Freedom of religion unless you are Christian?

I was chatting with God earlier and he wanted me to point out that your analysis of his views is all wrong. You guys added that book and he's going to fry your asses for it.

He was pretty furious with me when I told him that I had had my doubts prior to the empirical experience. He forgave me when I went to the public school and tagged the hallways with derogatory comments about the apocrypha.

 

I think this is going to the Supreme Court so we'll see what happens. We'd been agreeing too much lately and this was bound to happen.

Take it easy...

 

I can see that Christians are being discriminated against in this case. But I live in a heavily Catholic community, in fact am becoming more Catholic every day (my atheism is waning) but that story doesn't bother me. I really wouldn't care if they did that in my area.

Admittedly, the Jews seem to get a lot of special treatment, probably because the Holocaust was the saddest thing to happen in the last 100 years. But the Muslims get screwed in this country all the time... right now half the country things Islam promotes violence just because of Bin Laden... ridiculous.

I'm glad the Indians get casinos now, so they can screw middle-class white people out of their money (I'm middle-class white) since they've been screwed over for the last 200 years. And to a certain extent, I'm glad that Muslims and Jews are getting more public displays, since white Christian conservatives seem to be running things.

But most of all, I don't care either way. If all it is is a few religious symbols on a campus, I don't see why anyone should care... Christians, Jews, Muslims, or atheists. I mean, come on, they're symbols... get over it... suck it up. Believe me, the Muslims and Jews have already been sucking it up.

 

Oh, I wasn't talking about them enduring Christian symbols... just discrimination in general. The Jews have historically had a bad time, while I currently know a number of people of middle-eastern descent that have been assaulted just in my area, and some of them weren't even Muslims!

I can understand where you're coming from. In general, discrimination is a bad thing. They should enforce "all or none." But when I hear about Christians being oppressed, I can't help but laugh. America is a white racist Christian nation run by the least morally qualified of the two sexes. I myself am white, Christian, and male, though not racist; I personally am willing to take a few slaps in the face for oppressing the blacks, Indians, women, and gays. I figure I had it coming.

 

LOL. He plead the 5th, b/c he knows about my gambling problems. He seemed to be smirking, however.

ps, thanks for taking that in stride. I was away from my machine for a moment wondering "do we have that relationship yet where he'll just laugh and punch me in the shoulder, or did I just accidentally offend him".

Incidentally, I agree that the do-gooders seemed to have done something pretty friggin' strange. Since there are so many dumb contradictory things out there, and since I tend to believe that people are generally good, I have to say that a lot of well meaning people end up making a lot of dumb decisions.

Also, I was raised in South Carolina. I don't seem to recall being shocked by any religious ornamentation in school. Its this hypersensitivity to everything, tied into the beauty but fallibility of the constitution that raises the possibility of so many laws that contradict common sense. The constitution leads people into believing that they should take guns into schools or into churches. Not being able to knock the hell out of misbehaving children gives kids the idea that they should disrespect their teachers.

I'll wage the bet that secularization of schools (I'm an atheist, remember), psII and the inability to get meaningful tort reform (kids can't friggin' skateboard half the time b/c of liability issues) will be the undoing of our "well meaning" but lacking in common sense, country. Children these days are raised to be individualistic little brats that don't know to shudder in awe around their grandmothers or even mothers. There are too many video games to be played.

And that's all I have to say about that. I have to sober up anyway.

 

Major, you wouldn't believe the number of times ref and I have had this exact same argument about other issues...and it always goes the same way...

 

A disturbing sentence in Timing's post above: <b>"violate the law and acknowledge God"</b>. Are some people interpreting our laws to mean that acknowledgement of God is forbidden? In the future, will Christians be persecuted here for just bringing up the subject of the existence of God? Sigh... those of us living in modern America haven't faced as much persecution as many Christians in other times and places, but we may need to prepare for it at some point in the future.

