Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion

[telephone89]

I will start off by saying I am a pretty hardcore atheist. BUT one of my favourite past times is learning about other religions. I find it facsinating.

I do not believe that religion should have any place in schools (or government). I do not believe that students should be taught any sort of religious things at school. I feel like if parents want their child to learn a religion, they should teach it to them. This will make the parents accountable for what their child is learning, and it also puts a bit of pressure on the parents to make sure they actually KNOW what they're teaching! I say this for private schools as well, however it gets a little sticky there. I believe in Canada, all of our students have to take the same provincial tests - whether catholic, public or private. So I think that is fine, as all of our kids are held to the same standard. I don't know how much of the information on the exams is evolutionary based, it could only be a very small percentage.

Just wanted to point out that in the States, religious schools are always private. I'm not sure about all of Canada, but in Ontario there are four "separate" publicly funded school systems - English, English Catholic, French, French Catholic. So of course the religious schools would have to meet the same standards as other public schools, since they are public schools. I don't know about all of the U.S., but in Maine this is not true. In fact, it's not just private (which would include religious) schools that are exempt from state standards and hiring certified teachers - publicly funded charter schools are also exempt! Great way to siphon off taxpayer money to the private sector - allow charter schools.

By the way, I'm amazed that the right to a public religious school system hasn't been demanded by other religious groups in Ontario. What's stopping Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc from insisting on their own separate school boards?

...and the secular version of AMEN to everything ksinger said!

I had no idea religious schools in the US were automatically private. In Alberta, we have public, which can be french/english (i think we have a spanish one now too?), catholic and private. I know we also have a muslim school, however I'm not sure of it's funding or where it falls.

Also somewhat related to this thread is the Trinity Western Law school kerfuffle going on in BC. A (sort of) private Christian university is wanting to add a Law program, however they've been told that none of their students would count as real lawyers based on the covenant the university makes them sign (no sex before marriage, and only in a traditional sense of marriage). Pretty interesting stuff.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trinity-western-law-school-b-c-law-society-members-vote-to-reverse-approval-1.2818540

 

[AGBF]

I had no idea religious schools in the US were automatically private. In Alberta, we have public, which can be french/english (i think we have a spanish one now too?), catholic and private. I know we also have a muslim school, however I'm not sure of it's funding or where it falls.

Yes. It's rather a big deal to us Americans. It falls under our separation of Church and State. When I was growing up there was, as ksinger pointed out in her postings, Christians (as the religious majority) were given more leeway. There were Christian songs and religious celebrations in public schools (and in other public places). Now even many private (independent) schools which have the legal right to celebrate these festivities do not do so if they are not religious schools because they do not want to offend members. I am speaking from personal experience here. I graduated from an independent girls school at which I also taught. It was the custom, before Christmas break, to light candles and sing, "Silent Night" when I was in school and later when I was a teacher. That has not been done for many years.

Deb/AGBF

 

[ksinger]

I had no idea religious schools in the US were automatically private. In Alberta, we have public, which can be french/english (i think we have a spanish one now too?), catholic and private. I know we also have a muslim school, however I'm not sure of it's funding or where it falls.

Yes. It's rather a big deal to us Americans. It falls under our separation of Church and State. When I was growing up there was, as ksinger pointed out in her postings, Christians (as the religious majority) were given more leeway. There were Christian songs and religious celebrations in public schools (and in other public places). Now even many private (independent) schools which have the legal right to celebrate these festivities do not do so if they are not religious schools because they do not want to offend members. I am speaking from personal experience here. I graduated from an independent girls school at which I also taught. It was the custom, before Christmas break, to light candles and sing, "Silent Night" when I was in school and later when I was a teacher. That has not been done for many years.

Deb/AGBF

Yep, and if you (directed mainly at the Canadians who have weighed in) want to understand even better how and why (primarily fundamentalist) religious people are so upset at the teaching of evolution, you have to understand the fact that in spite of the establishment clause, for a long time the public schools WERE essentially religious, or at the very least, they gave open preference to Christianity. The Scopes trial (for those who don't know) was a case where high school teacher, John Scopes, was accused of violating Tennessee's Butler Act, which made it unlawful to teach human evolution in any state-funded school. The fact that there were laws on the books designed specifically to protect religious teachings about science from perceived challenges to those teachings (ie, evolution) in the public schools should show that the modern perception of public schools as secular doesn't exactly square with the actual history. Anyway, he was convicted, but it was a pyrrhic victory for those who considered the teaching of evolution a direct assault on their religion, and everyone knew it. And since then the overt teaching of and preference for Christianity in the schools has been repeatedly challenged with religion having to retreat (silent meditation, Bible readings, prayers at sporting events, creationism), and has caused intense consternation among a contingent who were convinced they did and still do, have the God-given RIGHT to teach their religion in public schools, if for no other reason than they were the majority locally, and how DARE heathens try to water down their influence or "kick God out of the schools". You hear that kind of rhetoric a bunch.

I mentioned that juicy summary of the Dover case (linked above), a more recent attempt to get religion "back in" the public schools, and here is an excerpt that highlights the attitude that religious teachings are a right in public schools. This is VERY characteristic of the attitudes that drive the religious battles in the public schools, especially currently in places like Texas, as pertains to textbook selection (right now mainly focused on the teaching of American history), which can have ramifications , not just locally, but nationally.

Although Baksa claims he does not recall Bonsell identifying “creationism”
as the subject with which he wanted to share equal time with evolution, nor that
Bonsell mentioned “creationism” at any time up until April 1, 2003, we do not find
his testimony on this point to be credible. We accordingly find that Bonsell is
clearly the unnamed Board member referred to in Peterman’s memo who wanted
fifty percent of the topic of evolution to involve the teaching of creationism.
Apart from two consecutive Board retreats, Bonsell raised the issue of
creationism on numerous other occasions as well. When he ran for the Board in
2001, Bonsell told Jeff Brown he did not believe in evolution, that he wanted
creationism taught side-by-side with evolution in biology class, and that taking
prayer and Bible reading out of school was a mistake which he wanted reinstated in
Page 96 of 139

the Dover public schools. (8:48-49 (J. Brown)). Subsequently, Bonsell told Jeff
Brown he wanted to be on the Board Curriculum Committee because he had
concerns about teaching evolution and he wanted to see some changes in that area.
(8:55 (J. Brown)). Additionally, Nilsen complained to Jeff Brown that each Board
President had a new set of priorities and Bonsell’s priority was that of creationism.
(8:53 (J. Brown)). It is notable, and in fact incredible that Bonsell disclaimed any
interest in creationism during his testimony, despite the admission by his counsel
in Defendants’ opening statement that Bonsell had such an interest. (1:19).
Simply put, Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner about this and
other subjects. Finally, Bonsell not only wanted prayer in schools and creationism
taught in science class, he also wanted to inject religion into the social studies
curriculum, as evidenced by his statement to Baksa that he wanted students to learn
more about the Founding Fathers and providing Baksa with a book entitled Myth
of Separation by David Barton.

 

[AGBF]

Perhaps this should have a thread of its own, but I thought of this thread as soon as I read the piece yesterday. It is about how women who are not interested in having abortions have lost control over their bodies due to the increasingly restrictive laws-aimed at restricting abortion- passed by Republicans that have robbed women of their rights and criminalized harm to fetuses. Republican men, generally. The Republicans, of course, have been pushed by religious zealots who insist that a fetus has rights. This is a view based in a religious belief, that life begins at conception. The rights of the fetus have overtaken the rights of the women carrying the fetuses and women have been forced to have cesarian sections against their wills when the courts have deemed it time, in more than one case leading to their deaths. To add insult to injury, women have been imprisoned for harming their fetuses. I feel that this is a case of religion run riot.

