reading for anyone so inclined. The wikipedia entry on it is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Trinity_v._United_States
The judge that wrote the majority, Justice Brewer, has an interesting quote from a book he wrote on the case excerpted in that article:
But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. [...] Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.
Of course, while this case was argued a hundred years after the constitution was ratified, it certainly wasn't the first or last word on the debate. Again, that's the fun of living in a democracy with a well-established legal system and changeable Constitution; it changes as we change.
Resolution of independence passed on July 2nd, 1776, Declaration of Independence ratified on July 4th, signed by all delegates by August 2nd. Now, how does knowing these dates help me compete in a global economy?
for that matter, in this time of multi-national corporate control of so much of our economy and agriculture, is nationalism a good, neutral, or bad thing? Maybe we're better off teaching more important dates.... like when Kraft unveiled mac & cheese !Splat!
Well, knowing my mother's birthday is not going to help me compete in the global economy, but it's just one of those things I know. There are some basic facts that just seem like they should be common knowledge, but maybe I'm old fashioned in expecting that the American Revolution to be taught in schools. I think that fact that 1776 is not a date that comes trippingly off the tongue for a large majority of young people is appalling.
But I do agree that our values are surely speaking loud and clear, and that some day we might be in such bad economic shape the White House will be called the Kraft House, and the Mint will be called the Bank of America Mint, and the Smithsonian will be called the Sony Museum.
No wonder people get crotchety when they get old!
Well, knowing my mother's birthday is not going to help me compete in the global economy, but it's just one of those things I know. There are some basic facts that just seem like they should be common knowledge, but maybe I'm old fashioned in expecting that the American Revolution to be taught in schools. I think that fact that 1776 is not a date that comes trippingly off the tongue for a large majority of young people is appalling.
I'm sure it's taught... it's probably even remembered long enough for a test, but then that's about it ;)
I find it appalling that I'm currently resorting to using an online calculator to to determine how long the hypotenuse on a triangle is given a side and two angles. I'm positive I learned this when I was 9 or 10 and I'm certain that there were some test questions on it and I would have been able to calculate the answer in my head.
I would be in favor of natural born inhabitants needing to pass a test before being granted citizenship; as long as there's no math involved and there aren't any trick questions like identifying a turning point in the European theater during WW2.
of course, there might be another reason test scores don't look so bad ;)
http://news.yahoo.com/americas-biggest-teacher-principal-cheating-scandal-unfolds-atlanta-213734183.html
I am stunned. I had no idea. When I was teaching community college in upstate NY, I was increasingly irritated by students who figured it was okay to plagiarize, share answers, etc. Now I can see that the shortcut method when desperate is not just a thing that very young adults resort to. What are we teaching people? Thanks for the link. I am more shocked than I can actually say.
Get the Federal Government out of education. The States did it better.
Get the Federal Government out of education. The States did it better.
Can you expand on that a bit? The federal government provides very little in the way of school funding (8.3%), which could certainly be lowered, but it's not like they're footing education. I suppose there is No Child Left Behind, but that was largely restructuring of current programs (replacing the Office of Education Research with the Institute of Education Sciences) and grants for schools in high-poverty areas (which I can see various positives and negatives)
Now, if you're talking about something like completely eliminating the department of education... well, that's been around since the 1860's and I'm not sure we have accurate information to quantitatively assess that schools performed better before then.
Mangano's Gold
7-6-11, 10:51pm
On education, I suspect that you'd see the great divergence you see in other parts of the society. The top tier of students are doing fabulously well, and as Jon Stewart would say "the bottom half not so much".
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.