AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2007 > January > 24 > Entry
Should symbols of specific religions - such as the Christian cross - be displayed on public property?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
In the 1600s, America’s new settlers founded two universities: Harvard University and the College of William and Mary in Virginia (WM). Although Harvard is private and WM is public — and both are now purely secular — both have histories rich in the Christian faith of their founders.
Like many universities, Harvard has since gone so far in the opposite direction that it is often hostile to people of faith. Unfortunately, the brand-new WM president, Gene Nichol, appears to have unilaterally decided to drag that state school in the same direction. And, as a graduate of both schools, I’m deeply concerned.
In 1931, after centuries of Anglican-protestant tension, the Anglican church near WM symbolically gave the school its cross, to stand in the chapel of the school’s most historic building. It graced the centuries-old Wren Chapel until Gene Nichol unilaterally ordered it removed in October 2006, with no student or board discussion. After controversy erupted, he said the chapel shouldn’t feel like it “belonged” to some students more than others, and that the cross sends a message that there are “those for whom our most revered place is meant to be keenly welcoming, and those for whom presence is only tolerated.”
And this is where he and so many others fundamentally misunderstand the role of religion in public venues. Eliminating historic Christian symbols does exactly what Nichols says he wants to avoid. It sends a message that a specific faith must be stripped of its rightful, historic place in the public square.
Up until Nichol’s action, anyone wanting a non-Christian service in Wren Chapel simply asked that the cross be removed (as it was in 20 of 111 weddings last year), which was a much more respectful option.
David French, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, has long experience with public schools not understanding the constitutionally appropriate role of religion — especially the Christian faith. His work defending college students has demonstrated that, as he said in an interview, “In almost every case, universities don’t want to offend anyone except Christians.”
Is removing the Wren cross — and other recent cases, such as the Mount Soledad cross in a San Diego public park — really about tolerance of all religions or simply prejudice against one religion?
Rebuttal
Shaunti doesn’t let on about the real motivations behind the fight to keep the Ten Commandments publicly displayed at county courthouses or crosses erected at secular alma maters. So here’s the scoop: The devout view the ban on religious images from public view as the decline of civilization because they view religion as the reason we aren’t all rapists and murderers.
While religious symbols still function as social glue, public religious symbols have this effect only if everyone shares the same religion, explains John Evans, associate professor of sociology at the University of California, San Diego. “In the contemporary United States, religious symbols don’t necessarily act as civil glue, but can cause civil unrest,” he says.
This scares religious conservatives, like the pope, who recently decried the ban of Christian religious symbols in public places as a form of “false secularism.” The Catholic News Service reported that Pope Benedict concluded that, for the secularist vision, there is “no place for God, or for a mystery that transcends pure reason, or for a moral law of absolute value.”
At the risk of sounding disrespectful, the pope’s statement rings with a certain “duh” factor. Secularism is the constitutional brick and mortar for free religious expression, not its downfall, because it protects the free expression of all religions, not just the dominant one.
And yet, in their quest to keep religious history and symbols alive, Christian conservatives fend off inevitable change with specious arguments that these religious symbols aren’t religious at all, but historic markers or secular monuments.
The local controversy fomenting in John Evans’ back yard is over the Mount Soledad cross erected in 1954. “To keep the cross on public land, proponents are claiming it’s a war memorial. This is ultimately damaging,” says Evans, who thinks this tactic dilutes a symbol’s religious potency. “These are religious symbols. You shouldn’t define them as something else. It weakens the symbols, and therefore the religion itself.”
Instead of fighting secularism with secularist arguments, the devout should take back their religious symbols, argues Evans. They should take back Christmas from Hallmark and elevate their religious symbols to more sacred ground. Competing for primacy in the public square, where America’s religious beliefs are as diverse as race, only impoverishes their spiritual message.
Comments
By Guy Pinestra
January 29, 2007 07:59 AM | Link to this
A few excerpts from George Washington’s farewell address seem to be appropriate here…
With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It seems to me that Mr. Washington was wise beyond his years, thank God. It’s too bad that ‘modern’ Americans refuse to listen to his sage advice.
By Carlton Wyatt
January 29, 2007 08:16 AM | Link to this
Shaunti’s kind seem to think anyone who doesn’t bow to their beliefs and kiss the fundamentalist behind is “hostile to people of faith”. No, Shaunti, your kind is hostile to people who value freedom from tyranny. I am an atheist and I really couldn’t care less if a cross is displayed somewhere, a nativity is on the courthouse lawn, etc. It doesn’t offend me. If some religious peoples want to pay for and erect these things, as long as they don’t force me to bow to them, I have no problem with them. However, it is the implied “you must obey” demands that are often behind these acts that I do object.
I ask the “people of faith” a question: do you think it pleases your God that you, in effect, force other people to worship it by fiat? Is your public display of piety really necessary for your faith?
By Guy Pinestra
January 29, 2007 08:49 AM | Link to this
Carlton,
Does the public display of the 10 Commandments, crosses and/or nativity scenes force you to do anything? I think not.
Would those that wish the total elimination of religious symbols also remove the crosses from Arlington National Cemetery?
Should we eliminate the daily prayers in Congress, a practice that has been observed since 1775?
The fact remains that this nation was founded on the principles of Christianity, and Christian charity. That charity is what opened the doors of America to immigrants from around the world of many different faiths. In America today you can choose to practice ANY religion, or no religion at all, but to demand that Christians censor themselves or their faith for fear of offending someone of a different faith, or no faith at all, is preposterous.
By Brian Curtis
January 29, 2007 09:05 AM | Link to this
Guy: And no one’s been saying that “offense” is the reason for requiring religious neutrality—that’s a popular red herring offered by religious zealots.
This nation was NOT, in fact, founded on Christian principles… if it were, we would have a religious government. In fact, the principles we were founded on specified the exact opposite: NO government involvement in, or endorsement of, religion in any way whatsoever. Those are Enlightenment principles established by deist founders who knew the hazards of a non-secular government.
Christianity has played a role in our history, and we should acknowledge it. But then, so did slavery.
By Joe
January 29, 2007 09:17 AM | Link to this
Public space uses public funds. If a religious object, is in need ( a questionable idea at best) of public display, then the private funds, generated by private donations can erect and maintain such displays.
There is no reason any public space, of any kind, warrants the display of religious things.
This nation, until recently, has protected religion; not only from resecution but also itself. There is one simple concept here. Keep Your God out of My God’s face.
By Guy Pinestra
January 29, 2007 09:22 AM | Link to this
Brian,
I take it the words of our 1st President are altogether bogus then? Let me repeat what I posted earlier, or at least a snippet of it. You can read the rest by simply scrolling up.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.
That sounds quite Christian to me…
By Chilao
January 29, 2007 09:35 AM | Link to this
Keep Your God out of My God’s face
But my God is the right one and yours isn’t. Joking.