"The New York Times"...http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/opinion/pregnant-and-no-civil-rights.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3As%2C{%222%22%3A%22RI%3A13%22}

Excerpts below:

"How does this play out? Based on the belief that he had an obligation to give a fetus a chance for life, a judge in Washington, D.C., ordered a critically ill 27-year-old woman who was 26 weeks pregnant to undergo a cesarean section, which he understood might kill her. Neither the woman nor her baby survived.

In Iowa, a pregnant woman who fell down a flight of stairs was reported to the police after seeking help at a hospital. She was arrested for 'attempted fetal homicide.'

In Utah, a woman gave birth to twins; one was stillborn. Health care providers believed that the stillbirth was the result of the woman’s decision to delay having a cesarean. She was arrested on charges of fetal homicide.

In Louisiana, a woman who went to the hospital for unexplained vaginal bleeding was locked up for over a year on charges of second-degree murder before medical records revealed she had suffered a miscarriage at 11 to 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Florida has had a number of such cases. In one, a woman was held prisoner at a hospital to prevent her from going home while she appeared to be experiencing a miscarriage. She was forced to undergo a cesarean. Neither the detention nor the surgery prevented the pregnancy loss, but they did keep this mother from caring for her two small children at home. While a state court later found the detention unlawful, the opinion suggested that if the hospital had taken her prisoner later in her pregnancy, its actions might have been permissible.

In another case, a woman who had been in labor at home was picked up by a sheriff, strapped down in the back of an ambulance, taken to a hospital, and forced to have a cesarean she did not want. When this mother later protested what had happened, a court concluded that the woman’s personal constitutional rights “clearly did not outweigh the interests of the State of Florida in preserving the life of the unborn child.”

Anti-abortion reasoning has also provided the justification for arresting pregnant women who experience depression and have attempted suicide. A 22-year-old in South Carolina who was eight months pregnant attempted suicide by jumping out a window. She survived despite suffering severe injuries. Because she lost the pregnancy, she was arrested and jailed for the crime of homicide by child abuse.

These are not isolated or rare cases. Last year, we published a peer-reviewed study documenting 413 arrests or equivalent actions depriving pregnant women of their physical liberty during the 32 years between 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, and 2005. In a majority of these cases, women who had no intention of ending a pregnancy went to term and gave birth to a healthy baby. This includes the many cases where the pregnant woman was alleged to have used some amount of alcohol or a criminalized drug.

Since 2005, we have identified an additional 380 cases, with more arrests occurring every week. This significant increase coincides with what the Guttmacher Institute describes as a 'seismic shift' in the number of states with laws hostile to abortion rights.

The principle at the heart of contemporary efforts to end legal abortion is that fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses are persons or at least have separate rights that must be protected by the state. In each of the cases we identified, this same rationale provided the justification for the deprivation of pregnant women’s physical liberty, as well as of the right to medical decision making, medical privacy, bodily integrity and, in one case, the woman’s right to life.

Many of the pregnant women subjected to this mistreatment are themselves profoundly opposed to abortion. Yet it was precisely the legal arguments for recriminalizing abortion that were used to strip them of their rights to dignity and liberty in the context of labor and delivery. These cases, individually and collectively, highlight what is so often missed when the focus is on attacking or defending abortion, namely that all pregnant women are at risk of losing a wide range of fundamental rights that are at the core of constitutional personhood in the United States.

If we want to end these unjust and inhumane arrests and forced interventions on pregnant women, we need to stop focusing only on the abortion issue and start working to protect the personhood of pregnant women.

We should be able to work across the spectrum of opinion about abortion to unite in the defense of one basic principle: that at no point in her pregnancy should a woman lose her civil and human rights."

Deb/AGBF

 

[monarch64]

Hello. I saw this on Facebook this morning and thought I'd post it here. I think it's appropriate!

 

[AGBF]

Hello. I saw this on Facebook this morning and thought I'd post it here. I think it's appropriate!

That's awfully cute, Monnie.

Deb

 

[ksinger]

And you know what? Giving lip service to "respecting religion" and not using words that "hurt someone's feelings" or "shame" them (how I despise how that word is tossed around so much nowadays to protect ideas and attitudes worthy of being ashamed OF) when we are dealing with stuff like this, is not OK either.

Religion permeating every corner of governance from the state to the federal level, will NOT "return" this country to some halcyon day of yore that never existed except in some fever dream of those in denial of the gray complexities of history, it will DESTROY this country, if for no other reason than it will ensure that the population is increasingly ignorant from being taught stuff that really isn't open to interpretation, it's just flat out WRONG. We do not (yet, but apparently we Okies are working on it) have a robust history of exorcisms or witch burnings like Europe (something this country USED to be a bit proud of) and Moses was NOT one of the leaders of the Enlightenment.

I just want to scream. Unless you live in a place like Oklahoma or Texas, I guess you really can barely fathom this, but for those of us who ended here, we've watched our states slide back into damn near the dark ages. It is massively depressing. MASSIVELY.



Evil in Oklahoma: Exorcisms on the rise
http://kfor.com/2014/11/14/evil-in-oklahoma-exorcisms-on-the-rise/

New Anti-Gay Colorado Lawmaker Once Performed An Exorcism On Obama
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/anti-gay-gordon-klingenschmitt-elected-colorado-house

These Biased Ideas Are Presented As Fact In Texas Curriculum Standards
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/22/texas-social-studies-standards_n_6029224.html

"In September, the nonprofit organization Texas Freedom Network Education Fund commissioned a group of history scholars to evaluate proposed social studies textbooks from publishing giants such as Pearson Education and McGraw-Hill Education. The scholars found that several of the textbooks were rife with religious and conservative biases that they said distort history. At the time, the TFN noted that while it was important that inaccuracies be corrected, the root of the problem likely lay with the state's social studies standards, to which the textbooks are expected to cater.
.
.
.
a number of textbook passages essentially reflect the ideological beliefs of politicians on the state board rather than sound scholarship and factual history."

or....

Brockman/Countryman/Lester: Texas textbooks should not distort U.S. history
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Brockman-Countryman-Lester-Texas-textbooks-a-5904485.php

"Students in Texas public schools could soon be learning that democracy and our nation's government are based on the ideas of such biblical figures as Moses and King Solomon. That's because the State Board of Education, or SBOE, is to adopt new textbooks on Friday that teach this peculiar distortion of American history.

Such an outcome would surely gladden the hearts of culture warriors who insist that America is a distinctly Christian nation that should be guided by biblical law.
.
.
.
Passages about religion were particularly problematic. In fact, the Fordham Institute had criticized how the state's new curriculum standards "exaggerated, if not invented" biblical influences on America's founding.

As the public learned from news media coverage Tuesday, Moses, for example, stands alongside English philosopher John Locke in the standards as a major influence on our founding documents. The standards also require students to learn that the roots of democratic government today lie in the hazy, undefined concept of a "Judeo-Christian legal tradition."
.
.
.
So a number of textbooks parrot the supposed influence of Moses on our political and legal systems, even though the historical record doesn't support this contention. In fact, John Adams, in an 1825 letter to Thomas Jefferson, explicitly rejected the notion that the Ten Commandments had influenced the Constitution.

One textbook claims that "the roots of democratic government" date back "thousands of years to Old Testament texts and Biblical figures such as Moses and Solomon." Such a claim is absurd - the forms of government mentioned in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament are monarchy and theocracy.

Another text teaches students that "the biblical idea of a covenant" - one between people and God - "contributed to our constitutional structure." But the historical truth is that the American founders were inspired by the very different Lockean social contract - a voluntary agreement among "We the People" to create a government for ourselves. Such a government would protect the rights of all - including, importantly, religious liberty.

