After bemusedly and amusedly(new word?) watching the separation of church and state trials and tribulations of last year (Judge Roy Moore’s 10-commandment monument removal, the suit over the Pledge of Allegiance’s words “under God”…) I began to wonder why all of this is EVEN being debated?
Ok, I can understand why Fundists, Missionaries, and others like to slime their beliefs all over everyone and everything they can. But removing them from the equation (which would solve probably 90% of all the world’s problems), why shouldn’t anything religious be removed from all public buildings, documents, money, television and radio, and the like?*
What’s the big deal about telling people to worship in their own homes or in their own churches/temples/synagogues/mosques/etc. and keep it there??**
*I can guess why the Founding Fathers included ‘God’ references in everything, and that it was unintentionally hypocritical in the light of Separation of C/S. And, yes, it will cost a lot to correct, but a mistake is a mistake.
**Is it too boring for them? Too much focus (and work) on Self? Any religion, when practiced correctly, concerns transforming the Self, which is something I would venture 99% of practicing religious people do NOT do because they are too caught up in transforming people, places, and things. I know they would argue that they already have worked on themselves and now they must turn their attention to their fellow man to help improve life on earth, etc. etc. etc., but, I’m sorry, IMHO that is a load of BS, and I would love to offer a Randi-type million dollar prize to anyone who can prove their ‘deeds’ for the good of fellow-man have been enacted AFTER improvement of Self. (That’d be a bitch to test, wouldn’t it?)
Well, beajerry, will you be the first person to join the Religious Police, and walk down the sidewalk jerking Bibles out of peoples hands, making sure they don’t bruise the ears of others with the name of (say it softly) God, never ever talk about religion in public, banish TBN and EWTN from cable, and make sure any kind of religious themes go away from all the airwaves (there goes Touched by an Angel, and certainly no Christmas cards through the mails…
There is a disctinction between public and government. I have no problem with the removal of the Ten Commandments, and think the inclusion of “under God” to be a mistake in the pledge (although once it is there, forbidding its use in the public schools is a mistake — the ruling of the Ninth was attacking the wrong thing, as usual for the Ninth). But going around making sure that folks don’t talk about God in public (including newspapers, radio, TV, and so on) violates the First Amendment, among other things.
I don’t think anyone seriously advocates this. The founders’ concern, what they tried to avoid, was that government officials would use the imprimatur of their positions to coercively prosletyze. “Separation of church and state” doesn’t (or shouldn’t) reach into the private sector too deeply.
I had a boss once (private sector) who encouraged his subordinates to come to prayer meetings and church functions. I thought that might cross a line somewhere, but after a polite “no” from yours truly, he didn’t persist. I hardly think legal action was warranted.
Years ago, I applied for a production job at The Washington Times and noticed pretty quickly that all the managers I talked to wore rings identifying them as members of the Unification Church (The paper is owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon). I didn’t pursue that job very fiercely; I draw the line at accepting my employer as the Saviour.
It’s pure power politics. The Christian fundies here want to slime their beliefs all over everyone with the help of the government because they think they can. In Middle Eastern countries, Islamic fundies slime their beliefs all over everyone with the help of government because they can.
The only logic here is the logic of mob rule and brute force. Just check out what happens to people who break sharia in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan under the Taliban.
I just want to try to understand you properly here - you want to go further than remove government sponsorship of religion and ban public(in the sense of ‘in public’, not 'funded by government) displays of religion?
Even, say, a couple of folks singing some religious song on their picnic blanket in the park? (without causing a breach of the peace, naturally)
I really wouldn’t mind having religious music adverts removed from stations like cartoon network, disney channel, and nickelodean. It’s just not appropriate unless they are going to let ANYONE buy time on the network. (Which I severely doubt they are going to do.)
There was an earlier thread where I brought this up in response to the use of the phrase “God Save America.” Age Quod Agis provided an useful explanation as to why its not controversial for God to be used in such a context:
My own reply had been that although Supreme Court justices find the word to be harmless, such is not the case with many Americans: “Considering the overwhelming presence of white Christians in the U.S., those of other ethnicities and religions can feel alienated when faced with a word strongly associated with the majority white Christian population. While God is the same as Allah or YHVH, its used more often to mean God in the Christian sense than any other.” (my reply)
But where should we draw the line? Personal fulfillment of religious obligations should always be maintained since it clearly falls under the First Amendment. Government sponsorship of God should not because government should remain separate from religion, regardless of how “harmless” it may seem.