Those items like a Ten Commandment Monument in a government building reek of Idolatry, but what do I know? LOL
I am for keeping religious-artifacts out of the public sector in the future, however I am not for chiseling/sand-blasting crosses out of older granite buildings, if any exist.
By Mara
January 29, 2007 09:43 AM | Link to this
(sigh)
Guy Pinestra - Does the public display of the 10 Commandments, crosses and/or nativity scenes force you to do anything? Well, yes…it does. The display of the Decalogue on the courthouse lawn forces me to wonder if I’ll be governed and judged under the law, as mandated by the government, or under God’s Law. Per ex-judge, the saintly Roy Moore -
“The Ten Commandments are the divinely revealed law”
“…I think that we’ve got a basic discrepancy here between the rule of law versus the rule of man”
“…the state must acknowledge God and that our freedoms flow from that God, the Judeo-Christian God”
so you see, even Judge Roy Moore admits the point that having the 10 Commandments in-your-face is to demand the acknowlegement of the Judeo-Christian God as the fountainhead of American freedom. Which you may agree with but many of the rest of us believe that America was founded “of the people, for the people and by the people”. Not by the God of Abraham, the Gods of the Hindu, or the Moon Goddess Selene.
Would those that wish the total elimination of religious symbols also remove the crosses from Arlington National Cemetery
this is always tossed out there by the “MY-god-is-‘Merika’s-god” crowd. Nobody thinks that allowing crosses to mark the graves of dead American Christians is anywhere near the same as posting the Cross behind those who’s job it is to judge or govern Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Atheists, and Wiccans. (What is a shame though is that it was only a few months ago that soldiers who were devout Wiccans were allowed to have the Pentagram inscribed on their marker) These crosses are a symbol of private belief not a marker of the belief of the State. To bad you can’t see the difference.
Should we eliminate the daily prayers in Congress, a practice that has been observed since 1775
Yes, unless we ensure that ALL denominations, religion, and sects get at least one chance to officiate.
By lovelyliz
January 29, 2007 09:44 AM | Link to this
If you allow one, you have to allow all. Who do you think will be the first to lose it when Menorahs, Bhagavad-Gita and Pentagrams start showing up?
By Chilao
January 29, 2007 09:50 AM | Link to this
from wikipedia regarding the LaJolla Mount Soledad cross: (italics below.) interestingly it was never a Korean War Memorial until people contested it being on public land and then suddenly PRESTO a Korean War Memorial materialized. I would think the Jewish War Veterans could argue where is their hill, with a Menorah?.
On August 21, 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union representing the Jewish War Veterans of the United States filed a separate lawsuit against the U.S. government and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, charging that the continued display of the Mt. Soledad Latin cross on federally owned land unlawfully entangles government with religion and asks the Court to rule the 29-foot tall display be removed from Mt. Soledad Natural Park[45].
By Mara
January 29, 2007 09:51 AM | Link to this
Joe - There is no reason any public space, of any kind, warrants the display of religious things
there are some historical markers that deserve public funding that are/were religious sites…The Old North Church, Ebenezer Baptist Church, The Alamo, just to name of few. But those places are of import to all Americans versus, as you meant, those displays that are solely of religious importance.
By The72John
January 29, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports
That sounds quite Christian to me…
Really? Where is Christianity mentioned? The word Washington uses is “religion”. Not “Christ”, not “Jesus”…”religion”.
You see, you make the usual error that modern-day evangelicals often make when trying to twist the religious and ethical sensibilities of the founding fathers into an endorsement of modern fundamentalism. You misunderstand - either deliberately or through ignorance - the context of religion in the late 18th century.
I won’t go into all the details - the role of the Enlightenment in creating a rational, ethical view of religion, the ongoing feud between various religious factions an denominations - unitarians, deists, trinitarians, congregationalists…Suffice it to say that the “bible-believing, Jesus-as-best-bud-and-savior” theology did not exist.
Instead, most educated men embraced some form of rational religion, whether strict Deism or something that contained the primary tenets of Deism with nominal nods to Christian theology. The idea of God or Providence as less an active force - the forbiding father of many of today’s more conservative denominations - and more of a causative force was prominent.
So, when Washington (and many of the other Founding Fathers) refer to God or Providence, this is what they are referring to - a Divine force or Presence that gave shape to the universe but is neutral in terms of its development and progression. When they refer to “religion” they are referring, not to the superstitious or supernatural trappings wrapped around it but to the underlying ethical structures.
By Brian Curtis
January 29, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this
Many of the founders thought religion was essential to a personal sense of morality and good for society’s well-being… and yet, they made no effort to institutionalize religion INTO government itself. In fact, they did the opposite.
And praising the virtues of religious morality doesn’t sound any more “Christian” than it does “Jewish,” “Hindu,” or any of a dozen other beliefs.
By Renee
January 29, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this
Mara, Chilao, excellent comments.
I’m not for taking a historic building down that may have a cross or biblical verse chiseled into it, however, I am totally against the display of the ten commandments or any similar Christian display. Church and State should be kept separate and this country was not founded on the basis of Christianity.
While I will agree that a large majority of Americans probably do practice some form of Christianity (the number of denominations in themselves are dumbfounding) this is also a country of diversity. We have so many people who practice other religions, and ~gasp~ some that have absolutely NO belief at all.
Some Christians are so arrogant to think their way is the only way and of course any governmental building is guided by their belief. I mean which Christian belief prevails. Baptist, Methodist, Church of God in Christ, Holiness, Catholic, the list goes on and on…..
By chuck
January 29, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this
You want to talk about a heinous lie, maybe you ought to take a history class BC.
This nation was NOT, in fact, founded on Christian principles… if it were, we would have a religious government. In fact, the principles we were founded on specified the exact opposite: NO government involvement in, or endorsement of, religion in any way whatsoever. Those are Enlightenment principles established by deist founders who knew the hazards of a non-secular government.
If this were in fact true, why did we not have a single religious liberty case until 1940, some 153 years after the Constitution was written? Were there no religious displays on public property until then? Was the Bible not taught in EVERY public school prior to then? I wonder what caused this?
HMMMMMMMM. Maybe it was the Constitution itself which has as its only statement on religion in the first amendment:
CONGRESS shall MAKE NO LAW concerning the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE thereof.
HMMMM. CONGRESS can’t ESTABLISH a National religion and force people to join it AND it cannot prohibit the free exercise OF RELIGION.
I read that to mean that it applies to…I don’t know…CONGRESS. So I guess that means that the Supreme Court CAN MAKE LAWS PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION!?!?!
THERE’S ONLY ONE PROBLEM WITH THAT. Laws are made by ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS. NOT by the Supreme Court. It’s funny to me that there was not ONE case decided against religious freedom until the 1940’s AFTER Roosevelt stacked the court with liberal activist judges. I guess that wasn’t put into the Constitution until the 1940’s?
