# Religious fanatism in the US public sector **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 15, 2003, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434 "2003-08-15T18:05:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/141 "2003-08-18T06:44:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \* > \*\*vyager, > > See above. > And the religions support their own organisations. > > Salaam. A \*\* And why was there a law banning abortion at all? And why was it later allowed only in the first few weeks? Perhaps the religious beliefs of the legislators had something to do with it? Our abortion laws were overturned despite any religous beliefs, because the Supreme Court found them to be in violation of the Constitution. You have only asserted that religious subsidies could never influence a religion. Are the Jehovah’s Wittnesses subsidized? Scientologists? Mormons? The power to tax is the power to destroy. The way the US does it is to prevent any problems, not because there are guaranteed to be problems. Jimmy Carter is far more religious than Bush - but he, properly, never let his religion interfere with his civic duty. No matter what you might think of him as President, he is a great example of how private religious beliefs don’t have to disqualify one for office. Bush is a putz, but his religion is hardly his biggest problem. BTW, I lived in the Congo in 1961, right after the Belgians left. Read the history of the Congo some time. Don’t give me that Belgians can never do wrong - they can be and have been as evil or more evil than any other country, even America. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/142 "2003-08-18T06:55:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zoe \* > The big ruckus about saying the pledge is about nothing. A child is not required to say the pledge at all and does not have to explain why. I disagree. In many schools, the pledge is a ceremony that the entire class participates in. Even if a student goes against the school and refuses to say the pledge, they are often subjected to ridicule and/or harassment. To say that they aren’t “required” to say the pledge is a technicality; they can’t be arrested for it, but they are commonly pressured to participate. > [@](#): > > An occasional wacko teacher may think that he or she can _make_ the child say it, but soon learns differently. That is an extremely rare occurance. I know. I was a teacher for twenty years. _No one_ ever said the pledge in my room. You may not have in _your_ class, or even your school, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen elsewhere. > [@](#): > > My students tried writing it on the board one time and they didn’t even know the real words to it. Of course we all messed up the words when we were kids, either purposely or out of ignorance (“invisible” instead of indivisible, etc.), but the objectionable part is not what is usually messed up, i.e. “one nation under God”. It’s simple, concise, and quite obviously a violation of the Establishment Clause. Even a kid knows what “one nation under God” means. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/143 "2003-08-18T06:55:15Z")
I was looking for more information on Supreme Court decisions at [religioustolerance.com](http://religioustolerance.com) when I saw a short list of countries where religious freedom is declining. And guess what. Belgium made the list: The complete article is here: [http://www.religioustolerance.com/rt\_belgi.htm](http://www.religioustolerance.com/rt_belgi.htm) > [@](#): > > The Belgian Parliamentary Commission on Cults submitted a report to the Belgian Parliament in 1997. It identified 189 churches, sects, other religious groups, and para-church organizations as “cults”. The list covered a very wide range of religious groups, including the Amish Mission in Belgium, 2 Buddhist groups, Opus Dei (a lay Roman Catholic group), 21 Evangelical Christian denominations, Quakers, and Satanists. > > The Commission appeared to have adopted the fears of many Belgians with regards to small or emerging religious groups. Pastor Jules Lambotte, head of the Amish Mission commented: “In the minds of the population, all the churches which do not belong to the United Protestant Church of Belgium, officially recognized by the state, are cults.” ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/144 "2003-08-18T07:07:45Z")
**blowero** , the only time I have heard about problems have been in the handful of court cases that have been filed about it. Unless you can provide more specific information from a reliable source, I must rely on my own observations as a teacher (and a student) and the profession literature on the subject. I can understand making a few mistakes in the Pledge. But my students went to the chalkboard one at a time. One began writing the Pledge. He or she could keep going until a mistake was made and the next kid would take over. I went completely through the entire class and started over again before it was finally finished with “with liberty and gusto for all.” I gave up. As for myself, I refuse to take the Pledge. I have never been harrassed. The big issue is not whether children are forced to say “under God” or the Pledge itself. The issue is whether or not the words “under God” should be removed. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/145 "2003-08-18T07:29:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > **The quote you keep beating us over the head with is without a cite, and even if it _is_ true, it only proves he didn’t refer to God in most of his weekly radio addresses and press conferences.** I am the person who did the research, and I _did_ give a citation — look back at my original post on the matter. Here is the citation again: [President Bush’s radio addresses.](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/radio/) As for President Bush’s press conferences, [use the advanced search feature here](http://www.whitehouse.gov/search?ql=a&st=1&nh=10&lk=1&rf=0&text=0.). Search for documents that “must contain” “in the body” “the words” _God_, and “must contain” “in the title” “the phrase” _press conference_ dated “on or after” 1 January 2003. [The one result.](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html) Omit the requirement for the word _God_, and you can get a list of all the press conferences in 2003. (In case you’re curious, substitute deity words like _Lord, divine,_ or _providence_ get no results.) ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/146 "2003-08-18T07:30:34Z")
Also for **blowero** > [@](#): > > The U.S. Supreme Court already held, in 1943, that a compulsory pledge requirement is unconstitutional. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (before the words “under God” were added to the pledge). [http://www.civicmind.com/pledge.htm](http://www.civicmind.com/pledge.htm) ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/147 "2003-08-18T08:21:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zoe \* > **blowero** , the only time I have heard about problems have been in the handful of court cases that have been filed about it. Unless you can provide more specific information from a reliable source, I must rely on my own observations as a teacher (and a student) and the profession literature on the subject. If court cases have been filed, then it’s obviously a problem. I’ll try to do some research on specific cases, but the SDMB is about to go dark, so it’ll have to wait 'til tomorrow. But I’m curious, how many times would it have to happen in order to be wrong? Things may have changed, but when I was a kid, we were not given the option of _not_ saying the pledge. Everyone did it - period. > [@](#): > > The big issue is not whether children are forced to say “under God” or the Pledge itself. The issue is whether or not the words “under God” should be removed. I agree that’s more important (although both are important issues). I was just responding to what _you_ wrote. You said children aren’t forced to take the pledge, so I responded. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/148 "2003-08-18T08:24:27Z")
> [@](#): > > ## \*Originally posted by Zoe \* \*\*Also for **blowero** quote: > > ## The U.S. Supreme Court already held, in 1943, that a compulsory pledge requirement is unconstitutional. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (before the words “under God” were added to the pledge). > > [http://www.civicmind.com/pledge.htm](http://www.civicmind.com/pledge.htm) \*\* Yes, and I believe that many schools are now refusing to comply with that ruling. But, whether the pledge itself (rather than the “God” part) is a problem, is an entirely different issue, though. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/149 "2003-08-18T08:29:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Walloon \* > I am the person who did the research, and I _did_ give a citation — look back at my original post on the matter. Here is the citation again: My apologies, you DID give a cite and I missed it.:o ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/150 "2003-08-18T11:46:38Z")
> [@](#): > > So stop getting your jingoist panties in a bunch and accept that people have a right to their opinion. Well, thanks for your helpful comments, but if you think I’m a jingoist, you obviously have a different definition than I do. My objection to **Aldebaran’s** posts has nothing to do with his national origin or command of English. What does concern me is his habit of posting endless anti-American rants in GD, of asking ‘questions’ as an excuse to repeat those rants nearly verbatim, and his apparently deliberate ignoring of any factual meterial shows his opinions may be unfounded. You know, if his English is not so good, that’s fine with me. I’d prefer to think that is the case, rather than that he might be just another troll with some time to kill. You can relax now too. The train has already wrecked, several times over, and there’s really nothing more to say. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/151 "2003-08-18T15:25:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > \*\*If the government can “acknowledge” God, is it permissible for the government to “acknowledge” Jesus Christ? \*\* Free speech covers a lot of ground. If you’re looking for a line in the sand, it is somewhere between suggesting a course of action and implementing a course of action. Although I would consider posting something like “THE ten commandments” to be culturally insensative it is not implying a desire to convert people as they walk by. The US Supreme Court took considerable license when they interpreted the Constitution’s law invoking Church/State separation. If a ban on the mention of God was the intent of the founding fathers, I would expect it to be better spelled out. I fall in the catagory of those people who believe the Constitution was one of the most thoughtfully considered documents ever written. I give the writers considerably more credit (mentally) than the people in the Supreme Court today. I am not thrilled with the monument in question because it is so culturally limiting in country that thrives on diversity. The 10 commandments by themselves don’t warrant the loss of free speech that the Supreme Court has ascribed to them. If I were decorating a court, I would post a history of laws to see where they originated from and how other cultures have adapted them. The 10 commandments could easily fall into such a display. