Yes, it “offends” me that someone with a different religious viewpoint could have a public forum if there is the appearance of the federal government endorsing this viewpoint by financing its dissemination. This offends me because the Constitution says that the government cannot do this; specifically, that the gov’t cannot use my tax dollars to endorse any religion – even my own. Note that I am making a distinction between a “public” forum (i.e. outside the privacy of one’s home) and a “federally funded” forum (public or otherwise).
Government financing of political views in general (whether mine or others) is not “offensive” to me because we don’t have a Constitutional ban on such things. So yes, it is different.
On the other hand, it i]does* concern me that there are politicians who espouse platforms which are strongly-based on a particular religious viewpoint. I support their rights to believe as they wish, but I worry that such politicians will work for federal endorsement of their particular religion.
Yes. The kids aren’t just “doing it”; they’re doing it in an environment paid for by the US government, and so their praying has the appearance of being endorsed by the US gov’t. The Constitution does not say that separation of church and state applies only to agents and employees of the federal government.
I am not endorsing religionlessness in all public fora – only in those which are supplied with federal funds and resources.
As I said earlier, if one wishes to indulge in the public expression of religious beliefs, there are plenty of avenues for doing so without asking the US gov’t to pay for it.
In the example of a prayer over the loudspeaker at a school-sponsored event, what are you going to do if more than one person wants to lead a prayer? Let’s say that along with the Christian who wishes to pray over the loudspeaker, a Wiccan, a Devil Worshipper, a Jew, and a Buddhist all want to say a prayer over the loudspeaker. Are they all going to be allowed to? That would be the fair thing to do, but there will be people who demand to just to cause trouble, or who wish to say a very lengthy prayer. It could take hours. Someone has to decide that not everybody is going to be able to say a prayer, and unless NOBODY can say a prayer (which is unacceptable to those who are for it) they are going to have to decide which prayers get said. By doing so they will be endorsing one religion.
Yeah, yeah. Everyone can pray or not pray, give or not give, but how about just a little common courtesy for those with differing views? Oh well, something to wish for…
foolsguinea, even though you seem to display some knowledge of various religions, several statements you made are very disturbing, espacially:
We also have laws against theft, rape and murder. If someone feels strongly enough about a religion that requires those do you say the same thing? The heck with your law, God says I should rape your sister and kill you".
Badtz Maru I agree. I had very much the same thought earlier in this thread; if you say one prayer, you gotta say 'em all. Which is cumbersome, if not impossible. The only reasonable solution is to say no prayer at all.
Sure, this might be objectionable to those in favor of prayer, but saying a prayer before a public-school football game (to stick to the example we’ve been using) isn’t a requirement; it’s a personal choice/preference. So if someone wants to exercise their right to pray under those circumstances, then they have to find some way to do it privately. This is not the same as denying them the right to pray at all.
It’s the only reasonable way to balance religious freedom and anti-establishment. And, I think, the only considerate way to co-exist with people whose beliefs (or lack thereof) might be quite different than your own.
Zenster I’m not even sure that “religiouslessness” is a word! Anyway, you’ve got quite a thread going here.
I read a quote about a week ago (I can’t remember where, but I swear I’m not making this up, and no, it wasn’t the Onion) that when several Texas football players were asked about doing this, they all agreed that it was okay, as long as these other prayers mentioned Jesus.
Kyla I guess that’s from the “truth is stranger than fiction” department. Sad thing is, I can believe it!
Now, the medieval Vikings had no problem with this. As one of my fellow grad students was fond of saying: “The Vikings worshipped the holy trinity of Odin, Thor and Christ.”
A very practical and reasonable solution to an otherwise difficult problem… the unfortunate thing about some (not all) monotheistic religions is that they forbid the acceptance of other belief systems, even while preaching tolerance and respect for “our brothers, our fellow human-beings”. I mean, whatever happened to “love thy neighbor as thyself”?
Hey, this is a semi-hijack, but pertains to the topic at hand… if a school were to make it official policy that all students/staff were required to tolerate all opposing religious points of view (to a reasonable extent, of course), would that violate the Seperation of Church and State? Not trying to be insultive, it’s just that my addled brain (at 4:09 AM) got that notion all of a sudden…
Spoofe Not in principle, I think, but you’d have to define “tolerate” more clearly. And the school would have to prepared to accommodate all possible religious beliefs – including atheism and agnosticism. What you do for one, you must do for all; if you can’t do for all, then you must do for none.
I think it would very, very difficult to accomplish what you suggest in practice.
The problem with toleration is that it tiptoes on the border of freedom of speech. If someone has a stupid idea and feels compelled to voice it, the government cannot do a damned thing to stop me from indulging in counterspeech. I can’t separate religion from any other areas of discourse. Why should I be compelled by the government to tolerate someone’s religion if I don’t have to tolerate his stupid ideas in other areas?
What has been accomplished in this area of policy is the passage of hate crimes laws, which impose stiffer penalties on crimes motivated by race, etcc. Getting these laws passed for hate crimes against gays and lesbians has been difficult enough. Imagine trying to pass them for observers of nontraditional religions.
Furthermore, why should only schools be subjected to this law? Many people favor regional control of their school districts, especially since they do not live on federal bread alone. So do you really think the federal government can interfere like this?