I've noticed as I've made my rounds through this site, that it is pretty much unanimously decided that Americans are guarenteed to be free from religion, particulary, a religion imposed by the gov't. I'm all for that...but, there is another part of that right that everyone forgets, freedom OF religion. Question for debate: Why is it that religion is seemingly shunned in politics, and why isn't the freedom OF religion right not payed as much attention to as the freedom from religion right?

CP

I'd counter the first assertion by claiming that religion is currently used and abused by politicos everywhere. No shunning at all. Just witness all the witless attempts at insisting that God's "Top 10 List" belongs in public buildings. Shunned? Nope. Demagoguery? Yep.

As for the latter: The government does little to prevent anyone from practicing their religion. The only instance is situations where the "practice" is a form of subtle coercion -- e.g., in schools, at government meetings, etc. -- over those who don't belong to one particular faith. Do you have an instance of this... where the government stepped into someone's PRIVATE practice of their religion?

Some examples would be nice, so we know what you are talking about.

Most often, the religion question comes into play when we have a problem, like with the 10 commandments shrine in Alabama. Or with those that push for school prayer. That's where you get the "freedom from religion" arguments, especially as it relates to those that feel a particular religion is being foisted on them.

I don't think there would be much argument or debate over a presidential candidate that says everyone should be able to believe as they wish. Kind of a non-starter. For instance, school prayer is not illegal. Every religious kid I knew in school said a small prayer before taking a test, or before a football game.

But, if it is taken to the point of prayer being a requirement, that's where we run into problems. Who's prayer? What denomination? When does X get his prayer read, and when does Y? Or does Y ever get his said, because he's Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu, and the school is mostly Christian? Does the agnostic or athiest have to participate? And if they don't are they punished in some way?

I wish I knew what specifics you are talking about in this post, it would better help answer the question.

In my opinion, religion is personal, and should be a private thing which concerns yourself, your family and the group you with which you worship. It is not something that should be forced upon others.

A political leader might use their religious beliefs to govern their concience on certain issues but logical arguement and reason have to follow suit. A leader in the Western World cant really say,' God told me to do it and thats that' for example.

Considering the variety of religious beliefs we have in the US, many people get uncomfortable when leaders start talking about making policy based on their god or personal beliefs or the prophesies of holy books or whatever. I know I always cringe when a leader talks about their personal god in reference to the governing of the country.

I think freedom from religion stands as more important because people are always trying to sneak their religous doctine in, whether it be government or public forums, buildings, schools etc. We have to watch that. Belief in god is a great mover of people, but as we know from history can also be wrongly used to manipulate and abuse.

I believe politicians certainely have a right in this country to worship who and where they choose, or hang the ten commandments on the wall of their own private office, or even to say god bless america in public. That is as it should be.
What people like myself do not want or approve of is preaching a particular dogma in any public forum that concerns my welfare as a citizen, who very well may believe something completely different. In my opinion separation of church and state is very necessary. I get furious everytime someone tries to shove their beliefs down my throat and I get very worried when I hear a political leader is making policy based on what his/her god supposedly tells them in private.

This brings to mind a quote, where I got it I dont remember:
'Basically we are both atheists, I just believe in one god less than you. Explain why you dont believe in all the others, then you will understand why I dont believe in yours'

Sorry some of this is redundant, we were all posting at the same time.

Religion is hardly "shunned" by politics. Your current President wraps himself in the bible on a daily basis. Was it not Bush who said that he considered "Jesus" his favourite philosopher? Religion is shunned by the political processes of the U.S.; which is a good thing. Government and politicians avoid legislating religion at all costs because it is politically dangerous and constitutionally questionable.

I still don't understand how that was forcing a religion on anyone. I am an athiest and it wouldn't have "offended" at all. I think people take advantage of the religion ammendment way too much.

CP,

I was thinking about this exact issue last night: why do we treat the First Amendment as saying no religion is allowed, instead of how it really reads:


How does the second clause of the First Amendment jive with this article:
Cross-wearing woman fights suspension

Is this a case where a law was made "respecting the establishment of religion"? Or is this case closer to the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause?

I think it is clearly the latter, but was treated as the former. Astonishing. I did not realize that a single teacher in rural Pennsylvania could make laws .

This article: The True Meaning of the First Amendment has an excellent explanation of the First Amendment.