I guess God is something to be hidden in people's homes and not brought up in public places if they even have anything to do with the government? Unless I was a complete atheist, I think I'd be a little afraid about trying to relegate the Supreme Being to such a role, even if we don't always see God in the same way.

Face it, Christianity is by far the most widely practiced religion in America. Therefore, religious prayers and displays are most often going to be Christian. Sometimes they might not be. And, if they aren't, I don't have a problem with that. I'm just glad they are allowed to express it freely. Culturally, I'm afraid we as a nation are moving toward some watered-down type of agnosticism as our (un)official religion...

 

Say what you want about the discrimination against the Christian faith when it comes to putting up religious symbols on public property, but to say that the Christian faith is about to undergo persecution in this country is downright laughable. Last I checked, we're still a pretty big majority.

 

No, what is distubring is this...

"I consider it my duty to acknowledge God," Judge Moore said just after the anti-prayer ruling was issued in January. "To take down the Ten Commandments would be a violation of that duty. To stop prayer would be a violation of that duty. I will not take down the Ten Commandments. I will not stop prayer."

Alabama state court banned prayer and the Ten Commandments in this guy's court room and he's still doing it. That's called violating the law in this country. He is completely dismissing his responsibilities as a judge in the state of Alabama to perpetuate his personal religious beliefs during the course of his work. This stuff about persecution of Christians is completely ridiculous.

 

Timing,

Were the people on the underground railroad completely dismissing their responsibilities as citizens in the United States of America to perpetuate their personal beliefs? How is your reliance on the law to prove this judge wrong, or to argue anywhere for seperation any different than Ref's?

 

There are few things in American history that are/were as morally wrong as slavery and to actually use that as a comparison to what this judge is doing is really over the top. We're not talking about this judge's responsibilities as a citizen but rather his responsibilities as a judge within the context of his official government duties. What this judge does in his home or what rallies he attends or whatever are not my concern. This judge, unlike slaves, has had his day in court and has had the opportunity to argue his case. His fundamental human rights are not being trampled, he's not being oppressed, and he's not being discriminated against in any way. I think the law is clear where this judge is wrong and the court has backed up my assertion thus far. Obviously beliefs and biases play a role in interpretation of law however when you consider this case was tried in conservative Alabama and the overwhelming majority of Alabamans support the judge's position and not the ruling of the court then I feel he's had as good a shot as he's going to get to win his case. I believe as our country becomes more diverse and more religions are represented then the rulings that Refman alluded to will be reversed. When the Senate is 50% Christian and 50% "other" then there is more likely to be resentment in that chamber to chaplains leading Christian prayer and then we'll see what the court says. I don't see how my argument of increased diversity affecting interpretation of law really fits into Refman's position unless you believe Alabama or the nation is likely to become more Christian and more conservative.


And more from beloved Judge Moore. He's a nutball and these quotes from him clearly demonstrate where he's coming from.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_15465.asp

He said America "was not founded on Buddah. It was not founded on Mohammad. It was not founded on Confucious. It was not founded on Islam. We don't put our hand on the Koran. We put our hand on the Bible. We were a nation established upon God."

The speaker said the Ten Commandments are "a higher law. They are a moral compass by which we are guided."

He illustrated his talk by dropping an egg onto the floor. He said, "When we deny the law of God, we make a mess."

With many in the audience shouting "Amen," he added, "We all violate the law. That's why we have Christ."

Justice Moore said, "God gave us government. If a nation denies God, it should be abolished."

 

Some of you folks might try reading Robert Heinlein's novel "The Green Hills of Earth".

He wrote it in the late '50's, I believe, and the plot revolves around a future United States where an elected President is determined to turn the country into a Christian theocracy and does so with the help of a state of emergency backed by a majority of his religious party in the House and Senate. (the President can declare those... there may be a few in effect as we "speak") This occurs while the majority of the country sits in disbelief, not having realized until too late just what they had elected. (and we're frequently surprised by those we elect, aren't we? Boy, that's an understatement.)

