Ceremonial Deism - HORSEFEATHERS!

[Nars_Glinley]

Country music group panders to its fans. Film at 11.

[Spit]

@John_Mace

What??? Naming a place after a Christian Saint (or a symbolism of Christianity) is a nod to one particular religion. “God”, at least, can be interpreted broadly to apply to many religions.

Heh. I was curious what the opinion of “St. Petersburg” or “St. Augustine” or even “The City of Angels” naming convention might be.

[Musicat]

@John_Mace

Do you think we should rename all the cities in the US that have religious (in fact, Christian) roots? That’s a lot worse, IMO, than “in God we trust” on the currency.

Speaking as one who has serious problems justifying “In God we trust” on currency, I would have no problem (on religious grounds) with living in a city named “St. Jude,” “Jesus Christ,” or “Buttfuck Heaven,” should such a city exist. It’s a place name, from whatever source. It doesn’t tell us how we should value our currency and who we should rely upon for the value of our money.

[elucidator]

…I was curious what the opinion of “St. Petersburg” or “St. Augustine”

“The City of Really Nice Guy Pete, Who Got Killed”

“The City of a Reformed Rock Star, Who Became a Ponderous Philosophic Pedant and Bored the Living Shit Out of Generations of Students.”

[villa]

@John_Mace

What??? Naming a place after a Christian Saint (or a symbolism of Christianity) is a nod to one particular religion. “God”, at least, can be interpreted broadly to apply to many religions.

You know, I was thinking about place names copying religious place names. I kind of blanked on the idea of Saints, etc.

Were a town being named now, I would look at it closely. I hope this doesn’t sound like a cop out, but I genuinely have no idea how a town gets named and what the legal status of the name is - I assume it becoems recognized in incorporation. I still think there is a difference between the government saying “We believe in God” when we by definition includes everyone, and a town name - the name isn’t an active declaration of faith, though I agree it is a passive nod towards that religion.

[John_Mace]

@Musicat

Speaking as one who has serious problems justifying “In God we trust” on currency, I would have no problem (on religious grounds) with living in a city named “St. Jude,” “Jesus Christ,” or “Buttfuck Heaven,” should such a city exist. It’s a place name, from whatever source. It doesn’t tell us how we should value our currency and who we should rely upon for the value of our money.

“In God we trust” isn’t telling you how to value you money.

[villa]

@Spit

Heh. I was curious what the opinion of “St. Petersburg”

I still call it Leningrad, because I am an old lefty. Yes, even the one in Florida.

[Der_Trihs]

@John_Mace

What??? Naming a place after a Christian Saint (or a symbolism of Christianity) is a nod to one particular religion. “God”, at least, can be interpreted broadly to apply to many religions.

It “can be”, but doing so is dishonest. It means the Christian god, specifically. It was put on by the money by Christians who hated all non-Christians and wanted to institutionalize their hatred. That is the meaning and purpose of that phrase.

[villa]

@Der_Trihs

It “can be”, but doing so is dishonest. It means the Christian god, specifically. It was put on by the money by Christians who hated all non-Christians and wanted to institutionalize their hatred. That is the meaning and purpose of that phrase.

Amen, brother.

[Malthus]

@Der_Trihs

It “can be”, but doing so is dishonest. It means the Christian god, specifically. It was put on by the money by Christians who hated all non-Christians and wanted to institutionalize their hatred. That is the meaning and purpose of that phrase.

This is kinda interesting:

Americans Approve of Public Displays of Religious Symbols

According to this poll, 90% of Americans approve of the use of the motto “In God We Trust” on coins … and 58% approve of the use of Christian symbols on public buildings, only if the symbols of other religions appear on public buildings. Only 10% approve of the use of only Christian symbols (29% think any such symbols of any religion inappropriate).

Additionally, Americans seem to reject the notion of the government’s blessing of only Christianity. In particular, only 10% of Americans say that it is acceptable to display only Christian symbols in public places or government buildings. The majority says that it is acceptable to display Christian symbols as long as symbols of other religions are displayed, and another 3 in 10 say it is not acceptable to display any religious symbols.

In sum, it appears that Americans are quite religious, and very tolerant of displays of religious symbolism, but aren’t all that particular about religious exclusivity.

