Ceremonial Deism - HORSEFEATHERS!

[Shot_From_Guns]

@Spit

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’m not talking about how individual Christians treat individual atheists they actually know. I’m talking about how America, on the whole, views non-Christian religions, agnostics, and atheists. And it is an *indisputable fact *that atheists are generally considered unqualified to hold elected office (by a significant minority if not a majority), and that people who follow non-mainstream religions (especially a religion diametrically opposed to Christianity, like Satanism, or one that is seen by Christians to be diametrically opposed, like Wicca or other pagan religions) can and have suffered considerable pushback from the Christian majority and the government it represents when they attempt to exercise their right to have their religion publicly acknowledged in the same way as Christianity.

1.) Consider the case of Sgt. Patrick Stewart, a Wiccan member of the U.S. Army who was KIA in Afghanistan. His family was initially not allowed to display a pentacle on his tombstone.

2.) Polls consistently show that people in the U.S. are still highly prejudiced against atheists.

@Malthus

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

You asked "[w]hat crawled up [my] ass and died, said I was "being bitchy, and told me it’s “just too bad” if I don’t like your (ignorant) opinion. Are you trying to claim that the whole thing was a whoosh and you really were supporting me? Because the only alternative is that you were, in fact, telling me that I should just shut up when you ignorantly opine that bigotry against a class of people to which I belong isn’t that big of a deal.

The notion that someone not living in America should “just shut [your] mouth” about American society is so laughably dumb, it speaks for itself.

I agree entirely. Which is why it’s important that I was telling you to shut your mouth *not *because you’re not American, but because you’re clearly ignorant on this particular aspect of American culture, a possibility to which you should be sensitive, since you don’t have first-hand experience with living in it. **villa **isn’t American, either, and you don’t see me telling him to shut up.

[villa]

@Malthus

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.

I did look at the poll, and I am not denying it says what you say it does - though the idea of that big a gap between those who would allow unconstitutional use of funding for Christian organizations and those who would allow it for Islamic institutions is massive and scary as shit…

But I simply don’t think the poll is true. People aren’t necessarily lying to the pollsters, as they believe what they are saying. But their viewpoints change when they are in a situation that isn’t Christian dominated.

And, for the record, I think state support for religion is actually equally as damaging for believers as it is for atheists.

[Malthus]

@Shot_From_Guns

You asked "[w]hat crawled up [my] ass and died, said I was "being bitchy, and told me it’s “just too bad” if I don’t like your (ignorant) opinion. Are you trying to claim that the whole thing was a whoosh and you really were supporting me? Because the only alternative is that you were, in fact, telling me that I should just shut up when you ignorantly opine that bigotry against a class of people to which I belong isn’t that big of a deal.

So, you dumb shit, I told you all those thinks because you ignorantly and offensively told me to shut up on the topic because I wasn’t American. The “offensively” part is okay, this being the pit - but the ignorant part isn’t. If you are offensive, you have an obligation to be clever and/or funny with it.

I said absolutely nothing about putting up with “bigotry” against anyone, or told you to “shut up” (!) - you are pulling that straight out of your ass. I told you that if you didn’t like what I had to say, too bad. Which I repeat.

I agree entirely. Which is why it’s important that I was telling you to shut your mouth *not *because you’re not American, but because you’re clearly ignorant on this particular aspect of American culture, a possibility to which you should be sensitive, since you don’t have first-hand experience with living in it. **villa **isn’t American, either, and you don’t see me telling him to shut up.

Heh, yeah, I clearly cannot have an opinion on matters American, or any first hand experience of America. Toronto being as distant from the US as Timbuctoo. :rolleyes:

I note you are of course totally ignoring the actual evidence presented, or making any argument. Such niceties are evidently beyond you.

[Malthus]

@villa

I did look at the poll, and I am not denying it says what you say it does - though the idea of that big a gap between those who would allow unconstitutional use of funding for Christian organizations and those who would allow it for Islamic institutions is massive and scary as shit…

But I simply don’t think the poll is true. People aren’t necessarily lying to the pollsters, as they believe what they are saying. But their viewpoints change when they are in a situation that isn’t Christian dominated.

And, for the record, I think state support for religion is actually equally as damaging for believers as it is for atheists.

That may be the case (though there is no evidence so far presented to support it). Let’s assume for the purposes of argument that it is. What’s the implications of that?

Assume as fact that Christians become a minority of the population, so that they are in a situation not ‘Christian dominated’. Isn’t the natural effect of this going to be that their political power would be that of a minority as well? In short, if they become less tolerant of others, will this not also matter less?

[villa]

@Shot_From_Guns

**villa **isn’t American, either, and you don’t see me telling him to shut up.

At least you know I am male now. I’m making progress.

[villa]

@Malthus

That may be the case (though there is no evidence so far presented to support it). Let’s assume for the purposes of argument that it is. What’s the implications of that?

