Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blike

How far should the US take separation of Church and State?

Recommended Posts

If they're going to go to extremes they are going to have to raze the Supreme Court building - Moses and the 10 Commandments are carved all over it:

 

On the doors:

http://www.somosprimos.com/sp2004/spapr04/Copy%20of%20Carving%20of%20Ten%20Commandments%20on%20doors%20of%20the%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court.jpg

 

In the front at the apex of the roof:

http://www.giveshare.org/news/news016_files/image017.jpg

 

On the wall inside:

http://www.revelationsofthebible.com/religion2.jpg

 

Those are pictures of people - artwork - and the 10 commandments marker doesn't actually list them. The monument down in Alabama that was removed was peominantly displayed and had the commandments written out. The Supreme Court building has a number of law-related sculptures and other pieces of art from a variety of cultures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was not meant to be condescending. What I meant by that a few years ago I was one of those children you mentioned. I can still remember that, and most of us did have the maturity to make decisions. When I said "I am in a position to know", I just meant to say that my recent experience shows otherwise, not to condescend.

 

OK, but the implication was that I wasn't in a position to know. I see childrens' actions that contradict your position all the time, and have my own experiences that contradict it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pointing towards a metaphor for human nature is shaky ground?

 

It's a work of fiction because the characters and specific events were made up.

 

If presented as evidence, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not presenting it as evidence, I am pointing towards it as an example summary of 'things that happen'. I don't expect anybody to take the particulars of the story as being a verbatim prediction or account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What has that got to do with this discussion?

 

"If you're an atheist it's probably because you're a gay-lover" is not where I want to see this (read: any) thread heading.

 

It was more of an observation pointing to what I thought was an inconsistency on the part of many people.

 

That they see the mere mention of "God" as somehow dangerous to children, yet those same children are deemed to be quite capable of attending "diversity classes" to make them understand that some boys like boys, instead of girls.

 

While I have no problem with teaching kids to accept differing sexual orientations, and to be tolerant of them, I think the same thing goes for accepting the fact that some people are religious and should be respected for that also.

 

Whenever I see a double standard applied, I begin to wonder if the people who are objecting, are objecting on scientific grounds, or if it is just another prejudice rearing it's ugly head. :rolleyes:

 

So, to the extent that it examines the motivation of the prople who are concerned about the "G" word in school, I think it is releant--don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Learning about different religions is one thing-as long as you don't slant in favor of one. In high school we learned about Martin Luther, the Catholic church, Islam and other stuff like that. In college I took a Western Civ class and we learned about Zoroastrianism and other religions that pertained to history. We never covered Christ when leanring about Rome becasue my teacher said it was an insignificant occurance in the scope of Roman history. Learning about religions as history is fine, as long as it is taught objectively. As an Atheist I never felt offended becasue the teachers were being objective and not preaching or trying to make me pray to their god/gods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever I see a double standard applied' date=' I begin to wonder if the people who are objecting, are objecting on scientific grounds, or if it is just another prejudice rearing it's ugly head. :rolleyes: [/quote']

I think the difference is Religious Education is important to produce a well rounded and tolerant adult, but institutionalized Religious reference and rhetoric in education systems subverts a child's ability to make objective choices about their religious beliefs (or lack of).

 

Thats the concept behind the governments decision to remove the 'rubber stamp' on religious views outside of classes on the subject. It's not an attempt to remove or deride religion, just remove the prejudice towards one theological viewpoint. Allah, Buddha, Mother Earth et al are not invoked in the pledge, nor is there an athiest consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I have no problem with teaching kids to accept differing sexual orientations' date=' and to be tolerant of them, I think the same thing goes for accepting the fact that some people are religious and should be respected for that also.

 

Whenever I see a double standard applied, I begin to wonder if the people who are objecting, are objecting on scientific grounds, or if it is just another prejudice rearing it's ugly head. :rolleyes:

[/quote']

 

From the standpoint of an atheist, they are the minority. So a better example would be if the schools were trying to suggest that all boys should only love girls.

 

That being said, I personally have no problem with the term "God". I think this is generic and people should relax. Might as well complain about Santa Clause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the difference is Religious Education is important to produce a well rounded and tolerant adult, but institutionalized Religious reference and rhetoric in education systems subverts a child's ability to make objective choices about their religious beliefs (or lack of).

 

If the pledge were mandatory, I would agree, but since it is voluntary, it looks more to me like an infringement of freedom to exercise, or of freedom of speech.