Some textbooks also cloud the history of "separation of church and state," a concept the Texas standards suggest isn't a constitutional principle at all. Some students will never even encounter that phrase itself in their texts."

 

[AGBF]

Unless you live in a place like Oklahoma or Texas, I guess you really can barely fathom this, but for those of us who ended here, we've watched our states slide back into damn near the dark ages.

This is so, ksinger. I read about the laws passed in some states in the southwest and the south and feel as if I were reading about laws passed in a faraway country with an entirely different set of laws from the ones under which my government operates. The State of Connecticut would not dare to try to pass many of the laws that are passed in other regions. Since I do read the newspaper, what I read frightens me. I do not think the fear or the anger I feel is on the visceral level of one living under the oppression of the culture and the laws and regulations engendered by it, however. It is good to hear a report from the front lines. Sort of like hearing ame report about Ferguson when we didn't know what was happening there due to the media blackout.

Deb

 

[monarch64]

Deb, I was going to say "I thought it was 'cute'" but decided to change that to "I think it's appropriate" so I didn't seem flip. I just meant that it seemed to fit in with what's being discussed in this thread.

KSinger, I agree with pretty much everything you write on Pricescope. I certainly did not mean to attract your ire with my silly meme. I live in Indiana, so I know a fair amount of what you describe Oklahoma and Texas to be like in terms of the role religion plays in the education and political systems, and of course even in health care. I will go back to lurking and reading this thread; it is full of excellent information and discussion.

 

[AGBF]

Deb, I was going to say "I thought it was 'cute'" but decided to change that to "I think it's appropriate" so I didn't seem flip. I just meant that it seemed to fit in with what's being discussed in this thread.

KSinger, I agree with pretty much everything you write on Pricescope. I certainly did not mean to attract your ire with my silly meme. I live in Indiana, so I know a fair amount of what you describe Oklahoma and Texas to be like in terms of the role religion plays in the education and political systems, and of course even in health care. I will go back to lurking and reading this thread; it is full of excellent information and discussion.

If you are going back to lurking for fear of not being enough of a radical feminist, fear not! If you lived in 17th century Salem, they's have burned you at the stake or drowned you in the dunking pond. Not that only feminists or liberals are welcome to post here! Even DF posts here! Continue posting, Monnie!

Deb

 

[monarch64]

Ha! Here's a little anecdote that made my jaw drop from last week:

We were the dinner guests of a former co-worker and friend of my husband. We drove 45 minutes through Indiana's central farmland to get to her house, passing many churches and many gun stores, shooting ranges, and taxidermists along the way. Once there, we were joined by a few other guests and enjoyed a nice dinner until the conversation veered toward local politics. Out of nowhere, our hostess said "and the next time I hear someone say they're a feminist, I am going to slap her as hard as I can!"

*record scratch*

I told her politely that I consider myself a feminist and that I hoped she wouldn't slap me. The topic of conversation awkwardly fell off the track and then my husband cleared the table and washed the dishes. With a toddler and 12 month old in the house, there were too many distractions to make a big deal out of the issue so of course the evening ended peacefully, but I thought it was all pretty funny.

No more burning at the stake, now it's the threat of getting slapped in the face by your fellow woman.

 

[ksinger]

Deb, I was going to say "I thought it was 'cute'" but decided to change that to "I think it's appropriate" so I didn't seem flip. I just meant that it seemed to fit in with what's being discussed in this thread.

KSinger, I agree with pretty much everything you write on Pricescope. I certainly did not mean to attract your ire with my silly meme. I live in Indiana, so I know a fair amount of what you describe Oklahoma and Texas to be like in terms of the role religion plays in the education and political systems, and of course even in health care. I will go back to lurking and reading this thread; it is full of excellent information and discussion.

You didn't attract my ire. I just feel strongly that the first part of that meme is an attempt at to establish a false equivalence. Even were it true, saying that I don't believe what YOU (not you you) believe because it has zero evidence, and you assuming I meant to make you feel silly or ashamed about it, or having what I said hurt your feelings (maybe because long-repressed doubts are actually welling up from the depths and make you uncomfortable or create cognitive dissonance that you can't handle, so getting "offended" is a way to make it STOP?) is NOT at all equivalent to misogyny, homophobia, or racism, and especially not equivalent when those mindsets are held by many of those who make it into various forms of government (legislative/school boards/courts/etc) and are then attempt to enforce the ideas that flow from that mindset, as part of institutional power.

One is hurt feelings that someone disagrees with me and has the gall to think and maybe even say out LOUD, that they don't think I'm the sharpest knife in the drawer for thinking that oh...exocisms are a good idea, (that superstition thing), the other is virulent hate expressed sometimes overtly, but usually in loss of SOMEONE'S freedoms.

 

[monarch64]

Deb, I was going to say "I thought it was 'cute'" but decided to change that to "I think it's appropriate" so I didn't seem flip. I just meant that it seemed to fit in with what's being discussed in this thread.

KSinger, I agree with pretty much everything you write on Pricescope. I certainly did not mean to attract your ire with my silly meme. I live in Indiana, so I know a fair amount of what you describe Oklahoma and Texas to be like in terms of the role religion plays in the education and political systems, and of course even in health care. I will go back to lurking and reading this thread; it is full of excellent information and discussion.

You didn't attract my ire. I just feel strongly that the first part of that meme is an attempt at to establish a false equivalence. Even were it true, saying that I don't believe what YOU (not you you) believe because it has zero evidence, and you assuming I meant to make you feel silly or ashamed about it, or having what I said hurt your feelings (maybe because long-repressed doubts are actually welling up from the depths and make you uncomfortable or create cognitive dissonance that you can't handle, so getting "offended" is a way to make it STOP?) is NOT at all equivalent to misogyny, homophobia, or racism, and especially not equivalent when those mindsets are held by many of those who make it into various forms of government (legislative/school boards/courts/etc) and are then attempt to enforce the ideas that flow from that mindset, as part of institutional power.

One is hurt feelings that someone disagrees with me and has the gall to think and maybe even say out LOUD, that they don't think I'm the sharpest knife in the drawer for thinking that oh...exocisms are a good idea, (that superstition thing), the other is virulent hate expressed sometimes overtly, but usually in loss of SOMEONE'S freedoms.

Fair enough! You are much more eloquent and in control of your words than I will ever be. I always appreciate your posts, although I do have to read them several times (my own comprehension, not your language) to really gain an understanding of them.

No hurt feelings here (if I read that correctly?). More of a "I'm not on the same playing field as the minds putting forth their opinions and knowledge here," that's all. Well, no. Honestly, I feel that my communication skills are inferior to yours and consequently I feel a little embarrassed that I shared something that has been deemed by (in so many words?) some here as what the young kids these days call "basic."

I appreciate your comments on the meme. I'm always learning. I knew it wasn't completely appropriate for this thread, and was probably the equivalent of a person walking into a jacket-required restaurant wearing gym shoes and jeans, but it did catch my eye and I wanted to share it in hopes that it brought a bit of not-so-super-intellectual, kind-of-relatable-to-we-non-academic-folk humor.

My brand of posting unfortunately? doesn't mesh with a lot of participants'. But, I will take note from Deb (dear Deb, thank you so much for being part of PS) and keep posting as I see fit.

And KSinger, (now that I've purged all of this from my brain,) please know, once again, that I very sincerely do share a lot of your beliefs. I think there may be an education and a bit of an age barrier plus language gap here, so although you may think me a veritable fool, I do look up to and respect your points of view and in the future will not let my ego get in the way of my posting my thoughts in this renewed PS political forum.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

While I didn't read all the comments near the end, I did pick up on an inconsistency or a change in position from the original opening post of Debs.