[Musicat]

@John_Mace

“In God we trust” isn’t telling you how to value you money.

It is to me. It’s saying that we trust God in unspecified and possibly many ways. Since it’s on money, not fried eggs, I’d say it relates more to the value of money and our trust in its value than it does to fried eggs.

Although, it we printed money on fried eggs, at least anyone with a pocket full of money wouldn’t go hungry.[sup]*[/sup]

• Thank you, Walt Kelly

[villa]

@Malthus

In sum, it appears that Americans are quite religious, and very tolerant of displays of religious symbolism, but aren’t all that particular about religious exclusivity.

I think you see this disappear in practice. Non-exclusivity means allowing Protestant and Catholic things together, and even allowing the odd Star of David. People say they want multiple religious symbols, but I think if you started putting inverted crucifixes and pentagrams around, you might see just how far that level of tolerance actually went…

People can support “equality” for religions easily in a situation where they know Christianity is going to be dominant. When Christianity becomes a minority religion in an area, the support for religion interfering in politics kind of drops off. Allowing with planning permission for minarets.

[Shot_From_Guns]

Sorry, Malthus. I guess I’m supposed to sit back and applaud people in the Pit who open their ignorant fucking mouths to tell me that I should put up with being discriminated against and considered as a horrible human being because I don’t worship the god many other people in my country do, since it’s really not that big of a deal and they’ll get over it eventually. I apologize *so very much *for having offended you by getting offended at something that’s actually quite offensive.

@Spit

As are you. It really is not as big of a deal as you seem to think.

1.) Uh, no, I’m an atheist in America. I know *exactly *what much of the country thinks about me. One of the most popular slurs against our President is that he’s a closet Muslim, and it would *still *be easier to get elected as a follower of Islam than as someone who believes that there is no higher power.

2.) Yeah, it is. Anyone who doesn’t think so is a Christian, not an American, or living with their head up their ass.

@Giles

OK, we non-Americans will shut up about your culture if you Yankees will stop having opinions about the rest of the world.

I will heartily support an ass-tearing for anyone who makes equally ignorant statements about other cultures. If you can point out anywhere on this forum where *I’ve *made a dumbass statement about an serious issue in another country being nothing more than a “last gasp of tradition,” or something equivalently asinine, please feel free to do so, and I’ll apologize. If you can’t, I’ll thank you to kindly retract your prejudiced assumption.

Anybody who doesn’t think that the supremacy of Christianity in America has a significant effect on politics is ignorant. Plain and simple: it’s an undisputable fact. If you know so little about America that you do not realize this, you have no business offering an opinion on American culture–or if you do, you should be prepared that someone who’s offended by your ignorance is going to give you hell for it.

@Der_Trihs

It was put on by the money by Christians who hated all non-Christians and wanted to institutionalize their hatred. That is the meaning and purpose of that phrase.

Just like “under God” was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance to distinguish us from those horrid atheist Communists.*

*NB: Personally, I believe that the state atheism of the USSR (as with any state religion) *was *indeed horrible, because it was forced. However, the point of “under God” was not that forced atheism was horrible, but rather that all atheism was horrible, and that the Americans would overcome the Soviets because we were a Christian nation.

[Der_Trihs]

@villa

People can support “equality” for religions easily in a situation where they know Christianity is going to be dominant. When Christianity becomes a minority religion in an area, the support for religion interfering in politics kind of drops off. Allowing with planning permission for minarets.

Exactly. That’s why the majority of the time when there’s a separation-of-church-and-state lawsuit the people doing the suing aren’t atheists, but some minority religious group that’s being trampled on. The people who want the government involved in pushing religion want their religion to be the one pushed, whatever lies they tell otherwise.

And atop that, I was speaking of why the slogan was put on the money; not how believers today claim to feel.

[Baal_Houtham]

@Giles

Places like Los Angeles, San Francisco and Corpus Christi? I’m an atheist, and that doesn’t bother me at all – they are often named after the church or mission that was the first European settlement there. It doesn’t imply support of any religion, any more than the people who founded Mahomet, Illinois, were Muslims.

Agree. A proper name that’s centuries old doesn’t have any contemporary significance. I don’t expect someone named Baker to know how to cook.

But if there’s an explicit endorsement of a deity on my money, and a large part of the population gets highly agitated at the suggestion it be removed --that’s significant.