EDIT: I will add another case, since the first has not actually been reviewed by the courts:
Supreme Court says student-led prayer at high school football games violates First Amendment

This clearly infringes upon the right of free exercise of religion. There was no endorsement by the school, this was student-initiated. Unfortunately, the Supremes have other opinions.

I would say that religion, especially Christianity is more shunned by the media then anything else. I doubt there is any politician that would ridicule a religion publicly because of his position as a representative of the people. But I do see the media being harsh towards Bush for his faith. The example above is good: Why is he being scrutinized for Jesus being his favorite philosopher? Out of all the men and women who spoke on human nature, Jesus spoke of love, peace, charity and tolerance.

I personally feel free to do religion any way I see fit.

I just don't see it as being fit to cram it down anyone else's throat.

Or through any other body orifice.

Those who feel they must do this are, IMO, not practicing religion at all but some other thing. Power!

So why does it seem that most people don't want religion mixed with politics?

They probably feel as I do.

I don't think religion is shunned in politics. Look the congress opens every session with a prayer, when sworn into office politicians swear on a Bible and say, "so help me God." EVERY president has referred to God in one form or fashion in their administration and "In God We Trust" is on our money. I think the influence of religion is evenly and fairly present in our government.

There's a bit more to the article and to the case:



Hmmm.... it's a state law about what can be worn in schools where kids are forced to be. When you're dealing with schools, the courts have been pretty reliable about wanting to keep religious symbols and expression out of the hands of those in a position of power over the students.

Interestingly, the ACLU didn't take this case, as you might expect from what would appear on the outside as a First Amendment case. It's instead taken by the ACLJ, which has a much more Christian religious bent to it (they were "deeply troubled" by the Mass. ruling concerning gay marriages, for example: "The ACLJ will do everything legally possible to work to protect marriage between one man and one woman.").

That's awful! What about the Muslim symbol of the star and crescent moon? Why do they use those two symbols as examples? I see nothing wrong with wearing a conservative styled religious symbol. Conservative in the way one dresses, not political view, just thought I'd clarify that.

Clearly any state law or policy that prohibits the wearing of religious symbols infringes on one's free exercise of religion. Indeed, there are many religions that require the wearing of various articles, both visible and non-visible. What of these? Are they required to violate their religion to be employed by the state?

I see two problems here:

1 - Religion is indeed being shunned in certain venues, and certainly the courts have done their fair share to confirm infringement on the free exercise.

2 - This is a prime example of why government should be kept out of as many spheres of society as possible. We have compulsory education laws and public schools funded by the state, and therefore since these kids are forced to attend, and since most of this attendance is at state funded and controlled institutions, it is now expected that everyone check their religion at the door. Were all of this privatized, all parties would be 100% free to do as they see fit with regard to religion or any other controversial issue.

While entanglements with the government may not be obvious when legislation is passed and programs are instituted, they will inevitably arise. And when they do, we gradually lose our freedoms and a "chilling effect" settles over society. As a related example, let's suppose all hospitals become state funded and controlled through a socialized healthcare program. Just as with schools, I would not be the least bit surprised if eventually priests, pastors, rabbi, mullahs, etc are prohibited from carrying out any kind of religious rites in those hospitals since others in the hospital might find it offensive and it could constitute state sanctioning of religion. I submit that the peril of religion is largely due to the extent to which we've allowed government to encroach upon and become a part of our everyday lives.

It's understandable that people don't want the government to become an organ of religion. And it's understandable that people want government to be as separate and unrelated to religion as possible. But if we insist on that and yet tightly entwine our very existance with government, we cannot expect to have our religious freedoms to remain unchallenged.

First of all, children are only forced to attend school. If they have the money, their parents can send them to private school, where religion might have a place. If they can't afford it and must settle for state-funded schools, then it's the government that's now responsible for educating them.

And I'd certainly HATE for the government -- through covert or overt actions on the part of any administrator or teacher -- to promote one religion over another. That violates the First Amendment and it would violate my rights to have my child not have the government force a particular religion at him/her.

And privatizing all schools is definitely a recipe for disaster, but we should debate that elsewhere.

How is WEARING a religious symbol FORCING someone to acknowledge a religion? If that's the case, why don't we tell churches and synagogs to remove all religious symbols and Bible verses off the outside of their buildings because they can be seen from state highways and city streets?! This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of! It's not like she's wearing a pendant that says JESUS SAVES or anything!

Are you saying you would object to a teacher wearing "Jesus Saves"?

