There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view. Someone's morality is going to be taught -- but whose? Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man's ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth.

Thank you, kingbee. You sure did some legwork for me. And us.

The exerpt I quoted from drmiler's fundamentalist diatribe is particularly offensive, if you happen to not be Christian, and you happen to maybe be of another religion, ie Jewish. Jews do not believe in heaven or hell. It is my understanding that those concepts are constructs from the New Testament, which Jews do not adhere to. So, the writer's intent, and your intent, drmiler, in quoting this is that our government should be Christian based, and excusionary to any other religions. The whole point of the separation of church and state is to not emphasise one religious belief over another, yet the author of this fundamentalist garbage is rationalizing a solely Christian state, which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. His interpretation is nonsense. As is yours.

Reply #22 By: dabe - 12/27/2004 12:10:50 AM Weren't you one of the people who supported the idea of restricting students from expressing their religious beliefs in schools because they are on public property and it is tantamount to putting religion into government though? Is that what you consider reasonable? I was/am one of the people who am vehemently against a government sponsored advocation of one religion, two religions, or any religions at all. This is why I advocate keeping religion out of public education completely, out of courthouses, and out of police stations, hospitals, etc. That does not mean I would ban a student who wants to pray in the school from doing so. If a student wants to quietly pray, without having their teachers lead the prayer, then that is their right. That is the meaning of separation of church and state. The complete freedom to practice your own individual religion without institutionalizing in in a public place. I don't understand why that is so hard for you people to fathom.

Dabe - I applaud you for the most part, but I take the same approach the original poster did in their question to you.

You want religion out of schools and public places, or at least don't want it to be led by the teachers.

I don't necessarily want it led by teachers, but I have no issue with teachers noting that a period of time during home room has been set aside for prayer or reflection. Unfortunately if they mention "prayer" though, there are those that instantly see "religion" and want it gone.

I don't need teachers leading prayers, but I don't complain or have a problem if a graduation ceremony includes a comment or words of prayer from a cleric. I don't complain or have a problem if military schools -- even if state funded -- have a prayer before meals. I don't complain if K-12 schools have religious music during the holiday season. Much like a TV, I can "tune out" that which offends me (basically any time a liberal's lips are moving - lol ), and move on to the main purpose of what is going on.

Why some people, that just happen to hear God, Jesus, Christ, Buddha, Allah, Muhammad, or any other religious reference have to have that reference instantly removed and cleansed from society is the problem.

It strikes me that back in the 60's and 70's, before we started being so politically correct, things were simpler. Children were given moral values by their parents, friends and neighbors. Even perhaps some through schooling. But, for the most part, we didn't have to worry that some of the moral messages would offend someone, and would cause problems like we now have in having to be concerned about including everyone, and not offending anyone.

I circle back to this - if the purpose is to not offend, then I sir (or madam) am offended, and wish for the political correctness to be taken away in order to rectify the problem.

It strikes me that back in the 60's and 70's, before we started being so politically correct, things were simpler. Children were given moral values by their parents, friends and neighbors. Even perhaps some through schooling. But, for the most part, we didn't have to worry that some of the moral messages would offend someone, and would cause problems like we now have in having to be concerned about including everyone, and not offending anyone.

Terpfan, I remember back in grade school, we all had to say the Lord's Prayer every morning in home room. I remember feeling really awful about having to recite that prayer, because it wasn't right, and I knew it when I was only six years old. It made me uncomfortable to say it, but it was worse not to recite it at all, because of the ridicule. Riducule more from my teachers than from other kids. Third grade was the worst. Once a teacher starts ridiculing a kid, the rest of the kids no longer will accept you. I am Jewish, and it didn't make any difference to that bitch of a teacher. If I knew then what I know now, she'd be sued and fired. But, I was a kid. And, I was miserable because of this religion thing..

My point is, once prayer is institutionalized, it becomes problematic for kids who don't abide by that particular religion. And for athiests. And Jews in a Christian dominated society are particularly marginalized. I know, I've been there.

People have plenty of opportunities to enjoy Christmas and holiday music at their homes, while shopping, on the radio, etc. Not having to listen to it in schools is not depriving anyone of their religious beliefs. That's not what separation of church and state is about. It never was, and it never will be, in spite of the right wing fundamentalists making those very false charges. And, the only people who are trying to infer religion into schools, courts and other public places are Christians, so they are the ones screaming persecution against them. That's so much bunk. It's a problem of their own making.

Terpfan, I understand that you're offended, but think of the rest of society. What about what offends me? I'm not trying to impose my religion's songs upon you. Why do you become offended when I wish to not have to hear your religious stuff in public places? What about my kids? This isn't about politcal correctness. This is about maintaining a free, balanced and respectful society.