By blablabla
January 29, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this
don’t we have this discussion about once in month in one form or another?
whether we like it or not, the history of this nation is rich with religious meaning. one needs look no further than our currency, our pledge, our declaration of independence or the words of the framers to understand the involvement of religion in the formation of this country.
we can try to write religion out of our history, and say things about how our nation was founded on the principle of “complete religious neutrality” (as though some foggy concept of religious neutrality from our government is the same as “freedom of religion” or that anything less will somehow create an “establishment of religion”).
we can paint the people who recognize the historical significance of religion in the founding of this nation as a bunch of roy moore worshiping zealots, and try to say real brainy things like “of the people, by the people, for the people”.
but when we say things like that, and when we quote lincoln, we may want to use that whole quote: “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
because anything else would be intellectually dishonest, and we wouldn’t want to do that, now would we?
By Guy Pinestra
January 29, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this
I’ve no desire to espouse any one religion over another. I couldn’t care less if Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans or anyone else proudly displays the icons of their faith.
John, you said, “Really? Where is Christianity mentioned? The word Washington uses is “religion”. Not “Christ”, not “Jesus”…”religion”.”
At that point in our history, what was the OVERRIDING religion practiced? Protestant Christianity. The 10 Commandments were the supreme MORAL law of the Founders and anyone who disputes that is not paying attention.
And this, “Suffice it to say that the “bible-believing, Jesus-as-best-bud-and-savior” theology did not exist.”
You’ll have to provide some sort of reference if you want to convince me of that.
Here’s what a quick Google search reveals…
“President George Washington was an Episcopalian. He was a member of the Episcopal Church, the American province of the Anglican Communion, which is a branch of Christianity, and which is usually classified as Protestant.
Washington and the family he was raised in were originally Anglicans. The Episcopal Church was not officially founded as a separate province within Anglicanism until 1789, after the American colonies proclaimed independence from Great Britain. Prior to the American Revolutionary War, the Episcopal Church was part of the Church of England, so Washington was originally a member of the Church of England.
While he was President, Washington attended Christ Church (an Anglican/Episcopalian congregation) in Philadelphia.”
It seems a little disingenuous to claim that Christ had nothing to do with it when he attended Christ Church
By SusieHomeMaker
January 29, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this
Sure. IF you also display the Star of David, whatever the Wiccan symbol is, the muslim religious symbol, the Jehovah Witness symbol, the Celt symbol……. u get the picture. If you’re gonna do it for one, do it for all. There are more than just Christians who reside in America.
By Mara
January 29, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this
Hey Renee! “excellent comment” right back atcha for the “which Christian belief prevails” question.
John - kudos on the explaination of the relationship between Rational Enlightenment and Religion. Let us not forget “The Jefferson Bible”, or that he not only owned a copy of the Koran, he studied it and encouraged his son (nephew) to learn about all religions.
lovelyliz - don’t you know that ONLY christian symbols are allowed? Anything else would be…un-american :^)
By chuck
January 29, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this
The following is a letter from Washington’s grandaughter who lived with the Washingtons. I’m just putting in a couple of excerpts, but you can read the entire letter at:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html
Sir,
I received your favor of the 20th instant last evening, and hasten to give you the information, which you desire.
Truro Parish [Episcopal] is the one in which Mount Vernon, Pohick Church [the church where George Washington served as a vestryman], and Woodlawn [the home of Nelly and Lawrence Lewis] are situated. Fairfax Parish is now Alexandria. Before the Federal District was ceded to Congress, Alexandria was in Fairfax County. General Washington had a pew in Pohick Church, and one in Christ Church at Alexandria. He was very instrumental in establishing Pohick Church, and I believe subscribed [supported and contributed to] largely. His pew was near the pulpit. I have a perfect recollection of being there, before his election to the presidency, with him and my grandmother…
He attended the church at Alexandria when the weather and roads permitted a ride of ten miles [a one-way journey of 2-3 hours by horse or carriage]. In New York and Philadelphia he never omitted attendance at church in the morning, unless detained by indisposition [sickness]. The afternoon was spent in his own room at home; the evening with his family, and without company. Sometimes an old and intimate friend called to see us for an hour or two; but visiting and visitors were prohibited for that day [Sunday]. No one in church attended to the services with more reverential respect.
I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, “that they may be seen of men” [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6].
My mother [Eleanor Calvert-Lewis] resided two years at Mount Vernon after her marriage [in 1774] with John Parke Custis, the only son of Mrs. Washington. I have heard her say that General Washington always received the sacrament with my grandmother before the revolution.
She (Martha Washington)never omitted her private devotions, or her public duties; and she and her husband were so perfectly united and happy that he must have been a Christian. She had no doubts, no fears for him. After forty years of devoted affection and uninterrupted happiness, she resigned him without a murmur into the arms of his Savior and his God, with the assured hope of his eternal felicity [happiness in Heaven].
Is it necessary that any one should certify, “General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity?” As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country. His mottos were, “Deeds, not Words”; and, “For God and my Country.”
With sentiments of esteem,
I am, Nelly Custis-Lewis
By Mara
January 29, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this
“When the crisis came, Jefferson, Paine, John Adams, Washington, Franklin, Madison, and many lesser lights were to be reckoned among either the Unitarians or the Deists. it was not Cotton Mather’s God to whom the author of the Declaration of Independence appealed, it was to ‘Nature’s God.’ From whatever source derived, the effect of both Unitarianism and Deism was to hasten the retirement of historic theology from its empire over the intellect of American leaders, and to clear the atmosphere for secular interests” — The Rise of American Civilization,” by Charles A. and Mary R. Beard.
“Washington rarely attended, as we have seen, any church but the Episcopal, hence, if any denomination of Christians could claim him as an adherent, it was this one. Yet here we have two of its most distinguished representatives, pastors of the churches which he attended, the one not knowing what his belief was, the other disclaiming him and asserting that he was a Deist.” ” The Rev. Dr. Wilson, who was almost a contemporary of our earlier statesmen and presidents, and who thoroughly investigated the subject of their religious beliefs, in his sermon already mentioned affirmed that the founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected — George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson — not one had professed a belief in Christianity.” — “Six Historic Americans” by John E. Remsburg
I wholeheartedly recommend the “Six Historic Americans” to anyone wanting to read a historically accurate account of the lives of our most famous founding fathers.
By chuck
January 29, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this
Yes john: kudos on the explaination of the relationship between Rational Enlightenment and Religion. Except that it is a load of crap. I know all of you libs would like to beleive this but it just isn’t true. It’s nothing more than historical revisionism.
Even Franklin himself the most noted “deist” of the founders expressed doubt many times and often spoke of the necessity of God’s laws being used to direct human behavior.
By Guy Pinestra
January 29, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this
Another explanation for Jefferson’s possession of a Koran could have been a desire to know his enemies. It was during Jefferson’s presidency that the U.S. took on the Muslim slave-traders and pirates on the Barbary Coast of Africa in war.