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/152 "2003-08-18T16:36:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by El\_Kabong \* > \*\*Well, thanks for your helpful comments, but if you think I’m a jingoist, you obviously have a different definition than I do. > > My objection to **Aldebaran’s** posts has nothing to do with his national origin or command of English. What does concern me is his habit of posting endless anti-American rants in GD, of asking ‘questions’ as an excuse to repeat those rants nearly verbatim, and his apparently deliberate ignoring of any factual meterial shows his opinions may be unfounded. > > You know, if his English is not so good, that’s fine with me. I’d prefer to think that is the case, rather than that he might be just another troll with some time to kill. > > You can relax now too. The train has already wrecked, several times over, and there’s really nothing more to say. \*\* I would agree with El\_Kabong, Alderbaran has consistently posted extremely negative posts against President Bush. I’m not trying to interfere with free speech, I’m just pointing out his agenda. I’m not sure if he deliberately ignored my response to his quest to learn what others think the word “Islam” means or if it subconsciously stuck in his craw. My response was “fundamentalism”. I again make the premise that Aldebaran does not understand the meaning of the word Fundamentalism and why it is used in the media to denote a religiously zealous person. Zealous practice of a religion, \*\* ANY\*\* religion, makes it easier to subvert the devoted follower to do things that are not considered part of the religion. I think, based on his earlier statements, that Alderbaran would agree with this. Alderbaran quote: (snip) **Islamic terrorists can’t exist since nothing what any terrorist can ever do can be called Islamic. These are the facts. All the rest is fantasy.** This implies that Alderbaran would find the actions of Mullahs who call for “the death of America” to be blasphemous and will result in the damnation of all who follow. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/153 "2003-08-18T17:50:28Z")
Walloon and El\_Kabong: I didn’t have time last night, but I went to the White House site that Walloon linked to, and did a little searching of my own. I searched “speeches and remarks” for the word “god”. **624 results found** I’m curious why, if you are trying to make a point about how often Bush refers to God, that you would entirely leave out his SPEECHES in your analysis. That’s bad enough, but for El-Kabong to repeatedly say in a smug, arrogant, and condescending tone that Walloon has proven the point, and that the OP is _refusing_ to acknowledge it, even when the OP said this: > [@](#): > > I don’t speak about “radio adresses or formal and informal press conferences” only. I speak about his public appearences in general in his function as president of the USA. Well, it’s just downright embarassing for you, isn’t it? Walloon, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just _overlooked_ Bush’s speeches, and didn’t deliberately exclude data in order to give a false impression, but IMO, it’s pretty sloppy research. By the way, if you search the whole site for God, lord and almighty, you get: God - 953:eek: Lord - 415 (could have other meanings though) Almighty - 124 Even if you discount the references to “Lord” that aren’t religious, we’re still averaging about one reference to God a day for this administration.😃 ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/154 "2003-08-18T18:25:01Z")
> [@](#): > > That’s bad enough, but for El-Kabong to repeatedly say in a smug, arrogant, and condescending tone that Walloon has proven the point, and that the OP is refusing to acknowledge it, even when the OP said this: > > > [@](#): > > > > I don’t speak about “radio adresses or formal and informal press conferences” only. I speak about his public appearences in general in his function as president of the USA. Three things, then I really am done with this mess, promise: 1. I think you’ve got your sequence a bit out of whack there. My main complaint was that **A** had clearly ignored **Walloon’s** rebuttal to his claim that Bush refers to God “constantly”. It would appear that he only acknowledged that this rebuttal even existed after being prodded several times, then claimed that the information was wrong, despite the citation. If I gave the impression I was still claiming lack of acknowledgement, sorry; I was referring to the OP’s overall and persistent habit of ignoring rebuttals in favor of restatements of claims already dealt with. 2. Likewise, my apologies to all if my remarks have come off as smug, arrogant or condescending. One would think that if such a label could be applied to any of my responses in the thread, they could be equally applied to many of the OP’s remarks, and certainly prior to my joining the discussion. But, like, whatever. Despite what anyone may think, I don’t want to pick fights, but I do object to having my leg peed on and being told it’s raining. 