Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Foxfyre wrote:

Where my conviction may be somewhat unique is that I don't think the founders would find even a huge monument with religion content illegal or inapropriate when nobody else asked to display something different. In other words, if a community was all Christian or all Jewish, the monument could simply be seen as symbolic of the demographic religious makeup of the neighborhood and mean nothing more. As a work of art, if would have no other significance.

How do you rationalize the fact that all of these monuments cropping up and other religious intrusions such as the pledge change are a rather recent phenomenon in comparison to the founding of our country?

0 Replies

I don't know that they are a recent phenomenon, Mesquite. I just think in the last few decades the fantatical anti-religious activists have made a big deal out of them. Most have been around for a very long time and until recently were not considered an issue or a problem. I grew up with a creche on the Courthouse lawn at Christmastime.

0 Replies

Quote by fox, "... fantatical anti-religious activists..." Says a whole lot, doesn't it?

0 Replies

Quote:

On the other hand, if efforts to defend such are considered extreme, what does it say about the efforts of those who exert such great effort and energy to protest same or to have something like that removed?

It says that we care a lot and since you don't care at all, I'm not sure what the big deal is. I also don't know who these "anti-religion" people are. I think religion is fine for those who want to make use of it. I'm not against it. What I am against is the attempt that is being made to impose, as an official religion or a religion of the majority, one particular religion on those who do not practice that religion.

Disguised as a love of a "work of art" or as a concern for freedom of expression of religion, it doesn't matter. It's thinly disguised, so thinly it's easy to see right through it. One would have to be blind to ignore it. It is the party line, generated by "New American Lexicon." This Lexicon is generated for the sole purpose of selling conservative initiatives. No matter what you call it, it's still an imposition of religion on the public which is clearly unconstitutional. There is no rational reason to have any "work of art" that displays a clear religious symbol in any public place. Debra Law has demonstrated this in the clearest way possible.

I greatly respect those truly religious folk who know how to practice their religion without imposing it on others. And I have very little patience with those who don't respect their fellow citizens enough to stay out of their face about Fundamentalist Christianity.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote by fox, "... fantatical anti-religious activists..." Says a whole lot, doesn't it?

It's a Newt trick. Use adjectives with extreme negative connatation in conjunction with those you want to defeat. Another transparent tactic.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Where my conviction may be somewhat unique is that I don't think the founders would find even a huge monument with religion content illegal or inapropriate when nobody else asked to display something different. In other words, if a community was all Christian or all Jewish, the monument could simply be seen as symbolic of the demographic religious makeup of the neighborhood and mean nothing more. As a work of art, if would have no other significance.

How do you rationalize the fact that all of these monuments cropping up and other religious intrusions such as the pledge change are a rather recent phenomenon in comparison to the founding of our country?

The pledge change came during the McCarthy era. Enough said.

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote by fox, "... fantatical anti-religious activists..." Says a whole lot, doesn't it?

I defined my insulting definition. It doesn't apply to anybody except those unwilling to live and let live and who wish to enforce their desire to have all religon stripped from public view everywhere and was not targeted specifically at anyone engaged in this debate.

On the other hand, some religious on this thread who are more than willing to live and let live have been characterized in very uncomplimentary ways and have been targeted specifically by members engaged in this debate.

I think there is a difference.

0 Replies

Quote by Fox, "...who wish to enforce their desire to have all religon stripped from public view everywhere..." In your world, Fox, what color is the sky?

0 Replies

That's a pretty good description of the anti-religious fanatics don't you think?

0 Replies

You see, those people of faith who advocate live and let live are asking nothing of the anti-religious but their noninterference. The anti-religious fanatics are demanding the people of faith give up cherished historic symbols, practices, and customs that they have enjoyed for generations. This would be favoring the anti-religious over the religious. In my opinion, it violates every First Amendment principle in real terms. In less tangible terms it will leave the world a much bleaker place.

0 Replies

foxfyre, there are deeply religious people who feel that the public display of these symbols diminishes their faith. You seem quite happy to ignore the rights of those people, as well as those who object for other reasons.

Practice your religion at home, and in your place of worship, if your faith has communal places of worship. There is no need for it to be in the public eye. It adds nothing.