There is good reason to challenge Religion. There are myths and superstitions and concepts that we no longer want as part of our society. Women are not subservient, either in the world at large or in the United States. We can make our own destiny. You have listed many points of controversy in later posts that demand challenge. If religion supports these challenges, we must answer back.


What I think matters here is the feeling that some people do mock others in a way that does not contribute to a rational dialogue, but becomes a derision of all their beliefs. I agree with you on that Deb, but I think we can separate the two. Society can lay claim to a better road for us all and ought not tolerate old thinking to the detriment of progress.

Pretty good thread. My first time here.


Annette

 

[aljdewey]

I, personally, am a huge proponent of science. I am vehemently against the teaching of "creationism" as an equal to evolution as if it were a science in the public schools of my country (the US). I believe in evolution. I do not take the Bible literally.

However, I believe that privately run Protestant church schools should have the right to teach creationism and to teach that the Bible is the literal truth of God. I believe that privately run Roman Catholic schools should have the right to teach intercessionist prayers like the "Hail, Mary" or other prayers to saints asking them them to intercede with God, since it is the belief of Roman Catholics that saints have the power to do that. This is so because, as an American, I believe in freedom of religion...and freedom from religion as well. I am against prayer in public places. I am against the display of crosses on public grounds.

A local firehouse in an Italian part of our town always had a cross in lights at Christmas. It always irked me. Finally there was protest and the cross was taken down. The neighbors were incensed and, in protest, put crosses up everywhere in the neighborhood all over their lawns. It was as if they were saying, "Take that, you heathens! We'll show you! We'll give you crosses! You can't take our cross away from us!"

And the crosses made me happy.

They were where-in my opinion-they belonged.

People have a right to celebrate their religion. They have a right to be free to have crosses and not to be disturbed in the celebration of their faith. Not to be intimidated or mocked or slighted.

But they do not have the right to push their religion on others...i.e.to put them into a shared (public) area.

That's just my first thought on things. Please respond!!!

Deb/AGBF

I've only lightly read this thread, which is to say that I've skimmed much of it due to length. But I did thoroughly read Deb's opening post, and it's the parts in red I struggle to agree with.

The concept of separation of church and state was a pass through concept from the English Bill of Rights in 1689, which sought to end rampant religious persecution in Europe. Prior to that, it was believed that uniformity of religion was essential to society, so civil authorities were empowered to impose the government-sanctioned 'one true religion' onto citizens in the name of saving their souls. Non-conformists (heretics) were harshly punished, up to and including execution. The English Bill of Rights sought to restore the right of citizens to petition Parliament and debate without fear of retribution or persecution and to eliminate the ability of government to impose a single religion.

Early American settlers came to America expressly so they could worship God as they chose, and the language in the Bill of Rights is meant to ensure that the government does not have the power to establish a single national religion and impose that religion on citizens.

The intent was not to restrict how or where people could practice their religion or to limit them to only practicing in 'private' places or among other like-minded people; in fact, it was just the opposite. It was to restore freedom to practice their religion openly without fear of persecution. It was merely to ensure that government could not dictate adherence to any single religion.

To me, the point of all of that was tolerance. Tolerance to allow others to believe as they choose, even when I believe differently. Tolerance to let others practice their religions, whether it means displaying a nativity scene, a menorah, or something else. It was meant to be a 'live and let live' system, not a "live only my way, or else hide your way from my sight" system.

I was raised a Christian, but I am not offended in the slightest by seeing a menorah -- even if it were on the front lawn of my city hall. Unless and until my government demands that I also display one and forcibly submit to a religion I don't believe in (which I don't see happening) , there is positively nothing to be offended by.

Similarly, I think it's equally ridiculous for atheists to get into an uproar about having the word "God" on money. Guess what? If you don't believe in God, that dollar bills spends exactly the same way it does for those who do. Having "God" printed on money is not a subliminal effort to coerce you into submission.

Though I spent years in parochial school, I'm one of the biggest skeptics for most organized religions across the board, for the same reason I'm dubious about politics, HOAs and any other group that presumes to exert control over others - the potential for corruption and personal agendas is overwhelming. That said, though, I celebrate the right of those who do find value in them to passionately follow their chosen religions, and I don't see where their doing so should be offensive to me as long as I am not being imposed upon to follow suit.

ETA: And for what it's worth, my parochial (read: private) school's core requirements included completing classes in at least three religions, which spanned Catholicism, Episcopalian, Buddism, Hinduism, Judaism, and others. IIRC, the goal was promoting better tolerance and understanding of more than one point of view.

 

[ksinger]

I've only lightly read this thread, which is to say that I've skimmed much of it due to length. But I did thoroughly read Deb's opening post, and it's the parts in red I struggle to agree with.

The concept of separation of church and state was a pass through concept from the English Bill of Rights in 1689, which sought to end rampant religious persecution in Europe. Prior to that, it was believed that uniformity of religion was essential to society, so civil authorities were empowered to impose the government-sanctioned 'one true religion' onto citizens in the name of saving their souls. Non-conformists (heretics) were harshly punished, up to and including execution. The English Bill of Rights sought to restore the right of citizens to petition Parliament and debate without fear of retribution or persecution and to eliminate the ability of government to impose a single religion.

Early American settlers came to America expressly so they could worship God as they chose, and the language in the Bill of Rights is meant to ensure that the government does not have the power to establish a single national religion and impose that religion on citizens.

The intent was not to restrict how or where people could practice their religion or to limit them to only practicing in 'private' places or among other like-minded people; in fact, it was just the opposite. It was to restore freedom to practice their religion openly without fear of persecution. It was merely to ensure that government could not dictate adherence to any single religion.

To me, the point of all of that was tolerance. Tolerance to allow others to believe as they choose, even when I believe differently. Tolerance to let others practice their religions, whether it means displaying a nativity scene, a menorah, or something else. It was meant to be a 'live and let live' system, not a "live only my way, or else hide your way from my sight" system.

It’s wonderful that you are so tolerant and that to you, that was the point. Unfortunately, that is a myth, pure and simple. The Pilgrims and Puritans came here to escape persecution (to some extent anyway – the Scrooby Pilgrims actually LEFT Holland where they went first, in large part because it was TOO religiously tolerant and they were having trouble maintaining their group purity. NOT exactly a “tolerant” attitude). The logical failure is to assume that escaping from persecution means there will be an attitude of tolerance in the group being persecuted. There is no such requirement, and most often, persecuted groups (or abused children, or children who have watched abuse) have imbibed their ideas of how power is exercised from witnessing or experiencing that power used against them, and so end up exercising power when they get it, in a similar way. Here is a good piece that gives some more on that tolerance myth, and a bit of what modes of thought actually resulted in true religious tolerancet. Hint, it did NOT flow out of religion itself…
Myth: Puritans Believed in Religious Freedom
http://www.bostontourguide.org/myth-puritans-believed-in-religious-freedom/

I was raised a Christian, but I am not offended in the slightest by seeing a menorah -- even if it were on the front lawn of my city hall. Unless and until my government demands that I also display one and forcibly submit to a religion I don't believe in (which I don't see happening) , there is positively nothing to be offended by.

Similarly, I think it's equally ridiculous for atheists to get into an uproar about having the word "God" on money. Guess what? If you don't believe in God, that dollar bills spends exactly the same way it does for those who do. Having "God" printed on money is not a subliminal effort to coerce you into submission.