-----

The question to me is whether or not government institutions should allow employees to religion wise identify themselves. Is it inappropriate for a teacher to be known to belong to a particular belief system? I tend to think not. It is educational to recognize there are people with many belief systems.

However, it does open the door for possible coercion. Students should not get the impression that the teacher's belief will any way effect them. There should be no hint there is any favoritism for students sharing the teacher's religion. There should be no hint there is prejudice against any student not sharing the teacher's beliefs.

I have the impression that many who wear religious symbols are in fact attempting to be evangelical, even in the most passive means. It is a declaration that their religion is important enough to them they feel they should wear a symbol of that belief to let others know how important it is.

How would you all feel if a teacher wore gang symbols? Would you mind if a teacher wore a swastika? Wearing any sort of symbol is a means to communicate. As trivial as wearing a religious symbol may seem to some people it does not mean you are not negatively communicating to some one else. As public school are intended to serve people of all religions, teachers wearing religious symbols does not seem necessary and it would be a better idea to not wear them.

Yes because it's conveying a written message of doctrine.



If a teacher is going to be prejudice, they're going to be prejudice if they wear a symbol or not. And if they are prejudice, they shouldn't be allowed to teach.



No. People wear crosses, Stars of David and other symbols as a personal reminder of their faith. People hand out tracks and stand on street corners to preach and be annoying. ANY teacher that tried to be evangelical to a student would need to be removed, it's not the appropriate enviroment.



Those aren't religious symbols and have inherent negative attributes to them.

If a teacher does her job, teaches her students well and is fair, compassionate and competent, this shouldn't be an issue. Now, if a teacher started saying "Jesus this or Allah that", then yes the teacher should be scrutinized.

It's worth repeating that she was not forced to take off her cross, she was asked to wear it underneath her clothes. If her decision to wear a cross is entirely motivated as a personal reflection of faith why is wearing it above her clothing necessary?



Catholic iconography has negative connotations to some people. Who are you to determine what is offensive and what isn't? Some people feel that the Catholic church idly sat by and let the Holocaust happen during the Second World War. To that person a display of a cross might have a negative message.

Let me rephrase that, the swastika, a NON religious symbol has negative attributes associated with it. One person cannot be held responsible for others actions or inactions.



Can you see a necklace that is placed under your shirt? Take for instance the wedding ban, it's a symbol of a commitment and a reminder. When you look at it, it reminds you of the love you share with your partner. Now, if you were forced to wear your wedding ban on your big toe, you couldn't very well remember you had it on or have the momentary pleasure of glancing down at your hand and smiling because it reminded you of them, now could you?

And now we're getting close to the crux of the argument. As the teacher explained in the article:



Whoops. Hiding the cross denies Christ? Or is it just her veiled attempt at promoting Christianity?

It has NOTHING to do with promoting Christianity! It has EVERYTHING to do with being told that you're personal religious beliefs and symbols are marginal and illegal.

edited due to a Dubya moment..."minimalized"?

I agree with Billy Jean here.



Maybe she really believes that? She is not coercing anyone into accepting her belief system, whats the problem?

The Christian Cross is a highly subjective symbol, it means a thousand things to that many people. I know many people who wear crosses over their clothes and they certainly aren't promoting christianity at all.

I don't understand how banning religious symbols on someones person can cause or not cause anything but controversy. Being employed by the state should not make any difference. As for her being in a position of influence, how much does that cross influence anyone either way? What is feared here?

-----------------------------------------------------------------


I don't believe that religion is 'shunned' in politics, yet. Prior posters have already elaborated on this.

Though, I would venture to say there is a cultural stigma and bias against religion in general, christianity in specific. Any such belief is increasingly looked on in contempt. The logic being that anyone with any wits about them should know better than to subscribe to such a primitive schema? I think it is only a matter of time before the politicians reflect this.

I personally am sick to death of christianity being shoved down my throat. If you are not a christian it becomes so over the top the amount of dogma you have to put up with constantly from this group. If you are, Im sure you dont even see it.

I used to volunteer for childrens theatre and every night after rehearsal they would lock arms with all the children and say the Lords prayer. This *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** me off to no end. Who was it that assumed all those children were christian? This was never once considered.

I would not want prayer in public parts of public schools which i pay for with my taxes. There is enough christian doctrine all over the place as it is, without MY (if I had) kids picking up some more ridiculous mumbo jumbo. I see no problem with having silent prayer minutes or prayer rooms for kids who just cant get through a school day without telling the lord (out loud) whatever it is they need to say. Other than that , pray in your church, at home, in YOUR private places or silently if need be, There is no need to force your personal beliefs on children.

