Witnessing in commercials

Great Debates
41

:rolleyes: And some believers want a crucifix in every classroom and a mandatory prayer before every class. Hogwash, I say.

As I said, it’s a grey area. In my opinion, you are correct that exposure to a variety of beliefs is a good thing. What constitutes advocating? I don’t know, although I think a case-by-case consideration may be the only way to arrive at an answer. As to exclusion, obviously a check-list of “approved” religions is just silly. (Catholicism? Check. Judaism? Check. Wiccan? Check. Shintoism? Oh, damnit! Who forgot to include the Shinto display?) At the same time, I think that putting a 10-ton marble slab with the 10 commandments in front of a courthouse crosses the line. (Although there are other considerations there also, as any display that proclaims “There is no other God” is objectionable, in my opinion.)

Fortunately, I have no interest in advocating for any particular belief. I wish more people felt the same, so that it wasn’t even an issue.

42

[QUOTE]

me too and an added , “you have some vague concept of the constitution don’t you?”

good point. I hadn’t thought of that. Personally I am completely unthreatened and unoffended by “there is no God but Allah” or “Jesus is Lord” or “God is Dead” Choose your own path I say. Certain beliefs seem to be more confrontational.
I thought of making a Tshirt that said on the front "There is no God but…
and on the back…Allah, Jehovah, Yaweh, Jesus, I AM, etc etc.

I think people should be true to what they believe. So if you believe Jesus is the only way then be true to that. It will lead to some confrontaions and hopefully the nature of your beliefs will evolve. I don’t advocate any particular belief either except truth, and love.
good points.

43

Heh. I think it’s way more ethical than United American Technologies (link grabbed from yesterday’s Fark). The telemarketers around here (quite few, thankfully) don’t come anywhere near this.

One might say that if you personally think it’s morally right, then this kind of thing, by definition, is.

44

and thats not a metaphor. I mean Holy crap!! They prove they’re holy by telling a bunch of crap. Any chance they’re going to be sued by some of the companies they’re telling lies about?

45

Getting back to the OP, the guy is paying for commercial time. Shouldn’t he be able to say pretty much anything he pleases? I see TV commercials for the Mormon church. Why shouldn’t he be able to use his paid airtime for his own message?

If you’d prefer to broadcast an atheist or agnostic message, just pony up some cash and have at it.

46

Unfortunately, it seems some religious messages are more broadcast-worthy than others:

47

Was that an ABC-run ad or a local channel affiliate run FOTF ad?

I thought ABC & ABC Family both ran the UCC ad? It would be really weird for ABC to reject it while ABC Fam (still “The 700 Club” flagship station) aired it.

48

I’ve ssen the add. It was edited form the original to not show the same sex couple.
I’m not sure but possibly the unteracial couple was also edited out.

49

I just have to add the line from the Nick Cave song “The Mercy Seat”

"Christ was born into a manger
And like some ragged stranger
He died upon the cross
Might I say, it seems so fitting in its way
He was a carpenter by trade"

50

Likewise with Hobby Lobby. It drives me nuts. The days the 9-5 world has for shopping for art supplies are Saturday and Sunday. I understand it’s their perogative to close on that day, but it is very inconvenient for the rest of us. I’m sure Christians do crafts on weekends, too!

51

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

I’m not sure I agree. I don’t have any belief in God, so I find the usage of God exclusionary. For example, “In God We Trust” implies religious belief that I don’t have. So, am I not one of the American people (the “we” implied here)?

Could you tell me in what fashion God can be associated with government in a way you approve of?

52

As cosmodan said before, if 90% of a community is Christian and wants public displays in government buildings, he’s fine with that.

But I think you’re also not considering the difference between institutional rules and people within the institution expressing personal beliefs, which is exactly why I said it’s a grey area. There are people that claim that a government employee wearing a religious symbol in open view is objectionable. To me, that’s silly; it’s a personal expression. On the other hand, if someone were to greet me at the DMV counter with “Praise be to Allah, how may I help you?”, I’d be closer to finding it objectionable. If a person had a plaque hanging on the wall, where it’s not clear it’s personal, proclaiming “The only true path is Christ”, I’d have to object.