For example, prior to Jefferson’s Presidency, in a 1786 meeting in London of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain, Jefferson and Adams met with Ambassador Adja to negotiate a peace treaty and protect the United States from the threat of Barbary piracy.
These future United States presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any such animosity. Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
That sounds pretty familiar, doesn’t it?
But I digress.
I’m not advocating restrictions on ANY religion, but I do protest the stifling of the most prevalent one, who’s tenets of hard work, charity and humility are indeed the underpinnings of this nation.
By The72John
January 29, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this
George Washington was an Anglican, yes. He was also a member of the church’s Vestry, a governing body that served as the county court. Membership on the Vestry was required to hold a variety of political powers. However, numerous letters and diaries from Washington’s parish priest and others who attended the same church indicated that Washington never took Communion, and in fact generally left before the Eucharist portion of the service began.
At that point in our history, what was the OVERRIDING religion practiced? Protestant Christianity. The 10 Commandments were the supreme MORAL law of the Founders and anyone who disputes that is not paying attention.
Again, you confuse the current incarnation of fundamentalist evangelicalism with the practice of religion during the Enlightenment. However, a little application of reason and logic clearly dispells the myth that the 10 Commandments were the supreme “moral” law of the Founding Fathers. In fact, the Constitution is directly counter to many of the 10 Commandments. Of the 10, only 3 are codified into law - proscriptions against murder, theft and false witness. Those that speak to religious observations are absolutely excluded by the 1st ammendment.
Much has been made of the fact that Washington and many of the other Founding Fathers were Freemasons. What often gets overlooked is that Freemason principles are not compatible with Christian orthodoxy. Freemasons were Unitarians, in that they did not acknowledge the Trinity. God was divine - Christ was not. Freemasons were also Universalists, meaning they believed that all relgions ultimately offered a path to God.
Certainly, Christian ethical structures were important in Western civilization. However, that doesn’t mean that when our founding Statesmen (or even Lincoln) spoke about God or a Creator, or Providence, that they were referring exclusively to the Christian concept of God.
By kimberly
January 29, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this
Q: What do angry, militant “Chritians” and Jesus Christ have in common?
By The72John
January 29, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this
Except that it is a load of crap. I know all of you libs would like to beleive this but it just isn’t true. It’s nothing more than historical revisionism.
Yes Chuck. I have no doubt that you wholeheartedly believe that. Just like you believe in Dinosaur eggs on the Ark. Consider the source.
By Brian Curtis
January 29, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this
Well done, 72John. Saved me the trouble of making essentially the same points.
The net result is this: If America truly practiced the sort of “Christianity” embraced by the Founders (who were careful not to require any such thing), a lot of modern-day zealots and Bible-thumpers would be dismayed at how anti-Jesus this “Christian nation” would be. Jerry Falwell would NOT be sitting in the Oval Office, but rather locked up in an asylum (not a bad thing, necessarily).
Their “Christian” faith doesn’t really bear much resemblance to yours, folks. Better quit while you’re ahead.
By Chilao
January 29, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this
For example, prior to Jefferson’s Presidency, in a 1786 meeting in London of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain, Jefferson and Adams met with Ambassador Adja to negotiate a peace treaty and protect the United States from the threat of Barbary piracy.
Can we also include in that comment the fact that Jefferson let the Tripolitan amabassador know the USA should NOT be considered a Christian nation? Because if my recollection of history….LOL And here I thought it was just the pagan libruls who engaged in revisionist history. Of course that also a Rush-ism, (report the facts, but leave out the more important actual DETAILS that would change the perception of the comment).
Hi Renee.
By Guy Pinestra
January 29, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this
It’s easy to see the effects of historical revisionism in many of the comments on this blog.
We find a letter from Washington’s granddaughter saying one thing, and an opinion of one “The Rev. Dr. Wilson, who was almost a contemporary of our earlier statesmen and presidents…” saying the opposite.
I tend to believe the one who lived with him.
By blablabla
January 29, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this
sigh…where have all the moderates gone?
By chuck
January 29, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this
Mary R. Beard, a historian in her own right, was particularly interested in feminism and the labor movement and wrote a number of works on the subjects, notably Women’s Work in Municipalities (1915), A Short History of the American Labor Movement (1920), On Understanding Women (1931), and Woman as Force in History (1946).
Charles Beard, much criticized as a radical in his earlier years.
No liberal bias here.
By Brian Curtis
January 29, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this
BBB: No one’s denying that religion has played an important role in our nation’s history; you’re right, such a claim would be dishonest.
The question is, to what degree should public/governmental space be devoted to the displays and symbols of one particular religion, in a system where government is supposed to stay neutral and secular on the issue?
That’s a point that can be fairly debated… but only once we dispense with absurd claims like “This is supposed to be a Christian nation” and “The founders were all fundamentalist Southern Baptists like me.”
By Archie
January 29, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this
Good job Mara with your 9:51 am post because you did make some important distinctions. The way the topic question is phrased it makes you take a yes or no position but it is really not a yes or no question. I say yes to the topic question but with some qualifications. Religion should not be shoved down anyone’s throat. I have no problem complimenting people on the blog or in person that do not share all of my beliefs and I went to church yesterday. This is new spin on an old argument hopefully the discussion will not bog down.
By chuck
January 29, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this
The Christ A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence John E. Remsberg
Remsberg concluded that Christ didn’t exist. HMMMMM think maybe he had a reason for denying the FAITH of the Founding Fathers?
By blablabla
January 29, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this
brian - certaily you can see a certain amount of humor in the fact that mara and so many others rant “of the people, by the people, for the people” in an argument against religion, while the quote from lincoln specifically references god?
By Mara
January 29, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this
chuck - if ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest man on earth. Try learning a bit about deism, the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason before giving us your half-assed opinions, m-kay? Now let’s play “Dueling Cut-n-Paste”, shall we? I mean, since you don’t believe that any of us know what we’re talking about…
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/johnremsburg/sixhistoricamericans/chapter4.html
“At the age of eighty-four, just previous to his death, in reply to inquiries concerning his religious belief from Ezra Stiles, the President of Yale College, [Franklin] wrote as follows”:
“Here is my creed: I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable service we render him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this.”
This is pure Deism. Paine and Voltaire would have readily subscribed to every one of the above six articles of faith. Compare the creed of Franklin with the creed of Paine.
“Here it is that the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion. It is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason or injure our humanity, and with which the Christian religion abounds. Its creed is pure, and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests.”
“It honors reason as the choicest gift of God to man, and the faculty by which he is enabled to contemplate the power, wisdom and goodness of the Creator displayed in the creation; and reposing itself on His protection, both here and hereafter, it avoids all presumptuous beliefs, and rejects, as the fabulous inventions of men, all books pretending to revelation.” - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/paine-deism.html
“It is not improbable that Franklin had much to do with shaping the Deistic belief of Paine. Parton says: “Paine was a resident of Philadelphia, a frequenter of Franklin’s house, and was as well aware as we are of Dr. Franklin’s religious opinions. Nor is there much in the ‘The Age of Reason” http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm to which Franklin would have refused to assent.” (Life of Franklin, Vol. ii., p. 553).