Assume as fact that Christians become a minority of the population, so that they are in a situation not ‘Christian dominated’. Isn’t the natural effect of this going to be that their political power would be that of a minority as well? In short, if they become less tolerant of others, will this not also matter less?

Yes and no. It tends to happen on an extremely localized level, though. We aren’t looking at a time where the country will become minority Christian (whatever the crazy right wing nutters tell us).

So in the extremely small area, you see Christian groups, with national political clout, screaming about persecution when what is happening is exactly what they have imposed on minority religions and non-believers while in the majority for decades.

Perhaps a better, less confrontational way of putting it is that believers don’t see the level of discrimination in society until they believe it is aimed at them. Once in a minority, when a different religious majority is receiving the backing of the local government, they scream blue murder, and seek to use their overall majority status to revert to what they mistakenly see as the neutral position, but in fact was one that favored their religious grouping.

[Malthus]

@villa

Yes and no. It tends to happen on an extremely localized level, though. We aren’t looking at a time where the country will become minority Christian (whatever the crazy right wing nutters tell us).

So in the extremely small area, you see Christian groups, with national political clout, screaming about persecution when what is happening is exactly what they have imposed on minority religions and non-believers while in the majority for decades.

Perhaps a better, less confrontational way of putting it is that believers don’t see the level of discrimination in society until they believe it is aimed at them. Once in a minority, when a different religious majority is receiving the backing of the local government, they scream blue murder, and seek to use their overall majority status to revert to what they mistakenly see as the neutral position, but in fact was one that favored their religious grouping.

That’s a fair point - if I may summarize, that the majority has a certain unnoticed privilege, which they do not perceive as such and which they feel as persecution when they are deprived of it.

I would note though as a countervailing pressure that a decrease in majority status is often associated with an increase in cosmopolitanism.

The example of my home province is instructive - in the past, Ontario was solidly under the control of a Protestant religious establishment. With immigration, that establishment essentially died - in the cities first, then the countryside - without any great disruption.

[mhendo]

@Malthus

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

I’ve read the Elk Grove decision a bunch of times, and i’m going to have my students read it this semester in a college-level class i’m teaching. And no matter how many times i read it, the reasoning that you quoted sounds like nothing more than sophistry and tendentious rationalization to me.

I don’t think that having references to God on the currency or in the pledge is the end of the world, but at the same time you will never convince me that it isn’t “a government endorsement…of religion over non-religion.” Whatever the learned justices might say, i don’t see how your archetypal “reasonable person” could come to any other conclusion.

To say that a religious slogan or a prayer or something similar has a “legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions” is to assume that this is the only way such occasions can be solemnized. I can think of plenty of ways to mark the solemnity of an occasion without reference or appeal to a deity.

And the whole “heckler’s veto” argument is hilarious. The learned justices spend their lives splitting hairs, making important decisions based on minute turns of constitutional interpretation and parsing of precedent. They have shown themselves quite capable, in dozens of other cases, of being able to separate out obvious examples from borderline or silly cases. And, as a religious statement, a direct reference to God is as obvious as dogs’ balls.

[jayjay]

@Bricker

Do you know the way to San Jose?
I don’t because it’s been renamed…
[/Dionne Warwick]

You know, government by Bacharach is worse than theocracy, from an aesthetic standpoint…

[Malthus]

@mhendo

I’ve read the Elk Grove decision a bunch of times, and i’m going to have my students read it this semester in a college-level class i’m teaching. And no matter how many times i read it, the reasoning that you quoted sounds like nothing more than sophistry and tendentious rationalization to me.

I don’t think that having references to God on the currency or in the pledge is the end of the world, but at the same time you will never convince me that it isn’t “a government endorsement…of religion over non-religion.” Whatever the learned justices might say, i don’t see how your archetypal “reasonable person” could come to any other conclusion.

To say that a religious slogan or a prayer or something similar has a “legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions” is to assume that this is the only way such occasions can be solemnized. I can think of plenty of ways to mark the solemnity of an occasion without reference or appeal to a deity.

And the whole “heckler’s veto” argument is hilarious. The learned justices spend their lives splitting hairs, making important decisions based on minute turns of constitutional interpretation and parsing of precedent. They have shown themselves quite capable, in dozens of other cases, of being able to separate out obvious examples from borderline or silly cases. And, as a religious statement, a direct reference to God is as obvious as dogs’ balls.

I agree that the notion that some sort of reference to a diety is the only way to solemnize an occasion strikes me as wholly absurd, and indeed, provably false. That doesn’t however mean that it cannot be a traditional way to do so, rooted in the history of this particular culture. That part of the argument isn’t absurd.

As for a “reasonable person”, obviously I’m siding with the judge here - a review of the history of the matter indicates that these things were adopted for reasons that made historical sense at the time, but may make less or no sense now that society has moved on.

