Ugh, I go away and I miss a good debate in the quad! Darn!

(02-03-2012 02:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When I was a lad, we read a Bible verse over the PA system and led a prayer daily at my public HS. I was uncomfortable with that, as I was not a deeply religious person. Later in life when prayer in school became an issue, I supported taking it out, although most of the people in my then-church did not. But then the controversy advanced to Boy Scout troops after school being banned, Christmas programs being banned, etc, and it seems now that program is to eradicate any trace of religion, especially Christian religion, even if it is a secondary or tertiary connection.

I really don't have a side in this war, but I think there is a war, and like many wars, I think it has gone too far and too long.

With very particular exceptions*, I support eradicating any trace of religion from public institutions like schools. They simply have no place there, whether we are talking christian, buddhist, or muslim. Why does your school need to do a Christmas pageant? Does anyone really gain from that? Do one at your church if you are so inclined. I can see why, if you were Christian, it seems upsetting to ban the Boy Scouts, but it is unfair to those of non-Christian or no faith to have public resources going to institutions which indoctrinate a particular religion (and in this case, also disciminate against gay people). There are alternatives like Campfire USA which can fill the void without being disciminatory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_...oversies).

I'll put it this way: as a super-liberal, progressive-type person, when I support banning religious activities or groups, I am not doing out of a desire for them to cease to exist. I am perfectly happy, and indeed prefer (if people get some good from them) that they continue in their proper venue, which is a church or other private property. I am doing it out of a desire to see public goods such as education become equally appealing and useful for all groups. That includes the muslim kids, the gay kids, the athiest teacher, etc. Those of you who are devout christians would find yourself extremely uncomfortable, no doubt, being forced 3 times a day to bow your head and pray to Allah. Well, it is the same on the other side!

Saying there is a "War on Religion" can be read as "I want the US to become more like a Christian Theocracy, and some people are against that." Well, I'm with those people.


*Art, generally gets more of a pass. Also I think freedom of expression should be maintained (religious apparel, including christian t-shirts and headscarves in schools, for example.)

actually, emmie's post is a good example of why I think there is a war. t is less a war of extermination than one of ghettoization - " Get yourself to your proper place, and it isn't here!"

emmie, read back and you will I am not one of the super religous. I Have no church for these activities to be banned to. i am not a Scout person, I just used them as an example of a group banned for a tangential relationship to religion. the room you want to deny themwill sit empty, a waste of public respurces IMO. Have no problem with the gay scouts using a similar room. Or the Muslim scouts. after hours, not in school.

f we are not to celebrate Christmas, then we should go ahead and have school that day. Lots of people who want no religious intrusion are happy to have Christmas off or to collect double time.

the differences between Emmie and I are more of degree rather than direction. i don't want Bible readings or five times daily prayers to Allah, I just think way too much is made of lesser, more tenuous connections.

Well said, OO.

(02-03-2012 08:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  actually, emmie's post is a good example of why I think there is a war. t is less a war of extermination than one of ghettoization - " Get yourself to your proper place, and it isn't here!"
emmie, read back and you will I am not one of the super religous. I Have no church for these activities to be banned to. i am not a Scout person, I just used them as an example of a group banned for a tangential relationship to religion. the room you want to deny themwill sit empty, a waste of public respurces IMO. Have no problem with the gay scouts using a similar room. Or the Muslim scouts. after hours, not in school.
f we are not to celebrate Christmas, then we should go ahead and have school that day. Lots of people who want no religious intrusion are happy to have Christmas off or to collect double time.
the differences between Emmie and I are more of degree rather than direction. i don't want Bible readings or five times daily prayers to Allah, I just think way too much is made of lesser, more tenuous connections.

This. I am probably more religious than you, since I attend church regularly, but I pretty much come down in the same place on this.

The First Amendment states very specifically, "Congress [and therefore the states, per the 14th Amendment] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I think we've pursued the first clause so vigorously that we've violated the second.