In commercials, as referred to in the OP, just about anything goes.

53

And better wooden crosses.

54

[QUOTE=fluiddruid]

To me the first amendment, freedom of religion, means no religion will ever be the official state sanctioned and supported or preferred religion. It means each group defends the rights of other groups to worship as they choose, which can mean not worshiping at all.

I see a logical reasonable arguement for excludeing religious references from state and federal property. Insisting that it’s a constutional right is not one of those arguements. I see your point about in God we trust. You’re free to not believe but that doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional. Is it exclusionary toward believers to eliminate any spiritual reference from all state and federal property?
Is the state then sponsering atheism?
Simply put, I think what we’re protected against is anyone trying to force a set of beliefs on us through social, economic, or physical threats. I don’t think that means we won’t be exposed to spiritual beliefs ever. It may not be possible to be completely neutral. IN GOD WE TRUST or ONE NATION UNDER GOD indictaes that more people believe in God than don’t. It doesn’t force any belief on anyone.
We are indeed a much more diverse society and I hope that requires us to become more aware of other beliefs and cultures, to think and consider and create new ideas and traditions fror a more diverse America. I hope we don’t strive to think less in an attempt to be neutral and politicaly correct.

55

Of course not. My post doesn’t include any references to specific dry cleaning businesses; does that mean that I am telling people not to use dry cleaning?

Well, obviously exposure is not what I’m talking about – this would violate free speech, also. I’m talking about government-funded and government-approved use of language, art, or other displays that use religious concepts.

Removing these would take us a lot closer to neutral.

“IN GOD WE TRUST” does not indicate that more people believe in God (which God, by the way) than don’t. That would be “IN GOD MOST OF US TRUST”. Similarly, “ONE NATION UNDER GOD” implies that either acknowledgement that God must exist, or that everyone believes in the same God.

True, but it does seem to show that the government is acknowledging one set of religious beliefs (deism) as more true than another (atheism). So, how does this not violate the Constitution now?

I really don’t see how catering to the majority is going to promote diversity. If this was the case, why doesn’t the government come out and say “By IN GOD WE TRUST, we mean that many of our people, though not all, find faith in a higher power; be that the Christian God, or the God of Judaism, or Allah, or the many gods of Hinduism, or the Goddess and God of Wicca, or… (etc.)”. This would anger the religious right; the context is that God = the Christian God.

By the way, I’m not trying to be ‘politically correct’ and I find the use of the term offensive. These are my honest, heart-felt beliefs and my own personal view of the Constitution; I am not tryng to appease anyone else.

56

[QUOTE]

Geez, what’s your beef against dry cleaning?
I kid.
I see your point. In our new and growing diversity I see the logic for striving for neutrality. I guess I still question if it’s the best choice.I think Christians who seem to claim some sort spiritual dibs in America or continue to believe the myth that this country was founded on “Christian Principles” need a reality check.
How do you reconcile the 1st amendment with the deistic references in the Declaration? Do you recommend we change it as well?

And there’s the rub. We do have to draw a line somewhere. No religious art in any state funded museum? The President no longer swears in on a Bible? {Thats okay with me given the incredible hypocrasy of it all} What about our religious history and what a great impact that has had on us. Is it best to just leave that out of classrooms. What about the previous posters question? Can Christian teachers wear crosses to school? It raises a lot of interesting questions doesn’t it? Can we strive to be neutral and still be honest about who we are as a diverse society?

Maybe. I ask outraged Christians if they would support the public display of the symbols of other religions under the first amendment. I usually hear the old Christian founding fathers routine. Since putting up every religious symbol is so impractical, none may be the smartest choice. I still think the lack of any religous statements is not the original intent of the 1st amendment

Again I see your point but be reasonable. Can you belong to any group where you see eye to eye on every detail with all its members? You’d never belong to anything. It is an implied meaning. It also doesn’t say "IN GOD WE ALL ARE REQUIRED TO TRUST. Our nation openly promotes religious freedom and has since the beginning. The same with ONE NATION UNDER GOD. It implies most people believe in a diety in some way but it’s not required since we are all about religious freedom.