Atheists are not "in an uproar" or “offended” over God on money. They of no belief, and people of other religious traditions than the Christianity that word is pretty clearly understood to refer to (no, the word God does not cover everyone’s concept, it IS very specific to Christianity, and anyone maintaining differently (and I’m not implying YOU said so) is being dishonest or ignorant), are pointing out the incompatibility of having a particular religious verbiage on the money of a country that says out of one side of its collective mouth that there shall be no preference given to one religion over another, while often doing that very thing. Just because you are not upset by this particular manifestation of the conflation of religion and government, doesn’t mean that others are not, or are silly to be so. Those not in the dominant group often have a quite different take on the same situation than those who are, yes? Or, in this case, take that separation of church and state thing rather more seriously, if for no other reason than maybe they are more aware of the abuses. I would also ask you that if God on money is supposed to be so inconsequential to other people, why, when it is suggested that it be removed, do many Christians nearly slip a cog and start screaming about how atheists are trying to cast out God etc? You can’t demand it be of no importance to those against it while insisting it is critically imortant to YOU. (again, collective you, not you personally). The logical disconnect and hypocrisy of that position, if held, is pretty staggering, and again, perhaps the person holding it is blissfully unaware or uncaring about motivations or illogical positions, but the rest of us outside that particular fold, are not.

The problem for those who think the objection is silly and/or the rest of us should just suck it up, is that number one, there are now enough religious minorities to make a dent in the cultural dominance of Christianity, and two, THEY see the disconnect even if many flavors of Christianity are willfully blind to it and would love for it to continue. Christianity may not be the offical state faith, but it has long enjoyed top dog position, and in recent decades has even come to tell itself the massive fiction that the US was always intended to be theocratic and that Christianity deserves pride of place in government’s workings because of (insert whatever argument counter to the intent of the founders that you care to trot out).

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/09/the_dangerous_myth_at_the_heart_of_conservative_ideology_partner/


You see it all the time: tolerance (in the abstract) is this wonderful thing that many Christians love to attribute to their religion as if it is integral to it. But history, over the long haul, and more recently, America's, shows that that the self-congratulatory claim that Christianity is somehow more tolerant than other religions, or that it is the primary source of the idea of religious tolerance in the US, is more than a bit overblown. (I can’t help thinking of those tolerant government schools set up to “educate” the native Americans as I type this. I’m sure they could comment at great length on the highly vaunted “tolerance” of their traditional religions exhibited at those schools) And recent decades' demands that US Christianity now actually practice real tolerance of people who disagree with it openly (the NERVE!) and on much more substantive theological issues than whether one makes the sign of the cross with 2 fingers or 3, has resulted in the (to them) astonishing and threatening realization that OMG! the preponderance of the various flavors of us-ness is declining: we are NOT the only religions in town anymore!

This has resulted in the rose colored glasses coming off, followed by true sentiments being expressed by bleating talking heads and legislators. And they are NOT terribly tolerant sentiments. The slew of recent "religious freedom" bills in many state houses, are NOT about Christianity really being persecuted or losing freedoms and those freedoms needing to be restored, they are about the unpleasant realization that there are people now who will no longer sit down and shut up and who refuse to defer to their religious expression without comment. It is the realization that THEIR religion it is in danger of losing its (once unconscious but no longer) privilege, and its de facto status as totally-not-preferred-by-the-state-religion-wink-wink-nudge-nudge. You can see the truth of this, when the people pushing these kinds of bills crow loudly that they are are all about freedom of religious expression (ostensibly for all) UNTIL someone who they REALLY don’t agree with, invokes the law they got rammed through. Then they gulp and backpedal. Hard.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/satanists-elegantly-humiliate-christians-into-ending-public-school-proselytization/


Heck, in MY state's case, even the mere IDEA of a different faith existing gives the screaming heebie jeebies, and results in stuff like this:
http://www.alternet.org/story/151375/what's_the_matter_with_oklahoma_state_launches_anti-immigrant_and_anti-muslim_crusade

I live in this environment every day. News like this comes with depressing regularity in Oklahoma. So yes, religion in government and driving government looms large in my world, hence the long response.

Obviously, we are not a theocracy, and I’m not claiming we are, then or now. But the adherence to an idea of true tolerance in the modern sense, or even a simple genuine separation of church and state, has been patchy and has hardly lived up to its press. This article is very good at giving examples of this.

America's True History of Religious Tolerance : The idea that the United States has always been a bastion of religious freedom is reassuring—and utterly at odds with the historical record
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/?all


Though I spent years in parochial school, I'm one of the biggest skeptics for most organized religions across the board, for the same reason I'm dubious about politics, HOAs and any other group that presumes to exert control over others - the potential for corruption and personal agendas is overwhelming. That said, though, I celebrate the right of those who do find value in them to passionately follow their chosen religions, and I don't see where their doing so should be offensive to me as long as I am not being imposed upon to follow suit.

There is more than one way attempt to impose conformity to a belief system than outright gun to the head or laws. As someone who has spent my entrie life on the outside, I can tell you, while I don’t offend or capitulate easily, but I have felt MUCH pressure over the years to conform outwardly to the prevailing religious expression where I live. And yes, God on money IS a problem, along with prayers at school sporting events and a whole bunch of other ways. No more elaboration though: Alas, I’m out of time. For now. 

ETA: And for what it's worth, my parochial (read: private) school's core requirements included completing classes in at least three religions, which spanned Catholicism, Episcopalian, Buddism, Hinduism, Judaism, and others. IIRC, the goal was promoting better tolerance and understanding of more than one point of view.

 

[movie zombie]

I would also add that the protestants that fled from England to Holland [and then became our 'pilgrims'] also had problems in Holland because they actually tried to assert their views/values/ways of life ONTO the dutch. it wasn't just that they couldn't maintain the purity of their own group but that their own group could not get the rest of the population to adhere to how they wanted things to be. hence, the move to the 'new world' and intolerance between the religious groups that settled here.

 

[aljdewey]

It’s wonderful that you are so tolerant and that to you, that was the point. Unfortunately, that is a myth, pure and simple. The Pilgrims and Puritans came here to escape persecution (to some extent anyway – the Scrooby Pilgrims actually LEFT Holland where they went first, in large part because it was TOO religiously tolerant and they were having trouble maintaining their group purity. NOT exactly a “tolerant” attitude). The logical failure is to assume that escaping from persecution means there will be an attitude of tolerance in the group being persecuted. There is no such requirement, and most often, persecuted groups (or abused children, or children who have watched abuse) have imbibed their ideas of how power is exercised from witnessing or experiencing that power used against them, and so end up exercising power when they get it, in a similar way. Here is a good piece that gives some more on that tolerance myth, and a bit of what modes of thought actually resulted in true religious tolerancet. Hint, it did NOT flow out of religion itself…
Myth: Puritans Believed in Religious Freedom
http://www.bostontourguide.org/myth-puritans-believed-in-religious-freedom/

You can only infer that I bought into a myth or suffered a logical failure if you presume that I think both groups (early American settlers and those who authored the Bill of Rights) were one in the same. Considering there's a 100+-years span between these groups, I figured it was evident both groups couldn't be mistaken for the same. I see now that perhaps I should have been clearer, so I'll modify what I wrote for clarity:

Early American settlers came to America expressly so they could worship God as they chose (this means the early settlers in early 1600s, and that's the end of this thought -- merely the observation that the majority of early settlers, though admittedly not every single one, were motivated to come here to escape religious persecution and worship as they chose).......AND (next thought) the language in the Bill of Rights (crafted more than 100 years later, likely by people who realized that the goal of religious freedom hadn't really been accomplished) is meant to ensure that the government does not have the power to establish a single national religion and impose that religion on citizens.

The intent (of the authors of the Bill of Rights, who were several generations removed from the 1600s early settlers escaping religious persecution) was not to restrict how or where people could practice their religion or to limit them to only practicing in 'private' places or among other like-minded people; in fact, it was just the opposite. It was to restore freedom to practice their religion openly without fear of persecution. It was merely to ensure that government could not dictate adherence to any single religion.