By kimberly
January 29, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this
Q: What do angry, militant “Christians” and Jesus Christ have in common?
Um, that’s not a knock-knock joke. Anybody know? For years I have attempted to find a resemblence. If there is one, it eludes me.
By Chilao
January 29, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this
sigh…where have all the moderates gone?
Maybe you talked them into buying/speculating in Stocks-and-bonds and they are now all busy being DayTraders(probably not QUITE what you had in mind, but). LOL
By Guy Pinestra
January 29, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this
Can we also include in that comment the fact that Jefferson let the Tripolitan amabassador know the USA should NOT be considered a Christian nation? Because if my recollection of history….
I’d really like to read that somewhere other than on this blog. Could you provide some sort of source for that statement?
By Brian Curtis
January 29, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this
BBB: True, it’s ironic.
I rather doubt the discussion will get to the point of appropriate degrees, though… we’ve got a lot of diehard fundies and Bible-thumpers who still want a “Christian nation,” and they’ll insist on the supposed fundamentalist leanings of the Founding Fathers till the cows come home.
By The72John
January 29, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this
sigh…where have all the moderates gone?
What is immoderate about historical accuracy? I acknowledge that Christian ethics were important to the FFs, just as I recognize that the supersitious trappings were not. In fact, I acknowledge that Christian ethics represent some what is best about mankind, exactly like many of the Founding Fathers did - exactly like Thomas Jefferson did when he re-wrote the Gospels to remove anything supernatural attributed to Christ, instead presenting him as a great ethical champion.
However, suggesting that Christian ethics influenced the Founding Fathers does not then mean that they would have favored a religious government. Their writings clearly indicate otherwise. Just like many people of Faith today of all stripes believe that their Faith is PRIVATE reject the idea of the government using symbols of a specific religion.
Truly, I fail to see how that is in any way “immoderate”. Perhaps you can…Elighten me.
brian - certaily you can see a certain amount of humor in the fact that mara and so many others rant “of the people, by the people, for the people” in an argument against religion, while the quote from lincoln specifically references god?
Why does “god” have to be co-opted by a specific group of Christians? If anything is immoderate, it’s that you seem bent on emphasising ONE interpretation of God when there are so many possible ones. God exists for many people free of any specific orthodoxy or cannon.
By Chilao
January 29, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this
Q: What do angry, militant “Christians” and Jesus Christ have in common?
I thought you meant there was no A: for “answer”.
By The72John
January 29, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this
The Barbary Treaties
Source - Yale Law School. Article 11 is the relevant passage.
By Jack
January 29, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this
Hi All. Can’t stay, just wanted to say “Hey”
They should display all.
:)
By chuck
January 29, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this
WRONG AGAIN BC. Nobody on this blog has claimed that the founders were “Southern Baptists” but people HAVE claimed that they were not Christians, and those statements are blatantly false with a few exceptions.
Regardless of that, the only thing that SHOULD matter is what the Constitution SAYS. The Constitution does not address the issues that have been discussed here at all. Specifically, it says NOTHING about any INDIVIDUAL state or LOCAL government having religious displays of any kind. The Constitution is COMPLETELY SILENT ON THAT TOPIC. Why then are these issues taking up so much of our time and effort? Not because CONGRESS has made a law. In fact NO LAW HAS BEEN MADE AT ALL, by Congress or by ANY state. We are arguing over this because THE COURTS HAVE MADE LAWS. Not one of you has attempted to answer the question:
If, as you say, the founders were so adamant about the separation of Church and State, why were there no objections to a MULTITUDE of Christian practices that they both participated in and observed that were both carried out AND PAID for with government dollars? Why did they stand still for SECTARIAN prayers to open EVERY session of Congress? Why did they agree to be sworn in with their hand on the Christian Bible and Swear to defend the Constitution “So help me GOD”?
Why was there not ONE SINGLE case concerning the supposed “establishment clause” prior to the appointment of a liberal Supreme Court by FDR?
You cannot answer those questions with any amount of intellectual honesty because it would force you to acknowledge that the founders ACTUALLY MEANT WHAT THEY SAID in the CONSTITUTION. AND that they did not mean what Liberal justices meant when they perverted the establishment clause.
By Chilao
January 29, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this
Thanks 72JOhn, It was something I remembered from way back but did not have the research saved handy. LOL(Like I book mark everything I have read since childhood. .LMAO)
but a search on jefferson we are not a christian nation tripolitan ambassador yields The Treay of Tripoli, and it was probably John Adams(not Jefferson) who made the comment to the Tripolitan ambassador.
My bad. oooops, wrong person. LOL
By Chilao
January 29, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this
They should display all.
ALL religious artifacts or just the more popular ones?
hmmmm. slippery slope indeed.
By Best regards
January 29, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this
Check this: http://www.dreipage.de/userdaten/21279160/html/cialis.html >cialis
By blablabla
January 29, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this
take a deep breath, john. i wasn’t talking about finding a moderate position about what exactly all of the framers believed. i was talking about a more moderate position between the fundie bible thumpers and the “secular absolutists”.
Why does “god” have to be co-opted by a specific group of Christians?
john, where have i mentioned christianity in any of my posts today? i haven’t. i’ve simply discussed religion. you are confusing my comments about religion with others on the blog who believe that references among our founding fathers, or lincoln, concerning religion must have been about christianity. i am not the author of those statements, so you are arguing against something i did not say.
By Chilao
January 29, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this
and why did Andrew Jackson have a drunken bash inviting plenty of common people, with free HARD cider for all? LOL Does that mean we should all be drunks?
quote of the week: Huckabee, on Meet the Press, discussing his ‘humble’(his term) beginnings in the same town as Clinton, Hope, Arkansas. and explaining why the best politicians are ones who have risen from the bottom to the top:
we have too many people (in politics) who were born on third base and think that they have hit a triple.
By boring boring
January 29, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this
What a boring topic. There are so many other important things to talk about, and wasn’t this a topic before?
Scary news: Birth-control pills are now less effective at preventing pregnancy. In September, for example, the FDA warned women that Johnson & Johnson’s birth control patch Ortho Evra could raise their chances of developing blood clots in the legs and lungs. Johnson & Johnson markets a number of traditional contraceptives, including its top-selling birth control pill, Ortho Tri-Cyclen.
Thank you NARAL Pro-Choice America & all the women who stood up against Walmart who would not cover birth control for emplyees, but paid for Viagra without any problem at all.