The judge is saying that the test must be an objective one and that this case doesn’t meet it - which I’m inclined to agree with. The mere fact that god is referenced on the coinage does not of necessity mean that this government, today, endorses a particular or any god, any more that a Roman Emperor Trajan endorsed having a republic by the use of the slogan SPQR on his coins, even though the reference to the Roman Republic could not have been more obvious.

What is important is the use of the phrase itself. Like the all-seeing eye-in-the-pyramid on the Great Seal of the US, it isn’t what the thing means that is the significant part - is is simply part of the heraldry.

[Spit]

@Shot_From_Guns

I’m not talking about how individual Christians treat individual atheists they actually know. I’m talking about how America, on the whole, views non-Christian religions, agnostics, and atheists. And it is an *indisputable fact *that atheists are generally considered unqualified to hold elected office (by a significant minority if not a majority), and that people who follow non-mainstream religions (especially a religion diametrically opposed to Christianity, like Satanism, or one that is seen by Christians to be diametrically opposed, like Wicca or other pagan religions) can and have suffered considerable pushback from the Christian majority and the government it represents when they attempt to exercise their right to have their religion publicly acknowledged in the same way as Christianity.

1.) Consider the case of Sgt. Patrick Stewart, a Wiccan member of the U.S. Army who was KIA in Afghanistan. His family was initially not allowed to display a pentacle on his tombstone.

2.) Polls consistently show that people in the U.S. are still highly prejudiced against atheists.

You asked "[w]hat crawled up [my] ass and died, said I was "being bitchy, and told me it’s “just too bad” if I don’t like your (ignorant) opinion. Are you trying to claim that the whole thing was a whoosh and you really were supporting me? Because the only alternative is that you were, in fact, telling me that I should just shut up when you ignorantly opine that bigotry against a class of people to which I belong isn’t that big of a deal.

I agree entirely. Which is why it’s important that I was telling you to shut your mouth *not *because you’re not American, but because you’re clearly ignorant on this particular aspect of American culture, a possibility to which you should be sensitive, since you don’t have first-hand experience with living in it. **villa **isn’t American, either, and you don’t see me telling him to shut up.

So someone who is intolerant and prejudiced against a group of people is going to tell the rest of us how to be tolerant and not be prejudiced against their (and mine for the most part) group? Nice.

I guess your bigotry isn’t a “Big deal”, eh? I couldn’t imagine waking in the morning with all of that hatred.

[Mr.Moto]

In the case of Sgt. Stewart, it seems to me that government officials treated his family with considerable respect while the dispute was being settled, which it ultimately was in his favor.

I can’t see this as a sign of disrespect - rather the opposite, actually.

[villa]

@Malthus

That’s a fair point - if I may summarize, that the majority has a certain unnoticed privilege, which they do not perceive as such and which they feel as persecution when they are deprived of it.

I would note though as a countervailing pressure that a decrease in majority status is often associated with an increase in cosmopolitanism.

The example of my home province is instructive - in the past, Ontario was solidly under the control of a Protestant religious establishment. With immigration, that establishment essentially died - in the cities first, then the countryside - without any great disruption.

Damn it - stop being reasonable. I might have to agree with you.

[villa]

@Mr.Moto

In the case of Sgt. Stewart, it seems to me that government officials treated his family with considerable respect while the dispute was being settled, which it ultimately was in his favor.

I can’t see this as a sign of disrespect - rather the opposite, actually.

That’s kind of my point. A member of a majoritarian religion is never going to have to face this, and looking at it from the outside, can say the family was treated with considerable respect and that he won in the end.

(I don’t know your religious beliefs/cultural background, Mr. Moto, so please don’t think I am referring to you personally here.)

But a Christian wouldn’t have to be treated with respect and win in the end when deciding what to put on his son’s tombstone. Being polite to the black folk and giving them a nice waiting room to sit in while you decide if you are going to let them into the movie theater may be better than hozing them down with water cannon, and may even seem like “respect” to the white onlooker, but it is still discrimination.

[John_Mace]

“Hozing”. I like it. It’s sort of like a combination of hosing and hazing.

[villa]

I never claimed to be able to spell!

(Prior claims of being able to spell should be viewed as for informational purposes only)

[Mr.Moto]

@villa

That’s kind of my point. A member of a majoritarian religion is never going to have to face this, and looking at it from the outside, can say the family was treated with considerable respect and that he won in the end.

(I don’t know your religious beliefs/cultural background, Mr. Moto, so please don’t think I am referring to you personally here.)

But a Christian wouldn’t have to be treated with respect and win in the end when deciding what to put on his son’s tombstone. Being polite to the black folk and giving them a nice waiting room to sit in while you decide if you are going to let them into the movie theater may be better than hozing them down with water cannon, and may even seem like “respect” to the white onlooker, but it is still discrimination.