I also think the religious fanatics have themselves to blame to some extent. Case in point--Alvin HS was one of the schools involved in the prayer before football games controversy. They had the same pastor from the same church give the invocation every week. They were offered a compromise where they would rotate it among various churches and other religions. They refused. That compromise would seem reasonable to me, and would fulfill both clauses in the amendment, and it sounds like you have pretty much the same take.

While I generally agree with oO and 69/70, what stuck out to me from emmies comment, as reasonable as it is, is that she wants to eliminate all signs of religion from public places. In theory, that sounds fine... But religious symbols are part of our culture, and have been for centuries. Even "earth" day is, in a way, a religious celebration. What you are doing is telling people they are free to be exactly who they are everywhere, except in public places.

Being a reasonable person, emmie supports wearing scarves or crosses or whatever as appropriate, but like those unreasonable ones on the other side, not all, and many of the more vocal don't. We're not talking about things that are immodest or overly restrictive... But reasonable personal expressions which might be taken regardless of religion.

My point being, rather than being a place of exclusion, public spaces should be a place of INCLUSION. Obviously not every single belief system can be represented in a ten song pageant, but this is most often an expression of art rather than an expression of the belief system that brought the art about. "Christmas pageants" are really an excuse for people to celebrate music...appealing to what is often the largest group of people. I can listen to music that conveys a message I don't agree with and still appreciate the skill and talent. My son has played a cat, a drug addled youth, a revolutionary, a hero, a wimp and will soon play a 15yr old experiencing "sex" for the first time... Almost literally having sex on stage... At a (in name anyway) religious school, no less. That doesn't make him any of those things, or supportive of their goals. He is merely an artist

Bottom line, and speaking to things like boy scouts... Their presence and use of public facilities should never be a problem for anyone. There is a HUgE difference to me in not encouraging something, and actively seeking to ban it. I've never seen a scout jamboree handing out flyers speaking out against gays. I seriously doubt someones sexual orientation comes up as a topic at scout meetings. Certainly no one I ever attended as a child, or exposed my son to. He wasn't the outdoorsy type, so he wasnt interested... And one of his better friends is a 6'4 eagle scout... Who also happens to be an incredible dancer and gay. Public facilities should be open to the use of the public as much as is reasonable... And people's religious opinions will color their affinities. To me it's the difference between the national association for the advancement of colored people, and the national association for the oppression of colored people. The obvious goals of celebrating or supporting a group is good... Of oppressing another is bad. Certainly by doing one, it can be argued you are doing the other... But what is the intent?

(02-01-2012 03:16 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  Your examples of the UK and France are not terribly appropriate. Given the low levels of church participation in the UK, and the really low levels of church participation in France, there's no need for a "war on religion" because the secularists have already won. The mere fact that participation levels are much higher in the USA doesn't negate the possibility that there is a "war" going on, only that it hasn't been successful here as it has in Europe (if, indeed, there was ever a "war" there in the first place).

I kind of doubt there was ever a "war" in Europe. I believe John Stuart Mill argued that the reason America was so much more religious than Europe (maybe it was just England) was competition. Europe was more or less dominated by state religions with little incentive for the vicars to build the flock. Like most other monopolists, they got fat & lazy and lost their flock. Since there were no other religious options around, the people drifted away.

(01-29-2012 05:25 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  ...Which brings me to the second issue that, IMHO, creates hostility to religion - the Christian Right...

I think of the "Christian Right" as the bunch that wants to put intelligent design in science textbooks and amend the Constitution so as to dictate whom consenting adults can marry. I don't have a problem with people expressing their religious views, but I have a problem with the hubris of people who think that their particular religion trumps science and personal freedoms and should be the foundation of education and government in the U.S.

Clearly, there are many unintelligent features in the "design", which I always thought was somewhat of an arguement for evolution.

As for defining who a consenting adult can marry, I presume you would draw the line at human beings? If so, who gave you the rght to draw that line for the rest of us?

or is that too big a restriction on one's right to choose? Wherever the line is drawn, or by whom, someone will want to cross it.

For that matter, why marry at all? Why not a five year contract with a five year option, to define one's legal rights and responsibilities? i saw that in a sci-fi book once.