“We applaud the women who had the courage to file a lawsuit against Wal-Mart and bring public attention to this disparity. But we cannot forget that almost half the states in this country do not ensure that health insurance companies cover birth control equally with other prescription drugs – leaving women often struggling or unable to access contraception. As the nation’s largest employer, Wal-Mart’s announcement should send a strong message that ensuring women’s access to birth control is a commonsense policy that Americans support.” Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America
Currently, 24 states do not require insurance coverage for contraception. Several years ago family-planning supporters in Congress were able to win “contraceptive equity” for federal employees - but anti-choice lawmakers have systematically blocked a similar benefit for American women nationwide.
Wal-Mart still allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions if they personally oppose birth control – leaving the door open for women to lose access to their legally prescribed medication due to a pharmacist’s personal beliefs.
So really any religious symbols should not be anywhere except in their own churches. They are a symbol of oppression. Anti birth control ! Pro-Penile! That’s what those symbols scream.
By blablabla
January 29, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this
I rather doubt the discussion will get to the point of appropriate degrees, though…
on that, brian, i wholeheartedly agree.
By The72John
January 29, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this
take a deep breath, john
There is no need to be rude or patronizing, now is there?
By Brian Curtis
January 29, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this
Chuck: I believe they meant for the Constitution to be amended… and it has been. And they meant for the judiciary to interpret how to properly apply its principles to specific cases… and they have done so.
You’re trying to apply your narrow interpretation of the Constitution’s wording and claim that it represents “what it actually says.” But history proves you wrong; the judiciary has gone back in forth in interpreting the Constitution’s principles, including the redefinition of black as citizens rather than property; the recognition of women’s right to vote; the right to privacy; the application of First Amendment rights to new forms of communication (e-mail, telephone, etc.); and on and on.
That’s exactly what the judiciary is FOR. The fact that you don’t like how they do their jobs doesn’t mean that they’re not doing it—just as the Founders intended.
By blablabla
January 29, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this
no, and my comments were intended to be neither. you were laying into me over (i) a topic i wasn’t referring to and (ii) something i didn’t say.
i think you know my commentary well enough by now to know that i (generally) don’t casually toss grenades - and that i didn’t mean to toss one at you. if that’s how it came across, my mistake.
By The72John
January 29, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this
If, as you say, the founders were so adamant about the separation of Church and State, why were there no objections to a MULTITUDE of Christian practices that they both participated in and observed that were both carried out AND PAID for with government dollars? Why did they stand still for SECTARIAN prayers to open EVERY session of Congress? Why did they agree to be sworn in with their hand on the Christian Bible and Swear to defend the Constitution “So help me GOD”?
This is why
Again, neither prayer nor references to God are exclusively Christian. Religious observation, interestingly enough, happens in all religions. All religions pray and all religions believe in either God or, less frequently, Gods. So…how is this Christian?
By The72John
January 29, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this
*no, and my comments were intended to be neither. you were laying into me over (i) a topic i wasn’t referring to and (ii) something i didn’t say. *
(i) I certainly wasn’t “laying into you”. (ii) You certainly seemed to be commenting on the topic.
Perhaps you could be more specific next time. Something a little more substantive than a heaved sigh of frustration at the lack of moderation and a discussion of specific points would be more conducive to discussion. Unless, of course, all you’re interested in is feeling superior.
By The72John
January 29, 2007 01:01 PM | Link to this
Bla - that was a low blow of my own. Apologies.
Kids, I’m out for the rest of the afternoon. Will pick this back up tomorrow.
By blablabla
January 29, 2007 01:15 PM | Link to this
john - you took my comment on lincoln and his quote and said “why does god always have to be co-opted by christians.” you then went on to say i was guilty of being immoderate by insisting on one interpretation of god. i have not said anything remotely close to that. so yes, while i’ve discussed the topic, your point against me was over something i never said. just like you, i prefer to not have words put in my mouth.
thank you, though, for future reference i’ll take your advice and be more specific.
for the record, my postings on this blog have nothing to do with feeling superior. i come here from time to time for an exchange of ideas. i like debate. i enjoy hearing what others think. sometimes it is funny. sometimes it is thought provoking. most of the time it is inbetween.
By blablabla
January 29, 2007 01:18 PM | Link to this
Bla - that was a low blow of my own. Apologies.
fair enough, john. all is good on my end. let’s move on.
By Mara
January 29, 2007 01:18 PM | Link to this
chuck - nice semantics sideslip there, chuck. Remsburg does indeed deny the existance of “THE Christ” but he has no problem saying that Jusus Christ may have indeed existed.
“Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist.”
Are you saying that “The Miraculous Water-Walking Jesus”, “The Abracadabra-Loaves-and-Fishes Jesus”, and “The Necromantic-Arise-From-the-Dead Jesus” story’s are more plausible than a good, honest, moral man named Jusus who wandered around telling everyone to be kind, generous, and helpful to each other? Thomas Jefferson didn’t believe in the Miracles either, does that make him suspect?
But that all is pretty much beside the point in that the discussion is about making Christianity the prefered religion of the American nation by promoting and subsidizing the display and dissemination of it’s symbols and ideology.
Those of us who believe that the United States was founded as a home for ALL religions as opposed to being a Christian republic will continue to contest the subsidization of christian beliefs by the government, while those who think that their religion should have special consideration from that same government simply because they are the predominent group will continue to push for that supremacy of place. There’s not much sense in even discussing it because each group believes that they are right and the other is very, very wrong. (yes, I include myself in that statement because I do believe in the ideals of “seperation of church and state” as well as my belief of “freedom of religion” includes “freedom from religion”)
Last cut-n-paste of the day (from me, anyway)
*Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
By Kevin
January 29, 2007 01:21 PM | Link to this
BBB
We have no moderation in these discussions because both sides have dug their trenches and stockpiled them with weapons. If anyone wanders out of the trenches into the middle ground, they quickly find themselves in no-man’s land where their arguments are shot down by both sides.
I am ashamed to admit that I am as guilty of this behavior as anyone.
Speaking of moderation, where is 2D?
By GOB
January 29, 2007 01:39 PM | Link to this
This nation was NOT, in fact, founded on Christian principles…
Well, Brian, the country did had slaves, women had virtually no rights, and those that “founded” the various states either killed or forcibly removed those who were on the land they wanted.
That is actually quite biblical…
By blablabla
January 29, 2007 01:40 PM | Link to this
trust me, kevin, i know how it works. i know i sometimes fail at this, but i try to trade ideas, understand opinions, and ask questions more than sling mud.
i guess i’m just naive in my hope that we can disagree without hating each other. some clearly can disagree in a civil manner; others do not or cannot. the latter both concerns and worries me.
By chuck
January 29, 2007 01:41 PM | Link to this
NOPE, nice try john, but the term has only been used by the courts since 1963. It wasn’t “customary” when they started doing it. It BECAME customary after thaey had done it for some time.
By Chilao
January 29, 2007 01:49 PM | Link to this
can I play Constitional Authority here for a minute, since I would not be the first to do so here?