0 Replies

Quote:

You see, those people of faith who advocate live and let live are asking nothing of the anti-religious but their noninterference. The anti-religious fanatics are demanding the people of faith to give up cherished historic symbols, practices, and customs that they have enjoyed for generations. This would be favoring the anti-religious over the religious. In my opinion, it violates every First Amendment principle in real terms. In less tangible terms it will leave the world a much bleaker place.

I think I see some of the problem here Fox. There is a difference between the government and the person. As a person I am free to say whatever I want and worship whatever religion I want. As the government however I am required to be mindful of others.

You seem to think that it interferes with my right to worship if the government doesn't support my religion. That is completely backwards. No one is saying that people can't practice their religion outside of government. The key is they can't practice it AS government to interfere with my religion or lack thereof.

0 Replies

Quote:

You seem to think that it interferes with my right to worship if the government doesn't support my religion. That is completely backwards. No one is saying that people can't practice their religion outside of government. The key is they can't practice it AS government to interfere with my religion or lack thereof.

I said nothing anywhere close to this. I say the First Amendment does not distinguish between public and private. It says the government shall not establish religion. it does not say the people shall not be religious or that the people shall be religious only in the privacy of their own homes and churches. It says the government shall not prevent the people's free exercise of religion. It does not say the government shall not prevent the people's free exercise of religion in their homes or churches. it shall not infringe the free exercise of religion period.

The founding fathers would be horrified to know that some now won't allow school children to have a "Christmas break"--it has to be a winter break. Children can't sing beloved Christmas carols in class anymore or have religious music in the school concert. One of the highlights of Christmas in my small southeast New Mexico town was the annual Christmas concert when all the students taking music filled most of one side of the gymnasium and treated the town to a thundering rendition of Handel's "Messiah" along with other offerings including secular songs. All the kids--Christian, Jew, athiest, whatever--particpated and not a one of us would have missed it for the world.

The annual Christmas parade, carols in the park, the lovely old handmade creche on the courthouse lawn, a bank of Easter lilies in the same spot at Easter, the Jewish festival to raise money to replace the crumbling roof on the gazebo in the town square--half the down town was owned by one Jewish family Smile

--it all was tradition, brought pleasure to us, harmed no one, and at that time violated no laws.

Now some would say it is all illegal. Some would say the town should not have and enjoy these things. The only people that would be that mean I think have to be anti-religious fanatics.

Until one of you can explain to me how any inalienable right you possess is in any way violated by a religious symbol on government property, I will continue to believe that it is not the symbol itself that is the problem. And I will continue to believe that giving the fanatical anti-religious what they want does violate my First Amendment rights.

0 Replies

Fox can see the only "fanatic" on this thread by looking in the mirror.

0 Replies

And to ehBeth I will refer again to my belief that when nobody's rights are infringed, the community will should prevail. If most of the community feels as you do, then it all goes away and the world becomes sterile of all things that can in any way be considered religious. But if most of the community wants these things, it is a violation of the First Amendment to say it cannot have them.

If you don't like it, all we ask is your non interference.

0 Replies

I haven't called you a single name C.I. nor criticized you in any way. Could I ask how it gives you pleasure to continue to criticize me?

0 Replies

Why does the Christmas pageant has to be at the public school? Why not a church pageant or a religious private school Christmas program?

Explain please why you have to have your own particular religious expression in the public domain. And as for how to explain to you why it is offensive to have religious symbols in public places, I give up. I've explained and explained. You just don't like what I say. I want my children to be raised in the traditions that are important to me and my family. I don't want them to be frightened by religious teachings that contradict our beliefs. I don't want them singled out as odd or less than worthy of respect. Now that they are grown, they will continue to decide for themselves. But it has been hard for them in schools where Christian religion is pushed, in spite of Constitutional protections against it.

To not get it is to be purely and conspicuously insensitive to the needs of others who are unlike yourself. The citizens of this country are protected from religion of the majority. And I'm glad of it. I hope it stays that way.

0 Replies

Amen, Lola. Wink

0 Replies

It doesn't have to be at the school. That's just where the community wanted it. Why should you have a problem with that?

0 Replies

But we're going in circles again and I have gone over this ground many times. I accept that you people don't agree. I accept that you do not see it selfish to have your way and deny others what they want even though you give up nothing and they give up everything. And I dont' know how to explain it any better.

So, I'm going to go watch American Idol and retire for the night.

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know