Mr. Mace, I’m extremely surprised to hear you feel city names constitute a more important endorsement of religion, than a direct endorsement on the currency. If I was moving overseas to a town called Buddhaville, I’d be inclined to think Buddhism would be highly respected there, but for people who grew up around St. Louis (or any other city) the name doesn’t feel like an endorsement of Catholicism.

[Spit]

@Shot_From_Guns

1.) Uh, no, I’m an atheist in America. I know *exactly *what much of the country thinks about me. One of the most popular slurs against our President is that he’s a closet Muslim, and it would *still *be easier to get elected as a follower of Islam than as someone who believes that there is no higher power.

2.) Yeah, it is. Anyone who doesn’t think so is a Christian, not an American, or living with their head up their ass.

“I’m an atheist in America”- How smug! I bet you feel special! Good for you!

:Thumbs up:

I’m an athiest (Well, since I can’t possibly know what is out there, I suppose there is a .01% of my brain that figures I am just a cell in some life form’s booger, but whatever) American with my head on my shoulders (according to the mirror). I can honestly say that in the rural, conservative, Christian area that I grew up in, I have never encountered any type of “hatred” towards myself. I’ve definitely been prayed for a few times, especially after I go on a rant about Jesus and what he really means to the world, but I have never felt threatened in any way.
Could be you that are just an ass who nobody likes.

[John_Mace]

@Baal_Houtham

Mr. Mace, I’m extremely surprised to hear you feel city names constitute a more important endorsement of religion, than a direct endorsement on the currency. If I was moving overseas to a town called Buddhaville, I’d be inclined to think Buddhism would be highly respected there, but for people who grew up around St. Louis (or any other city) the name doesn’t feel like an endorsement of Catholicism.

The issue is whether you are endorsing a specific religion (in this case, Christianity) or if you are just endorsing the general idea of religion. The latter is more inclusive, and so less of an “infraction”, if you will.

Supposing we put “In Jesus we trust” on the currency. Or, how about “In Saint Christoper we trust”?

[John_Mace]

@Musicat

It is to me.

Well, you’re easily influenced. It says nothing to me, because I don’t believe in God.

[Malthus]

@villa

I think you see this disappear in practice. Non-exclusivity means allowing Protestant and Catholic things together, and even allowing the odd Star of David. People say they want multiple religious symbols, but I think if you started putting inverted crucifixes and pentagrams around, you might see just how far that level of tolerance actually went…

People can support “equality” for religions easily in a situation where they know Christianity is going to be dominant. When Christianity becomes a minority religion in an area, the support for religion interfering in politics kind of drops off. Allowing with planning permission for minarets.

Nobody will deny that there is a significant amount of prejudice against certain religions - notably, in the modern US, Islam; but even there, it is not anywhere near as extreme as one would imagine. If you examine the Gallup poll I linked to, you will see that 41% of those polled approved of federal funds for social programs by Islamic religious organizations - as opposed to 61% approval for similar use of federal funds by Christian organizations.

I would except the example of ‘inverted crucifixes’, because most Christians would not understand that as someone’s actual religious symbol - it would be taken more as a deliberate desecration of their own.

[Malthus]

@Shot_From_Guns

Sorry, Malthus. I guess I’m supposed to sit back and applaud people in the Pit who open their ignorant fucking mouths to tell me that I should put up with being discriminated against and considered as a horrible human being because I don’t worship the god many other people in my country do, since it’s really not that big of a deal and they’ll get over it eventually. I apologize *so very much *for having offended you by getting offended at something that’s actually quite offensive.

Yeah, because that is exactly what I said**, and not a strawman of your own imagination at all.

1.) Uh, no, I’m an atheist in America. I know *exactly *what much of the country thinks about me. One of the most popular slurs against our President is that he’s a closet Muslim, and it would *still *be easier to get elected as a follower of Islam than as someone who believes that there is no higher power.

2.) Yeah, it is. Anyone who doesn’t think so is a Christian, not an American, or living with their head up their ass.

I will heartily support an ass-tearing for anyone who makes equally ignorant statements about other cultures. If you can point out anywhere on this forum where *I’ve *made a dumbass statement about an serious issue in another country being nothing more than a “last gasp of tradition,” or something equivalently asinine, please feel free to do so, and I’ll apologize. If you can’t, I’ll thank you to kindly retract your prejudiced assumption.