Since I can find nothing in the Constitution that says Religious Artifacts should be displayed prominently on Government grounds, I can only assume it is UN-Constitutional. Just trying to apply the same logic that other Constitional Authority-types apply here.
But since I am NOT a Constitional Authority, I’m just playin’, like I said. LOL
By chuck
January 29, 2007 01:58 PM | Link to this
There you go again gob, proving my point from last week to which you never responded:
By chuck
January 26, 2007 03:57 PM | Link to this
Gob, I can’t even remember the last time you made an “argument” of ANY KIND. Most of your posts are stupid little one liners parroted from one of your boy friends BC, or 72john, or the like, so pardon me if I just YAWN. You definitely bore me. Get an original thought and we’ll talk.
By Chilao
January 29, 2007 01:58 PM | Link to this
obviously I cut/paste that Constitutional Authority after the first mis-spelling.. LOL
It’s just that I listened to the start of GNR Civil War recently….LOL
wha we have har is a failu to communcate
By chuck
January 29, 2007 02:07 PM | Link to this
Actually Chilao, you are a Contitutional SCHOLAR compared to some of these Cretins. You actually helped to prove my point though. The 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution answer that point:
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Since the Constitution does NOT prohibit the display of religious instruments then that right belongs INDIVIDUALLY to each state. If a STATE were to prohibit the display then I would be hard pressed to argue the point. The problem is that it was not a STATE, it was the Supreme Court. In order for the state to issue such a law, it would have to pass muster with the VOTERS of that state. The Supreme Court claiming that authority for itself, USURPS individual rights and self-determination of the states. I would think that the Liberals among us would be in favor of individual liberty…Oh that’s right, they only want liberty fo people that think like them.
By Boring II
January 29, 2007 02:08 PM | Link to this
They should call this blog “Boring Christian discussions” instead of Woman to Woman.
Women don’t give a rats a$$ about this topic. This blog should be moved to the religious section of the AJC. Or start banning silly religious ranting. File those with the pornography links the writers love to leave posted for everybody to see.
By GOB
January 29, 2007 02:10 PM | Link to this
There you go again gob, proving my point from last week to which you never responded:
Chuck - As you know, I am now a teacher, so I am only able to check in during my planning, if I even have time then. I find it very interesting that someone who is supposed to be teaching finds time to post on a blog as much as you do. When do you actually teach?
Also, are you trying to argue that slavery, oppression of women, etc are NOT biblical? You clearly take the old testament literally (see dinosaur eggs on the ark), so why would you deny that those things I mentioned are biblical? Or are those the parts you choose to ignore or pretend arent there?
By chuck
January 29, 2007 02:12 PM | Link to this
Hey Boring II. You have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to completely AVOID this blog.
By chuck
January 29, 2007 02:20 PM | Link to this
Gob, gob, gob. You can’t argue with someone who NEVER ACTUALLY MAKES A POINT. You also can’t have a discussion about the Bible with someone who knows NOTHING about it.
BTW, slavery and oppression of women is decidedly NOT BIBLICAL.
By Chilao
January 29, 2007 02:27 PM | Link to this
Sorry, Chuck, I see no mention of Religious Articles in the public sector, in either of those amendments. not there.
LOL, (I’m just trying to parrot the Nothing in the Constitution about Social Security, Medicare, etc folk).
ain’t nothing there about having them in the courthouse, so it must be forbidden.
By Chilao
January 29, 2007 02:31 PM | Link to this
Women don’t give a rats a$$ about this topic
But many(okay, SOME) Christian women DO, otherwise their kids might end up murderers and rapists(Thank you, Diane).
If you do not see a cross when you enter the Post Office, you might not be able to control yourself when that cute clerk comes to the window. LOL
By Boring III
January 29, 2007 02:43 PM | Link to this
Chuck this blog has gone downhill for the last 6 months because the conversation is always about religion. Long biblical quotes BORING long heated arguments about words written thousands of years ago by barely evolved humans. BORING How anybody can think that words that have been twisted & manipulated by so many should EVEN have a place in todays world? Religion is the reason women have had little or no individual rights till since I’ve been alive. Even today religious people cause women to suffer because of the obsession they have with owning & deciding the destiny of women’s wombs. (but not men’s Viagra needs) Religion set the standard that has made it very difficult for a woman have any real position of power. I want a woman president now.
You guys rant so much religious garbage it really belongs in a different section of this newspaper instead of a woman’s blog.
The writers of this blog need to stop with the stupid religious topics. If they can’t control themselves please rename this blog to: “Religious Women speak (but not too loud or proud or when the men are talking)”
By Silent Majority
January 29, 2007 02:54 PM | Link to this
Now this is indeed, a tough one. I do not believe that anyone should be forced to bow down to anyone else’s idea of what God is or what God should look like. Based on this alone it would suffice it to say that a symbol could/should not be placed in a public facility.
HOWEVER, the flip to this is that no one should be forced to spend the rest of their days suppressing their religious beliefs either. I think it safe to say that the law has done back flips to accommodate the smaller portion of society that agrees with the thought of removing any and all religious symbols from society as a whole. Brave move actually considering that the majority strongly believe in a Christian value system and highly value a religious symbol to be prominently displayed everywhere.
In short, not having a religious symbol in a pubic facility is fine. Probably makes a more fair society. Practice what we legally preach and all that. However, I don’t want those that oppose religious symbols to make a mistake quite a few special interest groups do at every turn either.
By this I also mean to includereligious, sexual, race, creed, or others that really wish to push “special rights/treatment” not “equal rights/treatment”.
Case in point;
Hire the best for the job, not the darkest, whitest, or sexiest…this means dropping afirmative action and any other “special interests” groups including gay, right wing, left wing, industrial, what have you except for the mentally and physically handicapped. Just seems like common sense here? Treat all with respect, not just those that whine about the lack of it Apply the press equally and not just to those that they favor. Hold the press accountable for a change. Legally and financially.
In short, you can’t stop there. You will have to go all the way.
I think it more wise for us of a any religious mindset to simply be secure in our thoughts and beliefs. To not feel that we have to apologize for them, and to know that the God we know understands our challenge in these times. All this despite the fact he instructs us to take his message forward. There are numerous other, more successful ways to do this. The fact that a cross is not going to be on the State Capital’s steps is not going to dissuade me in my beliefs one little bit and it probably shouldn’t dissuade yours either.
I would only humbly ask that in order to respect this request would it be too much if I were to ask the same respect when it comes to my beliefs? That if you see me silently pray in a restaurant before a meal you try not to be offended? That if I pray for the departed and soon to be departed you won’t take affront to that? That if I believe there is a Heaven and a Hell you won’t expend newsprint trying to prove I am wrong and if you do, have the decency to let me respond?
In return, I promise not to shove my beliefs down your throat. You can pray or not pray to any one, thing or thought you so wish. Again, I’m NOT special but then, neither are you so quit acting like it. Quit acting so “put out”.