Government offices can enforce on its employees dress codes, criteria for the maintenance of public spaces, and regulations as to what can and cannot be said. Surely it falls within my First Amendment right to suggest to all my female coworkers that we “get it on” at the earliest possible convenience and maybe even throw in a little friendly body contact for effect. No? Thats sexual harassment you say? Well, why can’t statutes based on the same idea be in place? Shouldn’t our behavior, our outward appearance be regulated when we’re on the clock, and that would include restriction of blatant religious behavior and paraphernalia to the minimum required by the religion.
Those are all private networks that you mention. Why shouldn’t a private network be allowed to let anyone they choose advertise on their network? You don’t have to watch if it offends you that much. Just like you don’t have to listen to Christian Rock, Country, or any other type of music.
I get sick of the idea that just because someone is "offended" by something, it should be banned from public access. I hate Designing Women and Leno, but I don't think they should be banned from TV. Why is religous programming any different? Lord knows I never watch that stuff, but all it means is one more click on the remote to find something decent.
To compare public displays of religion by private companies or inviduals (I am not even sure when this happens really outside of church and outside the Christmas season, but I'll play along for a moment) to the Muslim way of life in which religion is essentially the law is simply preposterous.
So no Christmas displays in the yards? No religous bumper stickers? No carrying Bibles in public.
I'd like to offer a quote from South Park, "Oh great! Kyle's mom is here to ruin Christmas!"
Private networks or not, these are the ONLY networks i’ve seens this commercial repeatedly advertised on. Add to the fact that these networks are advertised as being kid friendly and i think the picture becomes a little clearer. We have people who constantly complain about liquor/smoking/fatty food/sugary food being aimed at kids; I feel that this fundie advertising is along the same vein. I ought to be able to watch Family Guy without having be hit over the head with the Jesus loves you music commercial every 15 min. You don’t see Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, pagans, hare krishnas or mormons advertising on those networks. In fact if they tried too i be there would be outrage.
We ought to have two laws enshrined as part of the constitution:
One that says that no goverment or governmentally-created entity can compel or coerce anyone to believe a particular way or establish particular religious acts or objects; and
One that says that people are free to believe, or not believe, as they see fit.
Our fourth President even sketched out laws to that effect, very early on in our national existence.
I will not say anything bad about Christian music, especially since it is a certain person’s favorite type. And I happen to like Sonicflood. I do also like the irony that a Christian music company bought commercial time on Adult Swim.
That reminds me of something. Is there a distinction between culture and religious believes? If so, who is fit to make the distinction?
Lets take for example Christmas. In the U.S. at least, its a cultural phenomenon more than it is the celebration of the birth of the Christian Messiah. Hell, I have Buddhist friends who celebrate Christmas (i.e. give gifts, put up a tree). Should communities stop decoration of the neighborhood (i.e. wreaths, lighted trees) simply because the tradition is linked with Christmas?
Well for one I dislike Christianity in general. (yes I know it’s an unfair blanket statement, and yes I know it’s an immature way to think. I’ve had nothing but bad experiences with the faith, the various churches, and the adherants, so I’m a little justified.)
Mostly my objections stem from the fact that it’s on a network aimed at young impressionable viewers. It’s about the same to me as taking time out of sesame street to preach. While you can obviously change the channel, it’s still annoying that it’s not being aimed at regular viewers. As I’ve stated before if any other religious group tried advertising on these channels the outrage would be enourmous. I’m an all or none person and this double standard doesn’t sit well with me. We all know that anyone can buy time, but how long do you think a wiccan “teen Witch” kit commercial would last on Nickelodean?
Saul of Tarsis? Any more info on this person? Sounds interesting.
Mob rule? Sounds like the truth. But the mob rule by whom? By the wealthy (not really the mob but paid to look like it)?
My suggestion still stands. And not as some 1984 mind police.
Why can’t people practice at home or in their religous gathering place and leave public institutions alone?
Again, is it too hard to focus on Self? Is it too easy to focus on Others? Is that the crux of the problem with organized and individual religion?