Because the Ist amendment prohibits the government preferring one religion over another. One OFFICIAL government sanctioned religion. Deism is a belief not an official religion. It is the deism of some of our founding fathers and their committment to freedom and reason that brought us the religious freedom we now enjoy. The 1st amendment doesn’t prohibit the government from mentioning a belief. It does protect you from any belief being forced on you.

Then who should we cater to? Is it possible to not cater to anyone? I think it’s more accurate to say we acknowledge the majority while defending certain principles that protect individual rights. There is no fixed point because we as a people and culture change and the lines have to be examined and redrawn.

I would say I enjoy angering the religious right but thats not quite accurate. I support the right for people to believe what they will. When their beliefs spill over into my life then I claim the right to challenge them. It’s that kind of frction that I think helps us evolve. I’d hate to lose that in our quest for neutrality.

Good. Me neither. I’m perfectly comfortable with my own beliefs and feel no threat from someone elses. “There is no God but Allah” is a statement that only has meaning to those that believe that statement. If the Mayor or the Govenor has that on his desk or wall then I am not offended. It’s that person being true to themselves and honest about who they are to me. If there is an attempt to pass a law that favors Islam over other religions then I protest. The same with “Jesus is the Way” or the phrases on our money and in the pledge. I also have no problem with removing those parts. If the pedulum swings that way it’s okay by me. It doesn’t effect my belief one way or the other. If a teacher is not allowed to wear any religious symbol in school {not allowed to be true to herself or about herself} then I feel we’ve stepped on that persons right to expression. Of course we have to examine and decide where to draw the lines. A couple of complusive teachers have been fired for preaching their religious doctrine in public schools as the “real truth” Jesus is the way, does not belong in math class. I’d love to see kids get a general overview of major religions and their history. It’s a huge part of our world and an importent part of the world sociology.

57

Cosmosdan, thanks for replying. This has been interesting.

The Declaration of Independence, while an important document, isn’t law. I see no reason to change it.

If it has cultural significance, that is fine. This is because it is a museum (where various religious objects are fine, in so long as it doesn’t cross the line to state-sanctioned religion by being exclusionary or for other reasons) and not a courtroom.

I think that should be the President’s choice, just as with any courtroom that you can choose to swear on a Bible or not. I do believe it should be a private decision, however.

We don’t live in a vacuum. I think it’s fine to discuss religious history, in so long as it is a reasonably neutral text or taught neutrally. For example, a text that espouses Creationism could potentially be used, but not in a “this is the way the world works” way, but “this is a belief in our society and these are the reasons” way, in so long as the forum allowed other types of belief to be studied.

I don’t see why not. Teachers don’t embody the state. Again, in so long as this is a neutral decision - so a teacher wearing a Star of David or even a pentagram must be allowed.

Of course we can. It’s just a matter of people growing up and realizing that their government doesn’t need to show deference to their particular belief. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen.

This is the whole point. Most of the Christians who want the Ten Commandments up in courtrooms, or at least the strong supporters, would be screaming bloody murder should we be putting up the Ten Pillars of Islam right next to it. It’s a faith issue, not an issue of “tradition”.

I don’t think you understand my meaning. Individuals have the right to make religious statements. I am absolutely for this and would not want it any other way. However, the state should not be sanctioning religion. This means no one should be sentenced to a 12 step program (as they are religious), no state money should be spent on Ten Commandments plaques, judges should rule on law and not on their interpretation of the Bible, etc.

The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the minority. The majority does not get to pick the state religion.

True. But if I am holding hands with another person, and I say “we are going to the store”, do you think I just mean myself? “In God We Trust” is a statement that implies that all Americans (or whoever ‘we’ is, if you want to nitpick) trust God. I don’t trust God because I have no particular belief in God.

I can’t say I agree with your interpretation.

So if I say that I have a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God, that’s ok for the government to sanction and put on its currency, because Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Presbyterians, and Pentecostals all believe this, so it’s not exclusive to one religion?