The very source you link to, by the way (the Smithsonian magazine), echoes that same thought: "The notion that everyone should have the right to practice their own religion only gained wide acceptance toward the end of the Puritan era. Such belief in tolerance was first implemented in a major way only later during the Revolutions of France (1789) and the United States (1775)." [and authoring the Bill of rights was subsequent to that timeframe.] [/quote]

Atheists are not "in an uproar" or “offended” over God on money. They of no belief, and people of other religious traditions than the Christianity that word is pretty clearly understood to refer to (no, the word God does not cover everyone’s concept, it IS very specific to Christianity, and anyone maintaining differently (and I’m not implying YOU said so) is being dishonest or ignorant), are pointing out the incompatibility of having a particular religious verbiage on the money of a country that says out of one side of its collective mouth that there shall be no preference given to one religion over another, while often doing that very thing.

Since you're focused on the wordsmithing semantics, that's actually not what the law says at all (and maybe someone should tell the atheists that). Maybe that's the myth that needs to be dispelled....so let's try it. Here's what the First Amendment says in its entirety: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There's a great article that summarizes this distinction incredibly well: "The Constitution only forbids government sponsorship and compulsion of religious exercise by individual citizens. It does not require hermetic “separation”—implying exclusion—of religion and religious persons from public affairs of state." The article this quote comes from is a great read - link here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/10/1920/

Just because you are not upset by this particular manifestation of the conflation of religion and government, doesn’t mean that others are not, or are silly to be so. Those not in the dominant group often have a quite different take on the same situation than those who are, yes? Or, in this case, take that separation of church and state thing rather more seriously, if for no other reason than maybe they are more aware of the abuses. I would also ask you that if God on money is supposed to be so inconsequential to other people, why, when it is suggested that it be removed, do many Christians nearly slip a cog and start screaming about how atheists are trying to cast out God etc? You can’t demand it be of no importance to those against it while insisting it is critically imortant to YOU. (again, collective you, not you personally). The logical disconnect and hypocrisy of that position, if held, is pretty staggering, and again, perhaps the person holding it is blissfully unaware or uncaring about motivations or illogical positions, but the rest of us outside that particular fold, are not.

Given the above clarification that the law doesn't actually prohibit reference to religion in public/state affairs or places (provided that mention doesn't rise to the level of compelling religious exercise by all) , those 'not in the dominant group' probably need to come up with a better argument, since the ideology that you claim is the basis for their outrage would appear to itself be at least a misreading of the law, if not a logical failure.

The very suggestion that there are people 'outside the dominant group' does itself also acknowledge that there *is* a 'dominant group', right? In most cases (though admittedly not all), the synonym for that group is 'the majority'. Isn't that the way a democratic government is intended to work? It doesn't require unanimous agreement, and I can't think of a single other issue which achieves that. On any given issue, whether it's compulsory health insurance, legal right to abortion, etc.......there will always be a 'those not in the dominant group' fringe.

Many Christians slip a cog? Have we actually counted? And was it truly a majority of them? Again, I was brought up Christian, and I seriously don't care if the word God appears on money or not. If tomorrow, the majority rule was to remove the word God from money, I'd no more lobby to keep it than to abolish it, for the same reason.....because I think it's a colossal waste of time and energy on something that isn't as dire as extremists on either side of the argument want to portray.

The problem for those who think the objection is silly and/or the rest of us should just suck it up, is that number one, there are now enough religious minorities to make a dent in the cultural dominance of Christianity, and two, THEY see the disconnect even if many flavors of Christianity are willfully blind to it and would love for it to continue. Christianity may not be the offical state faith, but it has long enjoyed top dog position, and in recent decades has even come to tell itself the massive fiction that the US was always intended to be theocratic and that Christianity deserves pride of place in government’s workings because of (insert whatever argument counter to the intent of the founders that you care to trot out).

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/09/the_dangerous_myth_at_the_heart_of_conservative_ideology_partner/

If you're suggesting that the many groups of non-Christians is collectively substantial enough to constitute 'the majority' (i.e. be the group now holding the dominant collective opinion that God refers specifically to Christianity and shouldn't be utilized), they should channel that collective power to change the status quo. Yes, I agree that Christianity has likely enjoyed a 'top dog' position....majority-held beliefs often do that. It will likely change when it's truly no longer the position reflecting the majority.

Obviously, we are not a theocracy, and I’m not claiming we are, then or now. But the adherence to an idea of true tolerance in the modern sense, or even a simple genuine separation of church and state, has been patchy and has hardly lived up to its press. This article is very good at giving examples of this.

America's True History of Religious Tolerance : The idea that the United States has always been a bastion of religious freedom is reassuring—and utterly at odds with the historical record
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/?all

We can agree to disagree on this. Regardless of our collectively inability to actual espouse the behavior that the authors of the Bill of Rights hoped for (tolerance), the intent was to structure the law to make it possible. Our failure to achieve it is at least not a legal failure but one of willingness.

There is more than one way attempt to impose conformity to a belief system than outright gun to the head or laws. As someone who has spent my entrie life on the outside, I can tell you, while I don’t offend or capitulate easily, but I have felt MUCH pressure over the years to conform outwardly to the prevailing religious expression where I live. And yes, God on money IS a problem, along with prayers at school sporting events and a whole bunch of other ways. No more elaboration though: Alas, I’m out of time. For now. 

Yes, there is more than one way to try to impose conformity - it's commonly called peer pressure. As a card-carrying nonconformist myself, I do fully appreciate the strength of conviction it requires to rebuff others' efforts to gain conformity. It's never easy to be outside the mainstream, but it is a choice for each of us. We choose where we live; we choose who we socialize with, and we choose how much we let others influence us. That's why I personally don't agree that the things you're mentioning are problematic. No one can force me to believe in their God or higher power, and I hold my own beliefs and convictions securely enough that a group of kids praying at a school soccer game and buying a hot-dog with 'God money" isn't going to unravel my convictions or forcibly influence me to amend my beliefs. The Hari Krishna folks standing on my municipal (public) residential street next week are unlikely to sway my beliefs. If the school soccer team decides to read passages from the Torah, the Popol Vuh, the Book of Mormon, etc. (translate: ideologies I don't believe in) before next week's game, I'll probably use that time to go get that hotdog.

 

[Maria D]

Atheists are not "in an uproar" or “offended” over God on money. They of no belief, and people of other religious traditions than the Christianity that word is pretty clearly understood to refer to (no, the word God does not cover everyone’s concept, it IS very specific to Christianity, and anyone maintaining differently (and I’m not implying YOU said so) is being dishonest or ignorant), are pointing out the incompatibility of having a particular religious verbiage on the money of a country that says out of one side of its collective mouth that there shall be no preference given to one religion over another, while often doing that very thing.

Since you're focused on the wordsmithing semantics, that's actually not what the law says at all (and maybe someone should tell the atheists that). Maybe that's the myth that needs to be dispelled....so let's try it. Here's what the First Amendment says in its entirety: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitition the Government for a redress of grievances."


Yes, there is more than one way to try to impose conformity - it's commonly called peer pressure. As a card-carrying nonconformist myself, I do fully appreciate the strength of conviction it requires to rebuff others' efforts to gain conformity. It's never easy to be outside the mainstream, but it is a choice for each of us. We choose where we live; we choose who we socialize with, and we choose how much we let others influence us. That's why I personally don't agree that the things you're mentioning are problematic. No one can force me to believe in their God or higher power, and I hold my own beliefs and convictions securely enough that a group of kids praying at a school soccer game and buying a hot-dog with 'God money" isn't going to unravel my convictions or forcibly influence me to amend my beliefs. The Hari Krishna folks standing on my municipal (public) residential street next week are unlikely to sway my beliefs. If the school soccer team decides to read passages from the Torah, the Popol Vuh, the Book of Mormon, etc. (translate: ideologies I don't believe in) before next week's game, I'll probably use that time to go get that hotdog.