I dont want to look at your religious iconography on shared public buildings that I help pay for with my taxes, I dont care how many of you there are out there. I am not petitioning the government to build golden statues of buddha and place them in the town square and I dont expect to have to look at statues or monuments to a religion I think is full of crap in my public places, just because you think your rights are more important than others.

I think I should have the right to chase away door to door conversionists with the tip of the barrel of my shotgun right between their milky, brainwashed eyes.

As for religious jewelry and the teacher. She was asked to wear this cross under her clothes for a mere 8 hours a day while she teaches children of different beliefs in a public school, which was state law. This seems reasonable, everyone else complied, but that was not enough for her, she had to make her particular and personal beliefs a public spectacle. This is what is incredibly irritating about religious fanatics, they cant keep their personal god private, it has to be stuffed in front of everybodies face. I guess she can go teach in a catholic school.
I personally have nothing against jewelry depicting religious symbolism for teachers, as long as they keep their mouth shut about god in front of the kids.

This post is intentionally stongly worded to let the religious know JUST HOW OFFENSIVE this constant barraging of YOUR GOD onto others really can be.

I wonder why everyone else can seem to live with religion quietly, in their own personal space except for (some) christians?

I can understand and relate to this.



I think most people, including most mainstream christians would agree with you here. As for the last comment, I don't believe wearing a cross is forcing a belief on anyone. I appeal to common sense...



Once again I agree with you.



Reason #6789 that all americans should be armed.



Maybe, and remember that fanatics of any sort are just that...fanatics.



i'm sorry that you have been 'barraged by MY GOD'.



I truly hope that there comes a day when this the truth.

Intolerance can swing both ways, its like a tetherball. You can flail against it...but it often comes back swinging around the other way.

I guess I see it differently. I see children being exposed to different religions and denominations as a great thing, maybe it shows them early what these things really are, so they can resist the 'milky brain-washed eyes' later on.

Believe me, you are not alone in your views, a majority feel the same way you do.

Judging a huge, diverse community on the actions of a vocal minority is wrong. Its all relative, and your grievances are debateable. Can you give any coherent argument against this lady wearing a cross?

I already said that I have nothing against religious symbolic jewelry personally.

But I didnt make the state law. I think defying it was More than just a statement of Personal religious belief but the same ole same ole, gotta give a show of my religion thing, which turned it into more than just personal freedom.

As far as children being exposed to different religions and denominations, I also agree it can be a good thing, in an educational context not as dogma. I believe religious education should be up to the parents, not schools, unless as a course subject which studies many of the various theological theory and belief systems.

(Parochial schools the exception of course).

I think the state law is wrong on personal freedom grounds. Maybe she does have alterer motives, or maybe she is being unfairly marginalized(a word?).

These kind of religious witch-hunts are pretty common. It seems like this is another attempt at intimidating christians into politically correct perfection... They're just going to shove their views down our throat, right? Why give them another venue? If they are close to kids, heck they might wear iconography. You know that kids get 'brainwashed milky-eyes' from over-exposure.




I agree, parents should teach their kids not the state.

Frankly, in the case of Ms. Nichol, I would see the Pennsylvania Public School Code prohibition as bordering on unconstituional. I can, to a large extent, agree with the argument that she is a state employee and a potentially influencial symbol of authority, but so long as she is merely freely exercising her religion and not proselytizing, I don't see her infringing on anyone else's rights. As has been mentioned, our president mentions God at the drop of a hat and freely quotes from the Bible at every possible opportunity - and no one is suggesting that he be impeached on the basis of First Amendment violations.

In the case of pre-game prayer, whether "student-led" or not, the plaintiffs in that case said that they felt they were being coerced and, by refusing to participate, ostracized. That would clearly imply pressure to conform to the religious standards of the majority. As the games in question were state-funded school activities on state-owned school property and the prayers apparently sanctioned by the official school board, then I can see where that case might hold a bit more water. And let's not forget that that case was being brought by a Mormon student and a Catholic student who felt that their religious freedom was being compromised.

To answer the question posed in this thread, I do not think that the right to freely exercise one's religious beliefs has been forgotten in the least. The fact that only two fairly unique examples could be dredged up to even begin to make such an argument seems to attest to that fact - to say nothing of the amount of debate (or lack of consensus) they have spawned. In other words, even those two cases do not seem to be abundantly clear examples of First Amendment violations.