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” – Thomas Jefferson.

Two things:

1.) I think it’s pretty obvious that “In God We Trust”, “God Bless America”, “One Nation Under God”, etc. pretty strongly imply the Christian God.

2.) I find it objectionable that the government has, by use of the above phrases, essentially said that it is more legitimate to be a theist than an atheist.

58

I agree with point 2, but I disagree with point 1. Many Christians (myself included) believe that the God of the Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, and so on is the same God. We may use different names, but it isn’t different Gods.

That interpretation, however, would bring up a third point, in that I couldn’t reconcile the “God” of “In God We Trust” with Buddhism, Wicca, and a number of other religions, so while I don’t consider “In God We Trust” to exclude all non-Christian religions, I do feel that excludes some non-Christian religions.

Honestly, if you set aside the strong fundamentalist’s beliefs and look at the day-to-day practitioners of religions like Christianity and Islam, they’re not that different. Certainly not different enough to kill each other over.

59

]

Right back at ya!! In fact I think I’m actually being swayed. DAM YOU!! :wink:

What a relief!! You’re right it isn’t law, but as our foundational document it does recognize deism and for me helps to establish a grounds for interperting the 1st amendment.

I find these positions reasonable, fair, and good for mankind in general.

Perhaps, you seem to have a different view of neutrality than I expected.
I am concerned that striveing to be neutral might mean becoming a little sterile.
I assume from your remarks about the President that you support any politicians right to express his religious views in any appropriate way. What about prayer at certain government events and ceremonies?

Unfortunatly I tend to agree. They need to understand that to insist on their right to worship means steadfastly supporting others right to do the same.

OKay, I can go along with that. My point has been and still is, the original intent of the first amendment was to protect us from an official state sanctioned religion, not something as general as the word God. I do however, think that one of the brilliant things about our constitution is that it can be reinterperted as times change.

Certainly not since the 1st amendment clearly prohibits any such thing.

Hmmm I’m not sure the analogy fits but I’ll play. A large group holding hands and someone says “We are going to the store” I wouldn’t assume everyone is going to the same store and I would very much doubt if everyone was going to make the same purchase. Even though our money says what it does it is obvious to everyone that not everybody believes the same way. It is therefore the obvious conclusion that the term implies “in general”
Regardless, I can understand not liking being lumped in with that statement simply by being an American. I think I probably wouldn’t like it if the majority decided the new phrase should read, “Reason not Religion” I might feel like spirituality was being subtly put down.

Well you CAN, you just won’t , you stubborn thing :wink:

Ahhh good point. I would say this is too doctrinaly specific and as such crosses the line.

Wonderful quote. Our laws should deal with actions only and not opinions {beliefs}So their will be no law compelling anyone to believe anything or think a certain way. Whats on our money and in the pledge is not a law just as you pointed out about the DOI.

Wombat makes a good point about this. I have a question. Is your objection that you think it implies only the Christian God or that you think the Dominionists and Christian right think that?

[/QUOTE]

I don’t take it that way but I understand. I think there is a legitimate arguement that removing all mention of any form of diety is just as much an implication that the government supports atheism.
historic note; Neither phrase was originaly on our money or in the pledge correct?
So tradition doesn’t have that legitamate a hold.
In summery while I don’t think our money or the pledge violates the 1st amendment I do think we have a right and an obligation to reevaluate our interpertation as our culture changes. IN that regard I might say that it’s for the best to change those phrases as long as we make it clear why it’s being done. To embrace the wide variety of beliefs that we support, not to remove any.
I get the impression that you would defend peoples right to express their faith as much as you defend your own right to decline that belief. I am not an athesit but I feel that in order to claim my own freedom to choose how I worship I must steadfastly defend others rights to choose for themselves.
So we may not agree about all the details, but in that respect I think we are in complete agreement.

60

If this has been said this clearly before, I apologize:
When someone I am doing business with feels the need to admit his faith to me, i.e., tell me what a Christian businessman he is, I put my hand over my wallet. It has been my experience that these people are not good Christians or good businessmen.