We've drawn other lines at family members, though clearly that hasn't always been the rule. FTR, I am entirely and completely supportive of couples of any gender who want to band together to form a "family" and whatever that entails. I realize that isn't what lots believe... But it is important to note that MOST moral laws grew out of the obvious implications and not an attempt to regulate other behavior. I get that this isn't a popular opinion, but I think it is true. Obviously, a gay couple can't procreate without significant help from fairly new medical science... So it stands to reason that most laws were written with a "traditional" family in mind... Not to mention the fact thatbitbis still by far the most common, but that there have been times when large families or multiple births were necessary for continuing the family, if not species. This in NO WAy guarantees or even suggests a good home life... But it also wasn't generally an act of oppression either. The government made a huge mistake when it sought to teach/enforce morality... But like the camels nose, it is difficult to get them out of the tent. We're merely arguing over WHOSE morality to choose

(02-06-2012 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  ...As for defining who a consenting adult can marry, I presume you would draw the line at human beings? If so, who gave you the rght to draw that line for the rest of us?...

My general point is that our laws should not be restructured just to uphold one particular denomination's tenets. If we believe in freedom of religion, we need to make sure that our laws allow flexibility for the free expression of it, with the only significant limitation being that one's freedom of expression should not harm another's opportunity for the same. It's the Golden Rule, really. If you want to follow your religion freely, you should allow others to do the same, and I don't think there would be a "war on religion" if people looked at it that way.

Specifically, I am of the opinion that the term "consenting adult" applies to both parties in the arrangement, so humans marrying horses isn't a viable outcome. I doubt the horse cares one way or the other, but he/she can't really consent.

(02-06-2012 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As for defining who a consenting adult can marry, I presume you would draw the line at human beings? If so, who gave you the rght to draw that line for the rest of us?

Um, the word "consenting" draws that line. Unless you know of a way to recognize true informed consent in non-humans.

(02-06-2012 01:17 PM)texd Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As for defining who a consenting adult can marry, I presume you would draw the line at human beings? If so, who gave you the rght to draw that line for the rest of us?

Um, the word "consenting" draws that line. Unless you know of a way to recognize true informed consent in non-humans.

I think they teach a class on that in College Station.

somebody writes the definitions of who can marry who, and when, and how many, etc. if we exclude religious people from participating in the defining, who then should create the definitions?

at what age can a human being give informed consent? Sez who?

How many people can be in a marriage? sez who?



Emmie says religious people shouldn't be the ones who say. who then should it be?
should only nonreligious people be allowed to set rules?

(02-06-2012 11:10 PM)Baconator Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 01:17 PM)texd Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As for defining who a consenting adult can marry, I presume you would draw the line at human beings? If so, who gave you the rght to draw that line for the rest of us?

Um, the word "consenting" draws that line. Unless you know of a way to recognize true informed consent in non-humans.

I think they teach a class on that in College Station.

it is called couples counseling.

(02-04-2012 07:14 PM)jh Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 03:16 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  Your examples of the UK and France are not terribly appropriate. Given the low levels of church participation in the UK, and the really low levels of church participation in France, there's no need for a "war on religion" because the secularists have already won. The mere fact that participation levels are much higher in the USA doesn't negate the possibility that there is a "war" going on, only that it hasn't been successful here as it has in Europe (if, indeed, there was ever a "war" there in the first place).

I kind of doubt there was ever a "war" in Europe. I believe John Stuart Mill argued that the reason America was so much more religious than Europe (maybe it was just England) was competition. Europe was more or less dominated by state religions with little incentive for the vicars to build the flock. Like most other monopolists, they got fat & lazy and lost their flock. Since there were no other religious options around, the people drifted away.

Exactly. Another point to which you indirectly refer is the establishment of state religions. With the intertwining of church and state provided by establishment, the effect over the years has been essentially for the populace to see the church as simply another arm of the state and therefore cease to hold the church in any special regard. That's why the First Amendment may have been the best thing to happen to religion in this country; the separation between the two kept that assimilation from happening.