As has been mentioned here, the religious among us - especially Christians - probably do not even notice how omnipresent religion - especially Christianity - is in American life. It is everywhere. And the instant that it's advertisement is proscribed on any level whatsoever, there's a holy war - as demonstrated by the amount of hype the two single examples in this thread have generated. The profile of these two cases is further evidence of the fact that the question of religious freedom is very much alive and well in the US.

I also think that the Pa code borders on unconsitutionality, however...

Allow me to play devils advocate for a minute and imagine that a teacher was wearing a pentagram necklace, symbol of wiccan philosophy, outside her clothes to school each day. Or a peace sign in these times of war? What might be the repercussions of this?
I doubt our good christians or patriots would uphold the belief of freedom to wear those personal religious or otherwise expressions with such verve. In fact I could pretty well assure the proverbial excrement would hit the fan.

Possibly the law was made to avoid these type of controversies, inclusive and exclusive of personal belief systems, simply to keep things neutral (and uncomplicated) in the public school system.

I have lots of friends that are Wiccan and I have no problem with them wearing the pentagram, that's their right. Even if it was a teacher, she should be able to wear it on the OUTSIDE of her clothing. I don't believe in school led prayers, be them before a game or before lunch. I think students should be exposed to ALL religions and be culturally diversified. How will we ever have peace in the world if we don't understand where people are coming from? I'm NOT a traditional Christian by any stretch of the imagination. Infact I think the majority of Christians need to re-read the New Testament and concentrate more on the words in red and STOP reading the letters to the churches and maybe they'd have a better understanding of what Jesus was saying. Perhaps if they did that, they'd stop giving Christianity a bad name and those out there who don't believe might have a better opinion on what TRUE Christianity is about.

Well, the People's Republic of China has a law that can be used to shutdown organizations that teach feudalistic superstition (other Communist states do not reglate religion, but the PRC does). This is a useful law because the "right" to promote feudalistic superstition violates other people's rights. What is so destructive about religion is that people are expected to believe it based on faith rather than logic; the claim that one cannot be reasoned out of something that they weren't reasoned into in the first place. People do not reason themselves into religion, they just believe, that is the concept of faith. Religion teaches people to accept a certain set of beliefs without question, and that is pretty dangerious.

Some religion is benign, but some can be extremely harmful. People have done things that atheists and members of other faiths would find insane, like killing themselves to join a space ship following a comet, restrict others' sexual freedom, punish heretics brutally, or fly planes into office buildings, in order to satisfy their religious beliefs. These things seem insane if you don't share the faith, but seem unquestionably true and sensable if you do: religion makes people profoundly stupid.

So, that is why people are not always so hostile to resticting religious "freedom" as they are to restricting other freedoms.

Try to get elected to a visible public office without bleating about Christianity. It just won't happen very often, simply because religion is viewed as a 'requirement' by many voters. If you don't pray at their altar, they don't want to vote for you.

I'm a little confused here, TragicClown. To what, exactly, are you referring when you mention "feudalistic superstition"? Are you trying to describe Christianity - or any religion which has, at some point in its history, coexisted with a feudal system?

In terms of religion in general, I can sympathize with many of your sentiments. However, I don't think that profound stupidity is limited to those with religious faith. A closed-minded belief in the infallibility of science - or in a political theory - can be every bit as intellectually lazy and digressive as devotion to a religious faith. You may feel that your beliefs are based on empirical study, rational observation, and reasoned thought. So do many creationists. And unquestioning faith in a political philosophy - be it supply-side economics or dialectic materialism - can be just as blinkered and restrictive as Mormonism, Catholocism, or Scientology.

I don't see all that much "hostility" to religious freedom - at least not in this country - but those who do seek to limit the sanctioning of any faith through the state don't do so because religion is inherently "stupid". They do so to prevent anyone from forcing their beliefs on anyone else - whether those beliefs are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Islamic, or Marxist. The "right" to aggressively promote any belief system can violate other people's rights - feudal or not.

To get more directly back to the question here, Cephus is quite right: it is not religion or religious freedom which is "shunned" by the body politic in the US, it is the lack of religion...

"Feudalistic superstition" is just the term that is most frequently quoted in english describing the type of religion that is regulated against the People's Republic of China. The religion it would really bring to mind would be Falun Gong more than Christianity.