Anybody who doesn’t think that the supremacy of Christianity in America has a significant effect on politics is ignorant. Plain and simple: it’s an undisputable fact. If you know so little about America that you do not realize this, you have no business offering an opinion on American culture–or if you do, you should be prepared that someone who’s offended by your ignorance is going to give you hell for it.

I know I’m wasting precious electrons - but for the last time, the notion that the slogan on the coinage may be or over time become more or less meaningless mumbo-jumbo and the issue of the overall importance of religion in America are two different ideas. Both can be true at the same time! Woo!

Not to mention that my opinion just happens to coincide with that of the judges on your own courts who have examined the matter - and who, no doubt, are all just as “ignorant” of what it is like to be an American as I! Fancy that!

From the decision of Justice O’Connor in ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. v. NEWDOW et al - 542 U.S. 1 (2004):

http://supreme.justia.com/us/542/1/case.html

First, because the endorsement test seeks “to identify those situations in which government makes adherence to a religion relevant … to a person’s standing in the political community,” it assumes the viewpoint of a reasonable observer. Pinette, supra, at 772 (internal quotation marks omitted). Given the dizzying religious heterogeneity of our Nation, adopting a subjective approach would reduce the test to an absurdity. Nearly any government action could be overturned as a violation of the Establishment Clause if a “heckler’s veto” sufficed to show that its message was one of endorsement. See Pinette, 515 U. S. at 780 (“There is always someone who, with a particular quantum of knowledge, reasonably might perceive a particular action as an endorsement of religion”). Second, because the “reasonable observer” must embody a community ideal of social judgment, as well as rational judgment, the test does not evaluate a practice in isolation from its origins and context. Instead, the reasonable observer must be deemed aware of the history of the conduct in question, and must understand its place in our Nation’s cultural landscape. See id., at 781

The Court has permitted government, in some instances, to refer to or commemorate religion in public life. See, e.g., Pinette, supra; Allegheny, supra; Lynch, supra; Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S. 783 (1983). While the Court’s explicit rationales have varied, my own has been consistent; I believe that although these references speak in the language of religious belief, they are more properly understood as employing the idiom for essentially secular purposes. One such purpose is to commemorate the role of religion in our history. In my view, some references to religion in public life and government are the inevitable consequence of our Nation’s origins. Just as the Court has refused to ignore changes in the religious composition of our Nation in explaining the modern scope of the Religion Clauses, see, e.g., Wallace, supra, at 52-54 (even if the Religion Clauses were originally meant only to forestall intolerance between Christian sects, they now encompass all forms of religious conscience), it should not deny that our history has left its mark on our national traditions. It is unsurprising that a Nation founded by religious refugees and dedicated to religious freedom should find references to divinity in its symbols, songs, mottoes, and oaths.** Eradicating such references would sever ties to a history that sustains this Nation even today. See Allegheny, supra, at 623 (declining to draw lines that would “sweep away all government recognition and acknowledgment of the role of religion in the lives of our citizens”).

Facially religious references can serve other valuable purposes in public life as well. Twenty years ago, I wrote that such references “serve, in the only ways reasonably possible in our culture, the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, expressing confidence in the future, and encouraging the recognition of what is worthy of appreciation in society.” Lynch, supra, at 692-693 (O’Connor, J., concurring). For centuries, we have marked important occasions or pronouncements with references to God and invocations of divine assistance. Such references can serve to solemnize an occasion instead of to invoke divine provenance. The reasonable observer discussed above, fully aware of our national history and the origins of such practices, would not perceive these acknowledgments as signifying a government endorsement of any specific religion, or even of religion over non-religion.

Since I came to the same conclusion quite independantly, I guess I’m a “reasonable observer”.

Which is not of course to say that these judges can’t be wrong. Perhaps they are. But so far, it looks like it is me who is comming to this fight armed with actual evidence, and you with - well, bluster, bullshit, insults and claims of martyrdom.

As far as “ass tearing” - it seems your are intent on tearing your own wider. The notion that someone not living in America should “just shut [your] mouth” about American society is so laughably dumb, it speaks for itself. Keep diggin’.