As an aside, note that the First Amendment, being part of the federal constitution, applies only to the federal government. It says nothing about what other jurisdictions can or cannot do. Thus, there's nothing preventing an individual state of the United States from establishing a state religion. In fact, at the time the Constitution came into effect five of the thirteen new states had established state religions. However, within thirty years or so those five states disestablished the state churches, and there's been no effort (that I'm aware of) since then to re-establish them.

(02-06-2012 11:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The government made a huge mistake when it sought to teach/enforce morality... But like the camels nose, it is difficult to get them out of the tent. We're merely arguing over WHOSE morality to choose

On the contrary - if government weren't attemtping to enforce morality, it wouldn't be doing its job. Optimistic Owl alludes to the reason why:

(02-06-2012 11:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  somebody writes the definitions of who can marry who, and when, and how many, etc. if we exclude religious people from participating in the defining, who then should create the definitions?

at what age can a human being give informed consent? Sez who?

How many people can be in a marriage? sez who?



Emmie says religious people shouldn't be the ones who say. who then should it be?
should only nonreligious people be allowed to set rules?

At its most basic level, the law is simply morals that have been formally codified and are enforced through the police power of the state. Our legal definitions of what is right and what is wrong simply reflect the moral choices that our society has made. We have laws against theft and murder because we as a society have made the value judgement that theft and murder are wrong. I could construct an moral argument in which the taking of a person's property or a person's life would be considered to be a positive thing. Such arguments would be per se no more valid nor invalid than arguments proscribing these acts. However, it is the sense of our society that the arguments for proscription are more compelling than those against proscription, and so we have those laws. Another society may have differing values and thus come to different conclusions. In the United States, these values tend to reflect Judeo-Christian beliefs (because we are a republic, and the vast majority of the population professes Judeo-Christian beliefs). If our laws did not reflect our (predominantly Judeo-Christian) values, then something is wrong. It is we, the people, who determine our values and establish our laws, and religious belief is one of the factors used to make these decisions. Those who would want to drive religion out of the public square profoundly misunderstand the relationship between law and morality, and how religion contributes to our understanding of morality.

(02-07-2012 04:18 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  As an aside, note that the First Amendment, being part of the federal constitution, applies only to the federal government. It says nothing about what other jurisdictions can or cannot do.

I think one of those other amendment thingys took care of that. Along about 14 or so.

Otherwise I pretty much agree with the rest.

69 nailed it. This is why state agencies cannot discriminate, lest they face lawsuits not only under the state constitution but also the federal one.

Mill also noted that he knew a remarkable number of athiests who had to maintain the public persona of a Christian. Maybe he just ran with a bad crowd, but that suggests that the war by the religious has deep roots indeed.

Jonathan...

My point was that people should be allowed to decide their own morality, so long as they do interfere with others. Obviously I will vote based on my moral code, as will you... But if your code doesn't interfere with mine, I shouldn't be be involved.

Why do I care if someone is a bigamist, so long as everyone involved knows and agrees. That certainly doesn't follow my moral compass, but it shouldn't be the government's business.

(02-07-2012 07:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Jonathan...

My point was that people should be allowed to decide their own morality, so long as they do interfere with others. Obviously I will vote based on my moral code, as will you... But if your code doesn't interfere with mine, I shouldn't be be involved.

Why do I care if someone is a bigamist, so long as everyone involved knows and agrees. That certainly doesn't follow my moral compass, but it shouldn't be the government's business.

Frankly, the whole idea that morality is "private" and I can have mine that doesn't step on yours is just fanciful. Someone will always be stepping on someone else's toes. The real question is whether (1) a public compromise is possible, and (2) if not, then which one wins.

Consider gay marriage (just because it's the topic du jour). Progressives say, "If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. What does it matter to you if I have one?" To which I respond, "It matters because it is a fundamental change in society as to what particular relationships mean, which tilts the public morality in a manner that I find morally objectionable and that I must correct when raising my children."

Moral choices always have public implications. It is modern man's moral poverty to think otherwise.