I think this points to one of the problems with American politics, which places a value on the Moderate position without regard to whether the position in the middle is right in and of itself.
In this case, if there were atheists who were calling for the removal of religion from all public life (i.e., not just from government-sponsored life), who were trying to remove churches from the country, trying to establish a litmus test for office wherein nobody who believed in God could be elected, etc. – if this were happening, then THAT would become one of the extreme positions. The middle ground would become the position, “Don’t ban people from practicing religion privately, but don’t use taxes to fund religious expressions or practices, either.”
Unfortunately, the anti-God extremists don’t exist (at least, not in any real numbers). The furthest anyone goes in opposing religion is to call for the no-taxes-for-religious-expression argument, above.
So people assume that’s an extremist position, without regard to whether it’s a rational and fair and constitutional position, and they look for the middle ground between that position and the, “Let’s get God back into government!” position.
And they come up with what looks like a reasonable compromise to them: “Let’s allow just a little bit of religion back into our government!” Which is the middle ground, to be sure, but which is an unreasonable position.
Looks to me like we need some anti-God extremists to counter the pro-government-religion extremists; then the reasonable position will become the middle ground, and we’ll all be happy. Anyone want to volunteer?
I’ll just be glad when the 10 Commandments are out of there and Alabama can get back to arguing about important thing like how high the Confederate flag should fly.
Incidentally, Moore also didn’t disrupt any other film production crews while installing the commandments. He gave exclusive video rights to Coral Ridge Ministries in exchange for their words of encouragement and a $200,000 donation to his defense fund.
Let me give an example of what I consider extremism. I have no cite right now, when I find it, I’ll post it.
Last spring during [public] high school graduations, an honor student was slated to sing a song during the ceromony. But when it was learned that the song had a brief reference to God, the anti-religion factions went ape. It wasn’t the school administration itself promoting any religion, it was a student singing a song. it was a brief, lyrical reference to faith.
This is one of those things I think they should have let slide, rather than making such a God damn stink about it.
Had she been required by the school to sing such a song, then I feel that would be unconstitutional. Temporary references to God, faith, etc., are not the same as some zealot putting up a plaque or statute. It’s not like she got up there and started preaching or anything.
Inform the state security services! Send her to the re-education camps immediately! We must stamp out all references to these anti-humanist, counter-revolutionary superstitions!
Just trying to do my part to make American political discourse a little more enlightened.
How do you know that they are anti-religion? Is it possible that they may be trying to uphold what they thought to be the law of the land – regardless of what their own religious beliefs are? As a former teacher, I can tell you that that is far more likely to be the scenario.
Speaking only for myself it is my contention that religion and belief have a place in my life just as it did when I was a classroom teacher in a public school. My beliefs affected much of my teaching style. It affected my ability to forgive and to love and a hundred other things.
What my beliefs did not affect was my students’ rights not to have me mess with their beliefs. I understood and appreciated why I was not to lead students in prayer or to post Scriptures around the room. Frankly, I think that it would have been unChristian to have violated that right. And certainly it would have been professionally unethical.
Meanwhile, another teacher ignored the law. She posted religious texts in her room. The last one that I remember was at Christmas: “Jesus is the reason for the season.” She eventually lost her job and her license because one of her sexual liasons with her students was discovered.
Another teacher lost her job when she had a laying on of hands service to cure the headache of one of the students in her special education classes. They sat in the floor in a circle while she swayed and prayed and freaked the children out!
I contend that none of us were anti-religious.
The judge’s right to his beliefs does not end simply because he is required by law to allow others the same right. His religious beliefs may affect the way he conducts much of his business. He can say a private prayer in his chambers. He can hang the Ten Commandments on the wall in his office – where he is more likely to read them. He can treat people with kindness and love. But when he makes his judgments, they should be based on the laws of the nation and the state and not on the Biblical scripture that he has been known to quote in his decisions.
If we don’t require him abide by the law, then yes, plenty of people will be intimidated by his religious beliefs and the beliefs of any judge whose religion is different from their own. And rightly so.
First of all, it is not up to a bunch of zealots…be they atheist or Jesus freaks…to decide what the “law of the land” is. Secondly, the “law of the land”(:rolleyes: ) has to do with an established government religion. This kid was not ordered to sing this song, nor was it presented by any government entity. It was sung by a citizen whom just happened to be in a public building at the time she intended to sing it. By your standard someone who utterd “God Damn it!” in a school building would be guilty of violating someone elses 1st amendment rights. Absurd.
The student, by the way, after a brief legal fight, was allowed to sing the song.
Unfortunately, until you provide a cite there’s nothing to debate concerning this case. We don’t know what she tried to sing, who protested, or what their protest consisted of.