This does not describe religious belief though. A creationist does not think that her beliefs are based on rational observation and reasoned thought, a creationist believes in the bible. If the fossil record shows differently, it is wrong, because the bible is right. Any empirical research that helps to corroborate their faith is nice, but not needed, no amount of evidence would sway them from their belief in divinely created species. The Deists (like, the major American "Founding Fathers") believed in a "divine watchmaker" god who created the universe and the species but otherwise didn't intervene in the world; this is a position that they held from rational observation, that there was no divine intervention in the world and that the species where designed in some manner. Since the theory of natural selection was posited by Darwin and proven beyond a reasonable doubt by modern genetics, there are no Diests (or at least none i've heard of). This is because Diesm was a conclusion based on observations, and further observations demonstrated the position to be unsound, so it is no longer held. This is not a religious position.

Religion works differently, because religion unlike scientific thought does not have the possibility of being proven wrong.

No one has an unquestioning belief in dialectical materialism, the very notion of it was developed as a scientific approach to history. The reason why dialectical materialism makes sense to the people who believe in it is because they see evidence of it in the development of social structures throughout history, a scientific observation. The reason why Falun Gong makes sense to people is because "they where raised that way" or because "they have faith", this makes it a totally different and unscientific type of belief.

If I am not mistaken, Falun Gong is a series of excersizes which promote health and overall well-being, much like Tai Chi. It is not a religion, although the excersize has been persecuted in China as subversive.

Lets not confuse apples and oranges, nor make this thread about whether one does or does not believe in God. This is not the point. The point is whether singular or multiple religious sects can project their beliefs upon others in public places, buildings, schools etc., or if they have the right to; the limits to freedom of religious expression or lack thereof, based upon interpretation of the Consitution of the United States.

Once again 'freedom from or of religion'. I think thats what we were discussing.

But a creationist believes in the literal truth of the bible, and takes it as fact. "Scientific creationists" exist who try to reconcile the existence of dinosaurs with the creation myth written in Genesis. Usually with fallacies and impressively stupid leaps of logic, but still, they try.




Deism still exists. I myself am a deist, insofar as I believe in the existence of God, but not in his intevervention in the affairs of the world, past (usuallly) and present. I reject most doctrine. I also believe in evolution.

The mixing of science and belief together troubles me. Science is the antithesis to belief systems. Science involves people having open minds. To associate closed minded with scientific theory is an oxymoron. I do not believe the establishment of universities to be an example of the freedom to practice religion. Should public universities be disallowed as it would be government establishing a religion?

Beliefs are not based on empirical study, rational observation, nor reasoned thought. Closed minded beliefs are not based on science principle. Science is an approach much more than a collection of fixed ideas. Having errors in science is expected.

I do somewhat agree with an aspect of what you are saying. Science is usually communicated in thinking types of words while many people communicate in feeling types of words. Science can fail if the conversion between the two is not done properly.

There is nothing in the constitution which limits science but there is a limitation on religion. Blurring the definition of the two is not constructive. The thing I most dislike about Rush Limbaugh is his philosophy to claim there is no real science and that everything is political. He is wrong. It is not constructive. Do you share his viewpoint?

I couldn't agree with you more - but it happens all the time, especially in the life sciences (biology, ecology, anthropology) - though the harder sciences (like physics, chemistry, and astronomy) are hardly free from debate, with clashing "beliefs" constituting heated arguments within the scientific community. This is the stuff of another thread, though. In the context of this thread, however, I would no more countenance a government building chiselling something into its pediment about the Big Bang theory being the only acceptable cosmology or the meteor theory being the only possible explanation for the great extinction than I would countenance the display of a Ten Commandments sculpture. Presumably you would??


To an extent, yes. But, again, this is the stuff of another thread...

[FONT=Courier]I would disagree with the notion that we have a freedom from religion, as opposed to freedom of religion. I look at this issue from a different context. I see it as a fight between the "establishment of" part of the first amendment, and the "free exercise thereof" of the amendment. The former is to be avoided like the plague in my opinion, while the latter is to be encouraged. Often times though, I believe that a lot of people fail to make this distinction and as a result, take positions that are unconstiutional, simply because their cherished religious beliefs prevail over the minority. Roy Moore of Alabama in my estimation, falls into the former category, while an after school bible club falls into the latter. The former got all the media attention and publicity, but it is the latter that is truly exercising the right expressed in the amendment as the founders intended.