Not having a cross is not going to hurt me any more than having one publicly displayed will hurt you. At the risk of sounding arcance in these times, the religious minded have rights…too. We probably should all just spend so much LESS time proving it to each other.
There ARE more pressing things in life?
Thanks for your time.
By suzan
January 29, 2007 03:18 PM | Link to this
I know this topic will never give way to one side or the other. For those that believe in God, there can be no other choice but to follow the beliefs that are dictated by structure of thier religion. For those that choose to believe in nothing, they will never be convinced otherwise unless they have an ephiphany. This is truly one subject that can never be settled. It ties into other beliefs about the sanctaty of life ( abortion, death sentances) and morals of man. After all is said and done, nothing will be decided.
By chuck
January 29, 2007 03:38 PM | Link to this
Silent Majority,
The problem with what you say is that if we discuss our Faith on this blog, some people will AUTOMATICALLY count that as “shoving our Faith down their throats”. The only thing that makes them happy is the idea of completely obliterating EVERY Visible sign of religion from public view.
Some have argued on this blog that churches should not be allowed to put up signs on their OWN PROPERTY or rent billboards. That’s how looney the left has gotten. It’s not enough anymore to remove prayer from schools, graduations, football games, etc. It has to be removed from EVERYTHING.
By Guy Pinestra
January 29, 2007 03:45 PM | Link to this
Thank you for the reference to the Barbary Treaties, I’d never read them before today.
Getting back to Shaunti’s question, “Is removing the Wren cross — and other recent cases, such as the Mount Soledad cross in a San Diego public park — really about tolerance of all religions or simply prejudice against one religion?”
It should be as plain as the nose on your face that this is an orchestrated effort to remove any and all Christian symbolism from the public arena. Not to be a total smartazz, but how long before we’re forced to remove the cross from the steeple of our local church?
And did you hear the story of the airport worker who was reprimanded for wearing a cross around her neck? It happened in Britain recently. Evidently the powers that be were afraid of offending the Muslim community.
I think it’s way past time for all those ‘offended ones’ to grow a skin and get over it. Come telling me to get rid of MY religious symbols and I’ll become decidedly UN-Christian rather quickly. I don’t tell anyone else how to live or what to believe. I expect the same respect in return.
By Mara
January 29, 2007 04:00 PM | Link to this
Some have argued on this blog that churches should not be allowed to put up signs on their OWN PROPERTY or rent billboards
and here I could’ve sworn that the whole point was to direct churches to put their displays on their own property (or rented property in the case of billboards). Don’t really recall anyone saying that having religious symbols or words in their proper places was, in any way, unacceptable. You got a link or quote on that, chuck?
suzan - For those that choose to believe in nothing, they will never be convinced otherwise unless they have an ephiphany
I’ll assume that you’ve never had a real conversation with a non-christian if that’s what you think. Your comment that one either believes in “God” or believes in “nothing” is just so…unbelievably parochial. Plenty of folks, in fact a majority of the world, doesn’t follow the God of the Christians. A whole heap of folks don’t believe in a singular God at all, but do worship a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. Some of us are Deist or Unitarians who believe in “God”, just not chucks god. Even Atheists don’t believe in “nothing”. Most of the Agnostics and Atheists I know are Humanists or Rationalists. That’s a belief in something, isn’t it?
Bah!! What a waste of time. I’m outta here…
By Brian Curtis
January 29, 2007 04:04 PM | Link to this
Guy: Do you see how a church (private property) is different from, say, a courthouse (public property)? Do you see how one is government and the other is not?
If not, we’re not going to get very far in understanding the distinction between private religious expression and public/governmental endorsement of religion.
By Joe L
January 29, 2007 04:28 PM | Link to this
Come telling me to get rid of MY religious symbols and I’ll become decidedly UN-Christian rather quickly. I don’t tell anyone else how to live or what to believe. I expect the same respect in return.
We are not talking about YOUR or any one elses’ private rights or property. We are talking about OUR property and money when we are talking at public space. This silly bogeyman needs to stop. “They’re coming for our Bibles and to drink our Christian babies’ blood! Run for your lives!”
By Guy Pinestra
January 29, 2007 04:44 PM | Link to this
Since Wikipedia is such a highly esteemed source around here, I thought I’d use it. This excerpt is about the SCOTUS building.
*# The Courtroom frieze depicts the history of law, including the Ten Commandments. The commandments are shown held by Moses, although only commandments six through ten, usually considered the more secular commands, are visible. Further, Moses’ beard obscures some of the words so that instead of reading “Thou Shalt Not Steal,” it says “Steal,” and similarly appears to command viewers to murder and commit adultery. There are also other figures engraved in the chambers, including the Muslim prophet Muhammad and a larger-than-life frieze of Napoleon Bonaparte among the 18 marble likenesses on the courtroom’s north and south walls.[13]
In 1997, the Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded the Supreme Court remove the image of Muhammad from the marble frieze of the façade. While appreciating the fact that Muhammad was included in the court’s pantheon of 18 prominent lawgivers of history, CAIR noted that Islam discouraged its followers from portraying any prophet in paintings, sculptures or other artistic representations. CAIR also objected that the prophet was shown with a sword, reinforcing long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant conquerors. Chief Justice William Rehnquist rejected the request to sandblast Muhammad, saying the artwork “was intended only to recognize him, among many other lawgivers, as an important figure in the history of law; it is not intended as a form of idol worship.’’ The court later added a footnote to tourist materials describing the frieze, calling it a “a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor to honor Muhammad.’’Do you suggest that this is an improper melding of church and state also?
By Joe L
January 29, 2007 04:55 PM | Link to this
Actually the matter of the SCOTUS building and the frieze has been discussed many times before. There is a large difference between a mix of imagery on a historical building and the damage to said building’s aesthetic and historic value to remove it versus the issues brought up in this case or many others. As many of us have pointed out displays that are historical in nature versus overwhelmingly religious and displays that are more inclusive deserve more regard than outright attempts to bully (read: Moore and Alabama).
Nothing in life works in a pure black and white sense and the is not a problem I see with moderates and liberal, but moreso with conservatives that cannot function with shades of grey and analyses of individual cases and exceptions to general rules.
By Mara
January 30, 2007 07:08 AM | Link to this
Guy Pinestra - while Wikipedia is one source most of us at least check, it’s also subject to open revision so shouldn’t be used as an unverified source. As for your premise about SCOTUS, which, as Joe L states has been debunked and debunked ad infinitum…try looking at some of the urban legends websites, like Scopes, perhaps. Here…I’ll help you
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp
By Mara
January 30, 2007 07:17 AM | Link to this
ooops. pretend that “c” is an “n”. It’s s-N-o-p-e-s, not s-C-o-p-e-s
but the link is right…
By schoogirl
January 30, 2007 07:26 AM | Link to this
<