Um, you are making the mistake here of thinking that all Christians are alike and that they would all want the same thing on their tombstone.

This link not only shows the wide array of symbols available for immediate use but also shows the process used to add a new one. Note that some of the Christian symbols are quite different from one another, as indeed the various denominations differ considerably.

These rules are necessary, as veterans cemeteries have to preserve a uniform appearance. The deceased and his family of course have the option of a private burial if these restrictions are too confining.

[villa]

@Mr.Moto

Um, you are making the mistake here of thinking that all Christians are alike and that they would all want the same thing on their tombstone.

This link not only shows the wide array of symbols available for immediate use but also shows the process used to add a new one. Note that some of the Christian symbols are quite different from one another, as indeed the various denominations differ considerably.

I don’t see I am making that mistake at all. However, I will alter it to a Christian being far less likely to have to face this. And a majoritarian Christian - won’t have to face this. It’s the very nature of the beast when it comes to a democracy - where the government has to present a list of options, they will be aimed to cover as many people as possible, whether it is languages for official leaflets or inscriptions on tombstones.

But that doesn’t alter my basic point (though it does impact the analogy, I accept) - minority beliefs or non-beliefs are on the outside, looking in, in a way that members of the majority simply don’t realize most of the time.

[Mr.Moto]

I can see that - and I don’t want to minimize it. However, I don’t think Sgt. Stewart’s case was a terribly good example here.

Government employees treated his family politely, from what I can see, and within a year and a half of his death the decision was reversed and the pentacle was placed on his tombstone.

[Shot_From_Guns]

@Malthus

So, you dumb shit, I told you all those thinks because you ignorantly and offensively told me to shut up on the topic because I wasn’t American.

Nope, there you go again. Funny, for someone who’s so concerned that I’m straw-manning him, you can’t even get my instructions to you right. What I told you to do was to shut your mouth after “I’m not American” when you get the urge to spew forth an opinion on a part of our culture you’re demonstrably ignorant about. My challenge still stands: find any place, anywhere on this site where I’m offering an opinion on a culture that I have no experience with, telling people who actually live in the culture that if they just wait, the problem will go away.

I said absolutely nothing about putting up with “bigotry” against anyone, or told you to “shut up” (!) - you are pulling that straight out of your ass.

Not in so many words, no. But the thrust of your meaning is that I should have just kept my mouth shut instead of observing that you don’t have the background to have an informed opinion on this subject.

@Malthus

Assume as fact that Christians become a minority of the population, so that they are in a situation not ‘Christian dominated’.

Being a minority in numbers doesn’t make a group a minority in power. Consider the percentage of the U.S. that’s “white” (IIRC approaching 50%), or the percentage that’s male (IIRC slightly under 50%).

@villa

At least you know I am male now. I’m making progress.

Wait, so you *are *American? I could swear I’d seen things from you that implied you weren’t a U.S. citizen (though living here, I think).

@Malthus

That’s a fair point - if I may summarize, that the majority has a certain unnoticed privilege, which they do not perceive as such and which they feel as persecution when they are deprived of it.

My god, it’s almost as though someone who has a better grasp on our culture was able to explain why you, and your cite, completely missed the mark of the reality of the situation in the U.S.! What a shock.

@mhendo

And no matter how many times i read [the Elk Grove decision ], the reasoning that you quoted sounds like nothing more than sophistry and tendentious rationalization to me.

**mhendo **gets it, too. Just because somebody with a fancy position in our judicial system said something doesn’t mean it’s right. We’ve had some deeply disgusting things put on paper in our history by people across all branches of our government.

Ceremonial deism is legal in the U.S., or we wouldn’t have this thread. So obviously there must be legal opinions in favor of it. What do you think the odds are that the judges who see no problems with having Christian-compatible (and only Christian-compatible) religiosity on government-related things are all… wait for it… Christian?

@Spit

So someone who is intolerant and prejudiced against a group of people is going to tell the rest of us how to be tolerant and not be prejudiced against their (and mine for the most part) group?

Please, enlighten me: against whom am I intolerant and prejudiced? Oh boy, I really hope this is going to be an attempt to play the, “You’re being intolerant of my intolerance, so you’re a hypocrite!” card.

@Mr.Moto

However, I don’t think Sgt. Stewart’s case was a terribly good example here. Government employees treated his family politely, from what I can see, and within a year and a half of his death the decision was reversed and the pentacle was placed on his tombstone.

1.) How many Wiccans were not allowed to have pentacles on their tombstones before his family fought hard enough to earn his rights?

2.) Why did they have to fight at all?

3.) Politeness when in the process of getting someone rights that they’ve been unconstitutionally denied is not something to be applauded. It’s a baseline minimum requirement.