Reply #29 By: dabe - 12/27/2004 7:43:01 PM

dabe I agree with you on this one post. But I'm still not as hell bent on a complete cleansing of all religion, just limiting it to moments of silence and teaching of their differences in a social studies and Historical settings.

Though it is a little disturbing that you would have been so willing to sue and get someone fired in the third grade.

That's My Two Cents

Reply #27 By: dabe - 12/27/2004 8:00:26 AM There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view. Someone's morality is going to be taught -- but whose? Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man's ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth. Thank you, kingbee. You sure did some legwork for me. And us. The exerpt I quoted from drmiler's fundamentalist diatribe is particularly offensive, if you happen to not be Christian, and you happen to maybe be of another religion, ie Jewish. Jews do not believe in heaven or hell. It is my understanding that those concepts are constructs from the New Testament, which Jews do not adhere to. So, the writer's intent, and your intent, drmiler, in quoting this is that our government should be Christian based, and excusionary to any other religions. The whole point of the separation of church and state is to not emphasise one religious belief over another, yet the author of this fundamentalist garbage is rationalizing a solely Christian state, which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. His interpretation is nonsense. As is yours.

Your interpration is flawed not mine. Do not put words in my mouth. And NO WHERE in the constitution do you find "separation of church and state". What you *do* find is this, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". What I would like to know is how you get separation of church and state out of that?

I was/am one of the people who am vehemently against a government sponsored advocation of one religion, two religions, or any religions at all. This is why I advocate keeping religion out of public education completely, out of courthouses, and out of police stations, hospitals, etc. That does not mean I would ban a student who wants to pray in the school from doing so. If a student wants to quietly pray, without having their teachers lead the prayer, then that is their right. That is the meaning of separation of church and state. The complete freedom to practice your own individual religion without institutionalizing in in a public place. I don't understand why that is so hard for you people to fathom.

Perhaps it's hard for us to fathom because of your words on this thread. Did you change your mind, were you simply trolling on that thread, did you misunderstand that it was about students expressing their religious beliefs and not about government-sponsored religion nor about teacher-led prayers, or do you honestly think that students should not be allowed to openly express their religious freedom. If so, then that proves my point that people have different ideas of separation of church and state, and no, believing that people have the right to express their religion beliefs as long as they aren't doing it as an employee or representative of the government does not contradict the separation of church and state.

There is freedom of religion in this country. How do we have that freedom if the government chooses an official religion. To maintain our freedom we must not play favorites.

To maintain our freedom we must not play favorites.

Exactly. Imagine the confusion, if not strife that we would cause in the classrooms when the teacher announces, "Ok, children, prayer time." The Christian children would do their sign of the crosses, the Muslim children would kneel and prostrate themselves on the floor, etc. (I'm not familiar with other religious rites, though) There would a cacophony of chanting, murmuring and before you know it, giggles and jokes then bad stares then fighttime. Jeez, we'd just be promoting divisions instead of tolerance and harmony among the future citizens of this country.

It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble

drmiller, I certainly hope you're not suggesting a US version of a Taliban or Iranian Theocracy. It's politicizing religion and empowering heads of certain religions to hold sway not only in governmental issues but in national elections as well. That could dangerously move us to the political instability of certain Third World countries where presidential candidates seek the blessings of religious heads to ensure their winning. How would one define "virtue" anyway? How does church influence ensure "virtue" in government when church leaders themselves become involved in "un-virtuous" acts?

dabe I agree with you on this one post. But I'm still not as hell bent on a complete cleansing of all religion, just limiting it to moments of silence and teaching of their differences in a social studies and Historical settings. Though it is a little disturbing that you would have been so willing to sue and get someone fired in the third grade.

I believe what we have now is limited moments of silence in schools. I really have no problem with the concept of that. It just is open to abuse, at times. But, it really is an acceptable compromise. Of course, the operative term here is "silence".

Damn straight, I'd sue. If that teacher was doing today what she did to me then, she would have been toast. She was the worst teacher I ever had, and she really did some damage. She was evil, hateful, and racist. She would have been swiftly fired. Ya see, there are some advantages to political correctness.

could dangerously move us to the political instability of certain Third World countries where presidential candidates seek the blessings of religious heads to ensure their winning

unfortunatley we're already there.  no republican who seeks the nomination from his party is going to succeed without being annointed by mullahs falwell, robertson, wildmon, etc.  should mccain decide to run again, that's the biggest obstacle hell have to overcome.

Terpfan, I understand that you're offended, but think of the rest of society. What about what offends me? I'm not trying to impose my religion's songs upon you. Why do you become offended when I wish to not have to hear your religious stuff in public places? What about my kids? This isn't about politcal correctness. This is about maintaining a free, balanced and respectful society.

Again, Dabe, sorry, but you are wrong.