Hmm.this doesn’t say what the schools motivation was in trying to stop Rachel Honer from singing a song which has only 3 brief references to “God”. I’m thinking that the administration of the school has been rattled in the past by antis that they no longer can think for themselves or use any common sense.
I do remember hearing people on local radio talk shows, and reading letters to the editors of local papers. Half the folks were screaming that if she sang that song if would be a horrible violation of the 1st Amendments “seperation of church & state clause”:rolleyes: and the other half were ranting that a healthy dose of religion in public schools would help cure what ails them:rolleyes: :rolleyes: . Both sides, of course, are wrong.
The school did not “rule in her favor”. The school BACKED DOWN. There is a difference.
In the begining they should had thought about it a little before they made a knee jerk decision.
What an arrogant fucksack. Who does he think he is that he needs to speak for the public in acknowledging God, that anyone gave him that authority? The public is perfectly capable of acknowledging their Gods in their own ways if they choose, rather than being led in their appreciation by a self-appointed count pope-ula with pencils for arms.
The post you reference said: “Is it possible that they may be trying to uphold what they thought to be the law of the land?” The post does not say that these are Zoe’s beliefs. It also does not say they are the correct interpretation of the law. What it does say is that there are other explanations besides anti-religious zealotry for the district’s actions.
Seriously, every state has some nutjob politician or other figure making them look bad at one point or another but I love my state and there are many good things about it.
For the most part I, like This Year’s Model, cheered this post. I’ve quoted the bit I quibble with. While I have no doubt there are some who believe, as the original Puritans did, their mission is to get “everyone, believers and athiests alike” to proclaim Christianity, I’m not seeing that in NaSultainne’s position. He’s not saying the Ten Commandments should be posted everywhere, nor that everyone should have them in their living rooms. His position seems to be that, if a duly elected official, using private monies, and with the support of his constituents(remember, bringing the TC and Christian principles to the courtroom was one of Moore’s campaign issues), decides to place religious symbols in the court they are the leader of, then it should be considered religious expression akin to a Jewish judge being allowed to wear the yarmulke while on duty. It is the difference between allowed and mandated. NaSultainne seems to think it should be allowed, whereas your post speaks against the position that it should be mandated. Different thing.
Note, I disagree with the idea that it should be allowed. This is a public place and subject to the will of the public. The will of the public is most clearly outlined in the constitutions of Alabama and the US. They are not interested in establishment of religion in the public sector in any form. A small block of voters who managed to get Mr Moore onto the bench can’t override the state, or federal, constitution. Mr Moore will have to “acknowledge God” in some other way. A way which does not impact public property or government places.
Well, the second paragraph you quoted is of course hyperbole with satirical intent. In the original post I noted a number of ways in which Christians have the right to publicly proclaim their faith. NaSultainne (who I believe is actually a she) apparently finds that these are insufficient, because public officials are not allowed to put up religious monuments in public buildings which belong equally to all citizens, atheists and believers of all stripes. To quote again from the post I was responding to:
This is ludicrous. Equating the separation of church and state–even SOCAS as strictly enforced as I would like it to be (no more chaplains leading invocations at the beginning of legislative sessions, no more “In God We Trust” as the national motto)–with a regime of “hyper-censorship” in which “public declarations [of religion] are taboo” is absurd.
So, my third paragraph was just taking this stance (which seems to be all too common among a certain segment of Christians in this country) to its “logical” conclusion: Christians have churches, front laws, radio stations, bookstores, bumpers, etc.; the Supreme Court still doesn’t agree with me about “ceremonial deism” like IGWT on the money, prayers before opening Congress, etc.–but, there are no religious monuments in my house! Christians are being subjected to “hyper-censorship”! They’re being repressed!
(You know, this stuff really falls flat when you have to explain it…)
The hyperbole and satirical intent didn’t seem to transmit. The bit which made me think you actually attributed that position to NaSultainne was this bit
The direct address of the previous poster here was the sticky bit. If you had said “those poor Christians” in place of NaSultainne I think it would have come across clearer as satire instead of a representation of NaSultainne’s position. Even in the other paragraph I quoted, the one you didn’t specifically say was hyperbole with satiricial intent, you translated the arguement from allows to mandates. No one has made the case that every court and town hall HAVE TO proclaim Christianity. Simply that it should be allowable in some circumstances. As I said earlier, I disagree that it should be allowable, but this not the same as your non-hyperbolic paragraph represented with the “have to” comment.
My first post…not a good subject but, It seems to me if the monument violates people or persons rights…then why the hell do you have toSWEAR to tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help you GOD The ten commandments sorta go along with that dont they?
Ah, but you don’t have to swear to tell the truth, etc etc, so help you God. There are alternative methods of swearing in witnesses that don’t mention God.