Hello, atheist here who knows exactly what the First Amendment says. Too bad the 1837 Congress didn't care much about it and passed the act to include "In God We Trust" on our currency precisely to promote Christianity. http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx Total and utter hypocrisy, as ksinger pointed out.

Also, there's a big difference between people of like minded religious beliefs engaging in public prayer and children in public schools being *led* to pray. I don't *think* the soccer players, about half of which are Muslim, at the school I teach could read passages from the Koran before a game without there being some kind of pushback. But I absolutely KNOW that if the coach were to LEAD the team in Muslim prayer the entire community would have an apoplectic fit! Yet I understand that this kind of thing happens quite frequently in some parts of the country before high school football games - as long as it's Christian prayer.

Perhaps you are too far removed from youth to recognize the difference between an adult such as yourself choosing "how much we let others influence us" and what that means for a child or adolescent. For example, the ridiculous insertion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is an affront because it instills children with the idea that a) god exists and b) that this nation is somehow under his? hers? its? watchful eye. Yuck. I can (and do) choose not to say the pledge but it is difficult for a child to do so.

 

[JaneSmith]

I visited the website of the Center for Inquiry in an attempt to get another copy of the quotation about secularism that JaneSmith had posted since I found hers impossible to copy and very hard to read as well given that it is so small. I had no luck. So I am typing a couple of sentences with which to make the point I hope to make. These are central to the proclamation JaneSmith posted.

"But when we talk about 'secularism' as a social movement we're talking about working to keep faith-based ideas, superstition and religious ideology out of public life. This doesn't necessarily mean evangelizing for atheism, but it does mean recognizing that people's rights are best protected, government is most fair, and policy is best-formed when religion and myth are not in the picture."

Unlike missy and Chrono, I find the proclamation offensive. I very much believe in the separation of Church and State. Like Chrono, since I was a child I wondered if "In God we Trust" should even be on our coins. I thought that swearing on a Bible in court was a volation of the separation of Church and State, too.

However, I must say that I agree much more with how the Founding fathers handled their wording in the documents with which our country was founded than I do with the wording of this "document".

When The Center for Inquiry states it will serve everyone to get "superstition and religious ideology out of public life" I sense a tremendous hostility towards people with religious beliefs, not the tolerance that I believe this country was founded on and must remain based upon if we are to treat each other with respect. I have posted it before, but I was once in training to be a historian. Not only are atheists around the world killed. (I looked through the Center for Inquiry website.) People through the ages have killed each other over religious differences. Right before the United States was founded it was Catholics killing Lutherans and Lutherans killing Calvinists and Catholics in Europe that helped to push our ancestors to want religious freedom. But there are still sects of Islam slaughtering each other. And those are not the only religious disputes in the world.The Center for Inquiry will not stop that. But they can be another voice for tolerance here in the United States rather than a voice for intolerance.

Deb/AGBF

Deb, my apologies for the lateness of this reply.
I do believe that 'public life' as alluded to in the CFI statement means politics and government-funded spaces such as court houses, national parks, and schools. Not all shared commons such as the supermarket or movie theatre.
Having a set of the ten commandments outside a court house is a violation of the establishment clause, so is allowing only bibles to be distributed at a public school. It is funny how quickly schools refuse to distribute anything when the satanists come along and want to distribute some coloring books to the kids too.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/11/14/after-satanists-plan-to-give-away-coloring-books-school-board-considers-banning-religious-distributions-altogether/
The reference to superstition along with the religious ideology is not at all unwarranted.





There must be complete separation of religion and state. Anything else results in religious hegemony if not outright theocracy.
The new congress is 80% male, 80% white, and 92% Christian.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/05/the-new-congress-is-80-percent-white-80-percent-male-and-92-percent-christian/
I hope all those Christians making the laws that everyone must follow keep their bibles out of it, because the track record so far sucks.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2015/01/05/index.html


Ksinger brought up excellent points about the Scopes and Dover trials. Religion, specifically Christianity, being taught as fact in science classrooms is inherently anti-science and unconstitutional.


Religious leaders are specifically violating laws to further insert their ideology and dogma into politics, and the government does precious little to stop it.
http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/21468-pulpit-freedom-sunday-crosses-legal-ethical-line
This is a movement within Christian churches to sway votes from the pulpit.


Secularism is our only defense against SCROTUS.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IDMdSJJCKzk

 

[ksinger]

Jane! So good to see you! I've truly been in the slough of despond since you seemed gone forever. I even tried to send you to the other site started by the same guy responsible for Science Based Medicine, in a thread plaintively calling your name. I hope you saw it, but if not, try below. I think you'll like it as much as I do.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/

Anyway, glad to see you are still with us.

 

[AGBF]

In recent decades, many people have incorrectly conflated "freedom of speech" with being able to express an uninformed, ignorant, or generally crappy opinion without being criticized or judged, rather than simply having the freedom to express that uninformed opinion without being tossed in jail.

ksinger-

I wanted to make sure your tagline got quoted in the body of this posting because it doesn't usually make it into the body of your posts. I can't tell you how mush pleasure it has afforded me over the past few months. So many people just do not get it and it is such a source of annoyance.

Why do people now think that they have a right to have any opinions they wish without anyone debating those opinions with them or "judging" them for them? When did it become a crime to point out that an argument someone makes is illogical or erroneous?

Deb

 

[ksinger]

In recent decades, many people have incorrectly conflated "freedom of speech" with being able to express an uninformed, ignorant, or generally crappy opinion without being criticized or judged, rather than simply having the freedom to express that uninformed opinion without being tossed in jail.

ksinger-

I wanted to make sure your tagline got quoted in the body of this posting because it doesn't usually make it into the body of your posts. I can't tell you how mush pleasure it has afforded me over the past few months. So many people just do not get it and it is such a source of annoyance.

Why do people now think that they have a right to have any opinions they wish without anyone debating those opinions with them or "judging" them for them? When did it become a crime to point out that an argument someone makes is illogical or erroneous?

Deb

Deb, I confess, my tagline is a rephrasing (a bit more elegantly, I will perhaps give myself) of line from one of the responses to the the following blog entry from the site I linked for JaneSmith. I so love that site.

So in light of your response to my tagline, I suspect you'll enjoy the entry.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/perception-vs-facts/#more-7351

 

[JaneSmith]

Ksinger, that's so sweet. I have been really busy lately and have only peeked at SMTB a couple of times. I'm surprised anyone noticed I was gone, I don't have a high post count! I do like 'neurologica' quite a bit, and am glad you've found it too as it seems to be right up your alley.

 

[JaneSmith]

Also posted in the people murdered in paris thread.

Those of us who have openly criticised Islam and Islamism have faced many a threat and intimidation from the far-Right Islamist movement.

I have had phone calls saying I will be decapitated to recorded messages from the Islamic regime of Iran saying my time is near (yes, they have so many threats to make, they need to use recordings!). I’ve been called every derogatory and threatening term you can imagine from kafir, murtad, munafiq to fitnah and janazie (corpse)…

I don’t think there are many atheist, ex-Muslim or secular activists (including Muslims) like myself who have spoken up publicly and not faced some form of threat or intimidation.

So for us, Charlie Hebdo’s refusal to back down when so many have has meant a great deal over these years. Also, though, in addition to the rage one feels at any such tragedy, the massacre is personal for us.

It could really have been any of us. We are truly all Charlie Hebdo.