 

Thats the concept behind the governments decision to remove the 'rubber stamp' on religious views outside of classes on the subject. It's not an attempt to remove or deride religion, just remove the prejudice towards one theological viewpoint. Allah, Buddha, Mother Earth et al are not invoked in the pledge, nor is there an athiest consideration.

 

I think it a little premature to say that the government has made a decision to remove anything in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, who are?

 

Sorry,

 

Atheists are the minority, just as homosexuals. So, if you want to teach tolerance, teach religious folk that not all people believe in God, and that those that believe in God have a different interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry' date='

 

Atheists are the minority, just as homosexuals. So, if you want to teach tolerance, teach religious folk that not all people believe in God, and that those that believe in God have a different interpretation.[/quote']

 

I think it should go both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it should go both ways.

 

you want to teach bisexuality? :D - just kidding.

 

Yes, we should teach ALL people the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Swansont

If kids could make these types of decisions we would never have a case of child sex abuse go undiscovered.

That has nothing to do with maturity, it has to do with fear. Are you saying that some women who get raped are immature for not telling? They don't tell because they are afraid that the person that did it to them will hurt them again, and it is the same with child sex abuse cases; maturity is not involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That has nothing to do with maturity, it has to do with fear. Are you saying that some women who get raped are immature for not telling? They don't tell because they are afraid that the person that did it to them will hurt them again, and it is the same with child sex abuse cases; maturity is not involved.

 

Fear and maturity have no link? You have never heard of the boogeyman, or any other scary stories? Are you afraid of the dark? Sleep with a night light? Security blanket? Do you have monsters in the closet or under the bed?

 

I'm sorry, but I find the assertion that kids are emotionally mature to be absurd. A subset of kids are, which grows larger as they get older. I also find the contention that women don't report rape because of fear of another attack to be incredibly simplistic. My statement was a generalization, too - I should have said 'many fewer cases unreported' instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That being said, I personally have no problem with the term "God". I think this is generic and people should relax. Might as well complain about Santa Clause.

 

Wrong. Does it say "in gods we trust?" does it say "in Allah we trust". No it says "God" denoting the Judeo-Christian's one and only "God". You are not even considering those that don't even believe in God in this argument. Is it that important to people just to have a passing mention of God, when you are alienating so many people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you want to teach tolerance, teach religious folk that not all people believe in God, and that those that believe in God have a different interpretation.

 

How about there are some people who don't believe in God as well. That would go a pretty long way too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fear and maturity have no link? You have never heard of the boogeyman' date=' or any other scary stories? Are you afraid of the dark? Sleep with a night light? Security blanket? Do you have monsters in the closet or under the bed?

 

I'm sorry, but I find the assertion that kids are emotionally mature to be absurd. A subset of kids are, which grows larger as they get older. I also find the contention that women don't report rape because of fear of another attack to be incredibly simplistic. My statement was a generalization, too - I should have said 'many fewer cases unreported' instead.[/quote']

 

The real attack that women fear if they report rape is the one that will take place in court as the defense attorney exercises carte blanc to smear their characters.

 

Children often don't tell because their molesters are often friends and family members who will continue to be very much a part of their lives. They are not only emotionally dependent upon these people, but also -- if the child is not believed -- these people are uniquely positioned to continue molesting and to exact punishment for the telling.

 

I don't think this discussion has any meaning unless we acknowledge the uses and abuses of power. The word "God" is embedded in the pledge. The pledge is embedded in the context of the classroom. The classroom is embedded in the context of the school itself and its institutional power, and much of that institutional power comes from the federal government and its power to withhold or disburse funds.

 

It is not enough in my mind to say the child has a choice to use or not use the word God. Since the word is in the context of the pledge and the pledge usually requires students to stand, think about what would happen if a context savvy student refused to stand. You can argue that students need not say the pledge, but I don't think you can argue that there would be no repercussions of such a stance (or should I say sit down strike :D ).

 

Personally I would not only like to see the word God eliminated from the pledge. I would like to see the pledge itself eliminated on the grounds that the purpose of school should be education not indoctrination.

 

To me our entire Constitution and the purpose of democracy is to attain a curb on power. Because power invites abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. That's an interesting link.

 

My favorite argument was Religious Egocentrism. You see some of that in this thread in the assumption that the "Under God" part of pledge encompasses everyone therefore should be acceptable, conveniently overlooking the fact that it may be annoying or even offensive to atheists and agnostics among others.

 

Obviously, the feelings of these nonbelievers deserve to discounted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.