[QUOTE=Billy Jean,Nov 26 2003, 02:14 PM][QUOTE]I would say that religion, especially Christianity is more shunned by the media then anything else. QUOTE]


I'm not too sure about that. You have shows like: "Touched by an Angel" on t.v., and more recently, "Joan of Arcadia" which is very Christian positive. You also have as well the two or three movies on Christ being played on stations like the history channel during the holiday season

A personal recollection of religious freedom:

Was walking along a downtown sidewalk when a young woman approached and offered a Christian pamphlet. Looked at it and handed it back, suggesting that she could give it to someone who might need it. She then proceeded to condemn me to hell.

*sigh*

Once had a bumber sticker, "Music Can Save the World!"

Never got any static from folks for that, but a woman I lent the car to did. Only Jesus can save the world! How come nobody told me that? Am I too intimidating?

*sigh*

Then there are the door-to-door religious salespeople. Don't get that any longer. Too many stairs.

This country has more than enough religious freedom. People are free to be annoying to others just about anywhere, anytime, in the name of religious freedom. That annoying behavior isn't tolerated in government-owned, tax-dollar-supported public places bothers some, but why so greedy? Why so needy? Isn't the religion working?

I think so. As pointed out, I'm not supposed to have freedom from people who obviously haven't gotten it yet. They're just exercising their right to be a pain in the bumpah.

So be it. (Music really can save the world, though )

I guess not because we have to be constantly bombarded either way.


Bumper stickers particularily amuse me, the ones proclaiming if I dont believe like others I will go to hell.
Recently, I had to hold my man back from an involved philosophical arguement when someone said to us in a store 'Jesus Loves You'. Its just a nasty trait with these folks, but they dont hold up to scrutiny. Peg them down and they implode. Just faith...is the exiting strategy. Well if faith is the strategy, keep it to your own damn self and quit bothering me with your blather, especially in my space and time.

Once again I ask, why can everyone else live in peace and quiet, in private, with their religious beliefs except (some, many, too many) christians?

The problem with the growth of government is, that if you maintain the separation of church and state, you squeeze out religion. Many of the issues that come up today would not if government had a less intrusive role in our lives. Religious symbols in schools? School vouchers eliminates the issue.

I would disagree with the notion that the growth of government is a cause of this problem. The government is simply fulfilling it's role as a referee. In many of these instances, the first amendment was violated by people who "established" their religion on state taxpayer time or dime. Government involvement usually comes in the form of the courts, that possess the right of judicial review. Most of the time, the courts are invited into the process by citziens who feel their rights have been violated. This is not a case where the government is out of line for stepping into the issue, but rather, it is a case where they are fulfilling their consitutional duty of protecting a citizens constitutional rights. In the 1960s, the federal government stepped in to protect the rights of citizens when the state governments refused to do so. That wasn't an unconstitutional act. Likewise, if the courts stayed out of it and said "solve it yourself" the rights of the people would continue to be violated.

I'm not too sure that freedom of religion issues would lessen if we had a comprehensive education system based on vouchers. I suppose the assumption is that if religious or atheist parents want their kids raised a certain way that they will send their kids to schools with likewise beliefs? There are some complicating factors in that regard. For one, the number of schools in a given area is pretty limited. Even with vouchers, it's not a guarantee that more "choices" will be available, especially in mostly agricultural states. Furthermore, voucher schools will be "private schools" in the sense that they would be corproate or for profit school systems. You will still have board members or teachers with an agenda who will violate the first amendment by praying at graduation or trying to proselytize kids in the classroom. You will still have the same kind of lawsuits since there will always be people who will try and push the envelope to get the schools to encourage their viewpoint.

Hugo,

You'll be happy to learn that a local school board has been stormed and taken by the voucher people:

District D11's Story

So if you can't convince them with facts, buy the elections?

Oops! This is going off subject. Edited to add: Vouchers won't do anything to ensure religious freedom.

Rather than redraw the entire education system, most people could work within the system to change it. Running for school board, volunteering at schools(to actually know what goes on in them) are but a few ways that individuals can take to change things. To me, it would be much easier to do things that way. Schools are very responsive to the people if people take the time to figure out how things work, and how things can be changed.