With the focus now on Charlie Hebdo and the crucial need and right to criticise Islam and religion, though, let us not forget the many across the globe who face execution or imprisonment for “insulting the prophet” and criticising Islam. Below you will find some examples which include Muslims, believers and atheists; the charges aim not to protect “Muslim sensibilities” as we so often hear in the west but to protect the status quo and the political power of Islamists.

A defence of Charlie Hebdo must also be turned into a defence of the many who refuse and resist.

Most urgent is the case of Raif Badawi who tomorrow on 9 January 2015 faces his flogging sentence. Raif Badawi was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for “insulting Islam” in Saudi Arabia. he is to receive the first 50 torturous lashes tomorrow after Friday prayers.

Columnist Fatma Naoot, accused of insulting Islam, will stand trial on Jan. 28 in Egypt on allegations she criticised Islamic animal sacrifices.

In January 2015, 82 year old Muslim scholar Kassim Ahmad lost his bid to challenge the Federal Territory Islamic Religious Department which charged him with insulting Islam after the Malaysian High Court ruled that his case fell under the Shariah Court.

28 year old Mauritanian journalist and anti-slavery activist Mohamed Cheikh Ould Mkhaitir, has been sentenced to death on 25 December 2014 for “insulting the prophet”.

An Egyptian journalist Bishoy Boulous Armia (32) has been given a five-year prison sentence for allegedly causing “sectarian strife” and “insulting Islam” as he reported on the persecution of Christians in Egypt.

In December 2014, there has been a campaign of threats to kill artists and writers for “insulting Islam” in the Gaza strip.

In December 2014, Indonesian police named The Jakarta Post editor-in-chief, Meidyatama Suryodiningrat, as a suspect in a blasphemy case stemming from a caricature on ISIS. An Islamic group filed a complaint against the newspaper, saying it had “insulted Islam”.

An investigation has been opened against Junaid Jamshed, better known as “disco mullah”, in December 2014 after he reportedly “insulted” one of Prophet Muhammad’s wives in Pakistan where blasphemy is punishable by death.

In December 2014, Islamists called for “public execution” of Algerian novelist Kamel Daoud because of his having “insults [to] Allah”.

In early December, bloggers Tan Jye Yee, 26, and Vivian Lee, 25, were revoked and were charged in the Malaysia under the Sedition Act for insulting Islam and Ramadan in a Facebook account.

30 year old blogger Soheil Arabi has been sentenced to execution in Iran for “insulting the prophet” on Facebook.

Women’s rights campaigner Souad al-Shammary has been imprisoned since 28 October 2014 on accusations she has “insulted Islam” and the prophet in Saudi Arabia.

27 year old Mohsen Amir-Aslani convicted of insulting prophet Jonah and making ‘innovations in religion’ through interpretations of Qur’an was hanged in Iran in September 2014.

47 year old British-Iranian Roya Nobakht was sentenced to 20 years in prison for “insulting Islam” when she said on Facebook that the Iranian regime was “too Islamic”.

In September 2014, Muhammad Shakil Auj, Dean of the faculty of Islamic Studies at the University of Karachi, was shot dead by gunmen two years after being accused of committing blasphemy.

49 year old mother of five Asia Bibi has been in prison for five year awaiting execution for blasphemy in Pakistan.

The list goes on and on.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2015/01/08/a-defence-of-charlie-hebdo-must-also-turn-into-defence-of-other-blasphemers-and-apostates/#more-6242

This is the price paid by all when religion is set aside as sacred and beyond questioning.

 

[ksinger]

The stoking of the holding of anger and offense near and dear to one's heart is not unique to Islam and happens closer to home too. Fox News being the most glaring example, but even more alarming, here...

http://www.catholicleague.org/muslims-right-angry/

 

[AGBF]

The stoking of the holding of anger and offense near and dear to one's heart is not unique to Islam and happens closer to home too. Fox News being the most glaring example, but even more alarming, here...

http://www.catholicleague.org/muslims-right-angry/

Yes. David Brooks in, "The New York Times" today points out that no newspaper on campus in the United States would have been able to publish what "Charlie Hebdo" did. And "The New York Times" (unlike other major US newspapers like "The Washington Post") opted not to reprint even one of the "Charlie Hebdo" cartoons that so offended the Muslim terrorists. ("The New York Times" has been criticized by many people for failing to do so, by the way.)

David Brooks claims that the French sense of humor is puerile and that Americans learn to accept differences in a more respectful manner. I hate to say that that that has often been my position on Pricescope. It has been. I do believe in courtesy. But I also believe that freedom of speech should trump everything.

Deb

 

[AGBF]

... "The New York Times" (unlike other major US newspapers like "The Washington Post") opted not to reprint even one of the "Charlie Hebdo" cartoons that so offended the Muslim terrorists. ("The New York Times" has been criticized by many people for failing to do so, by the way.)

I thought I would follow up on the above. There is a feature in "The New York Times" called "The Public Editor". Someone who is supposedly independent of the editors and responsive to readers reads what they write and publishes a column about what they have to say. Here is a bit of today's offering.


"Readers Sound Off to Public Editor on Decision Not to Publish Cartoons
By Margaret Sullivan
January 14, 2015 3:50 pm January 14, 2015 3:50 pm


I’ve seen intense response from Times readers before. When I wrote about the test drive of a Tesla electric car, or Nate Silver’s offer to place a bet on his prognostications, hundreds of readers commented and emailed. When I wrote about coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, readers certainly let me know what they thought.

But nothing compares with the response over the past few days over The Times’s decision not to publish cartoons of Muhammad from the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, where a terrorist attack killed eight staff members last week in Paris.

After my post, explaining the executive editor’s reasoning and calling for a review of standards, went up last Thursday, response began quickly. Running heavily against the decision not to publish, it quickly reached several hundred.

A New York reader, whose commenting handle is Tom, put it succinctly. 'By not publishing the subject cartoons, The Times fails in its primary purpose: reporting the news.'

My news assistant, Joumana Khatib, moderated the comments and continued to do so over the weekend. I was reading each one with great interest. By Tuesday afternoon, there were about 700. And, separately, plenty of email arrived. My second post on the subject went online Wednesday morning, making the case for the newsworthiness of the new Charlie Hebdo cover.

The executive editor, Dean Baquet, told me that he, too, was reading the comments, and he described them to me as eloquent and thoughtful. He said he understood fully that many readers disagreed vehemently with his decision; meanwhile, he was answering as much of his own voluminous email on the subject as he could.

I felt, as I often do, that Times readers have an intense emotional reaction to their newspaper — and that they express their strong beliefs with passion and intelligence. It’s sometimes overwhelming, but always heartening, to hear what they have to say."

 

[VapidLapid]

I wish I have something as insightful to add other than "I agree with Deb". I feel that since the USA is based on religious freedom, it should not be pushed at public/government functions, public/government events, public/government offices, etc. However, the people have the right to anything religion related at their places of worship and at private venues.

I've always wondered about the text "in God we trust" on the back of every US dollar bill and how that does not seem fit in with the stated freedom to practice whatever religion the people want or no religion at all.

The first dollar was a coin, beautifully designed by Ben Franklin, that did not say, "in god we trust", but rather, "Mind Your Business"!!

 

[missy]

I wish I have something as insightful to add other than "I agree with Deb". I feel that since the USA is based on religious freedom, it should not be pushed at public/government functions, public/government events, public/government offices, etc. However, the people have the right to anything religion related at their places of worship and at private venues.

I've always wondered about the text "in God we trust" on the back of every US dollar bill and how that does not seem fit in with the stated freedom to practice whatever religion the people want or no religion at all.

The first dollar was a coin, beautifully designed by Ben Franklin, that did not say, "in god we trust", but rather, "Mind Your Business"!!

Ooh, much more preferable! Haha LOVE it.