3. **Blowero** , I really don’t know who you are are, but if you’ve a serious problem with my 'tude, feel free to launch a Pit thread on the subject. My guess is you’ll get some agreement. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/155 "2003-08-18T18:42:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\* > Even if you discount the references to “Lord” that aren’t religious, we’re still averaging about one reference to God a day for this administration.😃 \*\* And I don’t like that, not one little bit. But, I don’t think I can call that “religious fanaticism” (or even fanatism). To me, a religious fanatic has to talk about their religion excessively and act upon their religion excessively. I know, that leaves me defining “excessively.” I’d say Bush qualifies as someone who talks excessively about his religion: He interjects religion into discussions where I feel religion isn’t warranted. But, and this might just be me, that isn’t enough for me to call someone a fanatic. Julie ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/156 "2003-08-18T19:02:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by El\_Kabong \* > Three things, then I really am done with this mess, promise: > > 1. I think you’ve got your sequence a bit out of whack there. My main complaint was that **A** had clearly ignored **Walloon’s** rebuttal to his claim that Bush refers to God “constantly”. It would appear that he only acknowledged that this rebuttal even existed after being prodded several times, then claimed that the information was wrong, despite the citation. But it _was_ wrong, or at least misleading. I’m not agreeing with everything the OP says, or defending his caustic style; I’m just saying that you’re wrong on this particular point. He did not ignore Walloon’s rebuttal; in fact he responded at least a couple of times. He plainly stated that he was not talking about press conferences and weekly radio addresses only, which was what Walloon’s response was about. Bush _does_ talk about God a lot, as even a cursory look at his speeches clearly shows. > [@](#): > > If I gave the impression I was still claiming lack of acknowledgement, sorry; I was referring to the OP’s overall and persistent habit of ignoring rebuttals in favor of restatements of claims already dealt with. Apology accepted. > [@](#): > > 1. Likewise, my apologies to all if my remarks have come off as smug, arrogant or condescending. One would think that if such a label could be applied to any of my responses in the thread, they could be equally applied to many of the OP’s remarks, and certainly prior to my joining the discussion. But, like, whatever. Despite what anyone may think, I don’t want to pick fights, but I do object to having my leg peed on and being told it’s raining. I never said the OP wasn’t being condescending, but then he’s already getting ganged up on pretty well, so there’s not much left for me to say on the subject. But just because you don’t care for his tone, and it insults your sense of patriotism, it doesn’t give you the right to continue to espouse misleading information about the Bush Administration. In this case it _really is_ raining; you just _thought_ your leg was getting peed on. > [@](#): > > 1. **Blowero** , I really don’t know who you are are I’m just a fighter of ignorance.😉 > [@](#): > > but if you’ve a serious problem with my 'tude, feel free to launch a Pit thread on the subject. My guess is you’ll get some agreement. Nah, no need for that. I just thought you were coming on a bit strong on this one point, and I felt like I needed to inject a little reason into the discussion. The guy had already responded; I just wanted you to stop browbeating him. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/157 "2003-08-18T19:05:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jsgoddess \* > But, and this might just be me, that isn’t enough for me to call someone a fanatic. > > Julie I agree - even for Dubya, that’s too strong a word. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/158 "2003-08-18T19:33:35Z")
> [@](#): > > Islamic terrorists can’t exist since nothing what any terrorist can ever do can be called Islamic. > These are the facts. All the rest is fantasy. Sounds like we have an SMDB “Information Minister”.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/159 "2003-08-18T19:35:38Z")
SDMB, of course, not SMDB. Damn dyslexic fingers!! ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/160 "2003-08-18T20:04:22Z")
I limited the time period to 2003; you’re drawing from 2001-2003. If you search on “speeches and remarks” and limit the results to 2003 (as I did also for radio addresses and press conferences), you get 131 uses of the word _God_ by President Bush (5 additional are from speeches by the vice president and his wife), out of about 285 speeches and remarks. If you look even closer, you find that most of those uses are boilerplate closing lines to his speeches, e.g., “Thank you for coming, and God bless.” Searching for _almighty_ among “speeches and remarks” finds 26 uses, but virtually all of those are from the phrase _Almighty God_, and thus are already included in the 131 uses above. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434.md?page=9)