Religion is shunned in politics, in my opinion, beacuse politicians want to avoid alienating voters of a different denomination/faith who could vote either way. (i.e. Moderate Reps and Dems and Indies) Its hard to nail figures down because of the spin both parties put on the numbers, but here are a few examples Ive just pulled off some sites. (Numbers may vary but Im sure that the ideas are right)

64% of Jews consider themselves Democrats
26% consider themselves Republicans

(taken from www.NJDC.org)

Now it may be a strecth but lets say that the remaining 10% of Jews are on the fence voters/Independents

If I am a Republican politician, and one who makes it a point to let everyone know that I am a devout Southern Baptist (who would most likely lean to the right and vote Republican), I might turn that 10% away beacuse Jews tend to be liberal and lean to the left, voting Democratic.

Now if I dont make an issue about my faith.... leading the voters thinking Im more of a moderate, I could gain some of that 10% on the fence.

Now granted its more complicated than playing Baptists and Jews (a 2000 U of Akron study showed that Bush won votes from 76% of white, evangelical protestants and of those he won more votes from that bloc who went to church at least once a week) but what my idea is, is that if you dont make it a point to prove how you're in good with or practice a particular faith, you'll get the swing vote. And that can make or break an election.

Well, I work graveyard.... and its 9:10 am here so... if you got anything to add or gripe about...you know what to do.....

I think freedom FROM religion is more emphasized than freedom OF religion today thanks to people in prominant positions both publicly and privately who hold similar views to Artemise. That is, they are very hostile toward people with religious views that they don't seem to be able to stomach. I think it is a mistake to ask that society keep their beliefs to themselves. This would create a chilling effect on the free exchange of ideas and views. While I don't want to be coerced into specific views, I don't have a problem with people expressing and communicating them. If you can't handle that, then that's your own insecurity. Don't ask the rest of us to hide in our holes and keep to ourselves. Else it won't be long before you'll be asking us to sit at the back of the bus and drink from different fountains.

But if you want to talk about forcing your views down people's throats, religious people get it just as much as non-religious. For instance, as a Christian who believes homosexuality is wrong, I get "PC" morality shoved down my throat every time I turn around. I see people like myself constantly vilified on TV and in various media. I see them demonized and portrayed very stereotypically all the time. I'm constantly being told that my views are "hateful", "discriminatory", and "homophobic". And that I'm a "red-neck" nutcase because of my beliefs. As someone else said in this thread, it swings both ways. Welcome to America! Where views are freely exchanged! If you can't handle hearing other people's views, wear earmuffs or go somewhere else. Don't tell the rest of us that we're prohibited from speaking out.

As for TragicClown, I'm deeply disturbed to hear someone actually advocate government banishing anything that cannot be strictly demonstrated to be scientific in nature. So I suppose then that we are supposed to allow the government to outlaw anything we believe to be incorrect, or unsound? While you may think that beliefs can be dangerous, the power of a government to ban certain ideas is far more dangerous. And the track record of the PRC amply demonstrates this.

This is a false representation of my views expressed here and possibly the others associated. I personally am only hostile to people trying to convert me in public or at my front door, however this is America and I have to put up with them, at least for as long as it takes me to walk away or slam my front door in their faces. I wasnt too happy when a group of Christians ruined a fashion shoot I was doing in downtown Dallas, supposedly I was promoting the devil by taking fashion pictures. I had to move 3 models to another location, which infringed on my rights to move about freely in public without harrassment. Not only that, they were out on the street just looking for a devil worshipper, and in that moment I fit the bill, for them. ( As if not a one ever read a fashion magazine, hypocrites with a mission)
They in fact were the hostile, to four of us they did not know from Adam, who were not looking out to 'down' on anybody but go about our own business peacefully.

We are talking about freedom of or from religious views in political policy and shared public places. IMO you can believe whatever you like and talk to anyone you like about it, but I dont expect elected offiicals to be making policy based on their personal religious beliefs or to be adorning public places with their particular religious iconography, with tax money to boot. I also dont want to be harrassed in public. I believe this is reasonable in todays age, and in this country which has many different people with many diverse belief systems.

I dont see why this is so difficult to understand since I dont see any statues of Buddha, pentagrams, or iconography of Muslim, Hindu, or other texts, which also have great 'sayings' and teachings, in public places, nor is anyone proposing such. The arguement is always about christian beliefs and the right to display them anywhere and everywhere. Why only this sector feels the need to bother other citizens, and often judge and condemn them and continue to believe it is somehow justified above the rights of others ( to be free of religious propaganda and harrasment) is beyond me.