Heinlein is dead now, but recognized as one of the best science fiction authors of all time. One of his most famous novels was "Stranger in a Strange Land", if that helps place him for non SF fans. H. G. Wells dreamed of atomic power at the turn of the century, Arthur C. Clarke of communications satellites in the '40's.

I've thought of that novel often over the last several years.

 

Hm... back to the point at hand:

I think that the the standard being applied in this case could be best viewed from the perspective of antitrust laws. Specifically, in the case of MS, it's clear that the source of many concerns come from the fact that Microsoft is continuing to persue many of the cutthroat practices that were acceptable for a small startup, but not for a behemoth with such a commanding control of the marketplace.

In the same sense, if you step back I don't think it's really that hard to understand that if you're goal is to limit the influence any specific religion with respect to the administration of the government, it would seem natural that the religion that is in greatest danger of acheving 'monopoly' would be subject to more stringent controls.

Also, while I can imagine that many mainstream Christians wouldn't be disturbed if religion took on a prominant public role, I hope that those people can step back from being fans of the 'home team' and look at what happens in a country like Iran where the politics and religion can't be seperated, and contrast that with an equally muslim country like Turkey, where there are very strict seperations.

As far as arguements about what was originally intended by the authors of the constutution, this quote on the subject stands out to me:

Continuing, here was the 'original language' of the 1st ammendment of the Bill Of Rights as proposed by Madison:

The House altered it to read:

while the Senate changed it to the more familar:

What does this imply? It seems to me that what is implied here is that there were many different views of the authors of the Bill of Rights as to the intent of the 1st ammendment. It seems that the current interpretation would be appreciated by Madison, but it also seems that a number of people sought to limit Madison's vision. I don't think, however, that we can say that the current interpretation is a 'gross misinterpretation' of the 1st ammendment of the bill of rights.

BTW, Deckard, Robert Heinlein, as is the case with many SF authors, is notible for his broad visions of potential futures, but is incredibly horible when it comes to dealing with the intracacies of individual relationships. In his vision of the future, women were servile and weak sex toys, and "men" were the oversexed swashbucklers of purile adolescent fantasy. His views on religon are equaly heavy handed, IMHO (I'm only half joking) because traditional religion would seem to limit his vision for a world in which women walk around topless, and every male is Hugh Heffener's dream personified. Dude really had his character types down to a formula.

 

Originally posted by Refman
Not that I disagree with what you are saying on this point, but it begs the question of whther, in YOUR opinion the man loses his rights to civil disobedience when he puts on the robe. If NOT, then he is no different than Rosa Parks refusing to sit in the back of the bus.

Civil disobedience as a judge conducting the duties of his office? Terrible analogy. You're just setting up grounds for removing this moron like yesterday. If he wants to enter a court room other than his own, as a private citizen, to lead a prayer in violation of court ruling then that's an entirely different matter. They can arrest him and hold him in contempt in that scenario.

Wasn't it YOU who didn't want to accept what a court says as dispositive of the matter?

I've explained why I feel this scenario is different. A Senate full of Christians reciting prayers and a court full of Christians deciding on it.

As I mentioned earlier, the court is BOUND by stare decisis. When slavery was abolished it was done via THREE Constitutional amendments. Should the Senate decide they don't like it anymore, they can do away with it via Constitutional amendment. Doing it judicially, flying in the face of previous rulings, would seriously compromise the Court.

We don't need new amendments to enfore the amendments that are already there and courts are not wholly bound by precedent. If they were there wouldn't be so many right wingers trying to get Roe v Wade overturned. If Bush gets the opportunity to appoint anti-abortionists to the Supreme Court it's entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that it would be overturned. Maybe we can get a Constituational Amendment outlawing what the court has said is a constitutional right to abortion. That would be something.

 

Hey wait. Wasn't that my argument about gender discrimination at Augusta? The argument with which you so vehemently disagreed?