I don't want smoking in public places, but my rights are not more important (or less so) than anyone elses, including smokers. I hold that religion in public life is much like smoke, it flows through the air, and may be just about anywhere, but no one should be able to tell the smokers that they can't smoke, and no one should tell anyone that may utter the word god, or any othe religious reference that they may not.

Again, there is no balance if one side is never allowed to speak, but you -- like many others -- seem to ignore that. You say it's balanced because it tips to your favor, just like Gregoire and the Democrats in Washington State. If it goes the other way, it's broke, wrong, unfair, and you want it changed. I say it's you tilting at windmills, not me.

Jeez, we'd just be promoting divisions instead of tolerance and harmony among the future citizens of this country.

More likely they'd meet after class and have fights because they don't pray alike.

I thought I was just being reasonable, way up near the top of this thread, but returning several days later, I see I caused a whole lot of trouble.

Dabe, I do not see what you find so upsetting about my post. As a woman who has been on this earth a long, long time, I can honestly say that we all base on our views on something -- experience, logic, science, parents, friends, statistics, scripture, or whatever. Personally, I believe that the difficult problems in life are best faced with the words of Jesus in mind. I pay almost not attention to what religious leaders say these words mean, I just go back and read from the Gospels. This gives me something solid to go on at tough moments, such as when facing the kinds of hateful opponents our country now must deal with in the holy land.

My friend, who I think very well of, has lived a just an honorable life. Facing this particular moral question, he find himself falling back on his World War II experiences, views of family and community and the news media. He has every right to do so, but in my view he does not have anything so solid as I have, and, is thus more prone to emotions of the moment, which I think is the kind of thinking that does not stand the test of time. In other words, not only I and country are likely to see those views as morally wrong down the road, but he himself is likely to as well.

Now, I am not opposed to my friend or anyone else coming to their views in their own way. But I find it really strange that he can cite experience, media, and majority viewpoint, and no one objects. However, if I publicly state that the basis of my view is the word of Jesus, then I am ridiculed and told to keep religion out of it. One can cite Nietzsche, Jefferson, Locke, Hamilton, Churchill, Roosevelt, or Shakespeare, and find their viewpoint honored, but cite Jesus and you are shushed.

I do not want the government involved in supporting any religion, and I do not want teachers teaching it in school. I just believe that individuals should be able to honorably speak their religious beliefs in the same open way as individuals speak their other beliefs. It has not been the experience of my life that that is how our culture has come to be.

atheism isn't a religion. those who don't believe have no command to go forth and evangelize.

I have to disagree with you. Religion is not defined as a command to go forth and evangelize. Some do; some do not. Religion is a system of beliefs explaining humanity's place in the larger scheme of things. As others noted above, it is not the only way to decide what is or is not moral, but it is a common way to do so.

A belief in God has enormous implications about our place in the universe, but so does a disbelief in God.

This whole debate is completely rediculous. The quotes set forth here speak to none of the true separation of church and state issue. The real issues tug at whether the government should be legislating morality...not whether a building is burning down and the fire department has to decide whether to put out the flames. My GOD, get back to the real issues and quick bickering about a bunch of irrelevant lines someone spoke or may have spoke that distract us from more important matters.

-Suspeckted

I have to disagree with you. Religion is not defined as a command to go forth and evangelize

i should have been clearer i guess.  those are two separate statements.  secularism isnt a religion.   secularists arent a cohesive group with a unified belief scheme or agenda so they dont feel compelled to proselytize

Religion is a system of beliefs explaining humanity's place in the larger scheme of things. As others noted above, it is not the only way to decide what is or is not moral, but it is a common way to do so.

that may actually point out one of the shortcomings of religous adherents.  instead of acting the way ive been told or according to a commonly accepted moral code with which i may not actually agree but dont question aloud to avoid conflict with my chosen group, its possible that im more adverse to amoral behavior? 

But I find it really strange that he can cite experience, media, and majority viewpoint, and no one objects. However, if I publicly state that the basis of my view is the word of Jesus, then I am ridiculed and told to keep religion out of it. One can cite Nietzsche, Jefferson, Locke, Hamilton, Churchill, Roosevelt, or Shakespeare, and find their viewpoint honored, but cite Jesus and you are shushed

 

who ridicules you or shushes you?  certainly not the government (which is what i see asserted in this type of thread alla time.   if it's your social circle or a family member, dont let em get away with it.  thats a whole other subject tho.

having said that, experience trumps faith in my opinion.  one is provable by the fact of it happened. the other isnt.

Dabe is usually the one.

... or Kingbee.

Reply #41 By: kingbee - 12/29/2004 8:04:11 AM who ridicules you or shushes you? certainly not the government (which is what i see asserted in this type of thread alla time. if it's your social circle or a family member, dont let em get away with it. thats a whole other subject tho.

Dabe is usually the one.