I was being pig-headed. OSC was right, I had not used any empathy for others. It really made me rethink a lot of things about myself.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My bad, Kat. I read you as saying that as a reflection of current affairs as opposed to an indictment of it.
Were what you desribe come to pass, I'd hope that my intellectual descendents would stand up for the Christians, and with a minimum of ironic enjoyment of their persecution.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Portabello: Um, that is not exactly the same. Making laws that are influenced on people's religion is not the same as making laws (or judgments) about somebody's religion.
To me, those are completely different things.
You might find them both equally objectionable, but don't just lump them together and expect me to go along with it.
I don't expect you to go along with anything. All I'm trying to do is illustrate how I (me, personally) currently perceive the actions of the right-wing. To me, laws that I disagree with based on the religious beliefs of someone else (religious beliefs that are not my own and play absolutely no role in my life) are exactly the same as this. To me, it's an extreme version of what the right-wing seems to want to do: make sure that Christian beliefs are the only acceptable ones.
(See, I can bring the bold and italics, too! )
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: 1) Quakers and Catholics are Christian.
Depends on your point of view. I used to attend a Christian church that taught us Catholicism was a cult. 2) I really, really doubt that a Quaker screamed that you were going to "burn in hell."
Maybe he wasn't a Quaker as he never identified himself as such. I just assumed. He wasn't really screaming like the others were though. But he was still going off pretty bad. I was entertained at least. Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Megan -- I really don't see how you can consider those two things to be identical. They are different.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[sound of personal hot-button being pushed]
There are an awful lot of right-wing people who are not Christian. There are an awful lot of left-wing people who are. In my experience, the majority of people, left- and right-wing, are not religious activists of any stripe.
Please, please, please, when something happens in American politics, stop blaming it on or crediting it to an imaginary group of utterly uniform, conspiring extremists!
I'm tired of people who insist on defining every member of a group by the most extreme members of that group and demanding that all be judged by the actions of a few. I'm tired of political discussions that are straw man arguments from start to finish.
When you refer to the Right trampling on religious rights, how do you account for my friends who are Republican and atheist? When you bring up the Left who are trying to remove religion from all aspects of life, where does that leave the liberal Baptists in my mom's church?
This is why I rarely comment on political threads anymore. It's also why I can't read OSC's political essays. I know that at some point he will say something like, "This is just another example of how the Left..." and I surf to another page. Same goes for damn near every political commentator out there.
There is no Left. There is no Right. There's just people, all with their own motivations. When you comment on their actions, make sure you really know what those motivations are instead of assigning them the motivations you fear.
Rant over. Please return to your regularly scheduled conversation.
And, for the record, this was not the action of an activist judge. It's the action of an ignorant judge, who shouldn't be allowed to stay on the bench if he's that ignorant or intentionally dismissive of the Constitution.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What it boils down to is that by making laws based on ideas that are strictly religious in nature, the government is tacitly endorsing that religion and making it a state religion.
For example, if we were primarily a Muslim country, there might be a law saying all women (regardless of their own beliefs) had to wear head scarves. This law has no non-religious basis; therefore, it forces aspects of a religion on people who do not believe.
Laws based solely on religion, in essence, are saying, "You are wrong not to believe as we do. We can't force you to believe, but we can force you to behave as if you do."
That's how it seems to me. YMMV.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Religion will cease to be a factor in law only when religion ceases to be a factor in people's lives.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I think laws should have as general a basis as possible, in order to avoid limiting someone from practicing their own beliefs. To my mind, making laws based solely on religion forces me to practice someone else's beliefs, which I find very limiting.
Porter, but to give you Scott's question, whose religion? In a society that contains SO many different beliefs, why can't we make the law as general as possible, in order to avoid forcing someone into the practice of a belief that isn't their own?
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have lived most of my life in places where my religion was is not only an extreme minority, but sometimes outright persecuted. The customs and many times laws supported other religions.
And yet I have never felt forced into any practices that weren't my own. I was always free to not participate.
EM -- I don't think anybody here disagrees that what happened with this judge is horrible.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
porter, And it's mostly okay if it is a factor. One of the major complaints is when it is the only factor, or (as is the case in a lot of gay marriage arguments) is the only real factor with a lot of mumbo jumbo thrown in.
The goal of an Enlightenment nation is to only use force ont its citizens when either the rationale for doing so is transferable or possibly in cases where the compelling interest is great enough to override this. I don't think that this could ever be adequately codified, but it's an idea that I think we should try to live up to.
There is no rationale (or at least none that I've seen presented) for making laws like it's illegal to sell alcohol on Sunday that are transferrible. The rationale presented for inserting "under god" into the Pledge of Alliegence was specifically to affirm that being American is inextricibly linked to being Christian (or failing that at least monotheistically religious). These are grave failings in living up to the principles of our country and the same people who champion them would be vehemently opposed to, for example, being prohibited from eating pork because it's not kosher or being forced to orient yourself towards Mecca when saying the Pledge.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>To my mind, making laws based solely on religion forces me to practice someone else's beliefs, which I find very limiting.
Just because it is called philosophy rather than religion doesn't take away its capability to repress.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky -- your comparisons are unbalanced.
Better parallels would be to make it illegal to purchase pork on Saturday, or to make part of the pledge orienting yourself towards Mecca.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assume that the judges religion is Evangelical. It is not so stated in the article. The reasoning against Wiccans seems to be a fear of a misunderstood religion, but assume for this argument, the judges religion is Evangelical.
That means it his religious calling to spread his religion to unbelievers.
If the government denies him the ability to do that, to practice his religion, even during his time in court--ie Ordering people to attend a church perhaps, or sermonizing on the gospels, then isn't the government infringing on his right to practice the religion of his choice?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter: I'm assuming you mean you always felt free not to participate in religious practices that weren't your own.
I will tell you that I, too, have lived most of my life in places that tended toward a belief that was definitely not my own, and I can tell you that there were plenty of times when I did NOT feel free not to participate (prayer in school, for example ). I DID feel forced into practices that did not reflect my beliefs in the slightest.
To me, however, the difference in our respective personal experiences is indicative only of how each of us views the effects of relgion in our society, not particular laws.
I'm talking about specific federal/state law-making that reflects a specific religion's ideas with NO basis other than those religious ideas. To me, that is a tacit violation of the first sentence of the first amendment--it establishes a religion favored by the state. No, it doesn't force ALL the precepts of that religion into law, but the establishment of one favored religion is still there.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
porter, I don't think they are (although the forcing people to orient towards Mecca not so much valid now as it was in the past). In any case, would you be okay with those?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >>To my mind, making laws based solely on religion forces me to practice someone else's beliefs, which I find very limiting.
Just because it is called philosophy rather than religion doesn't take away its capability to repress.
Scott, how exactly does your response relate to the passage you've quoted?
And how does a law with a general basis repress you? Does it prevent you from practicing your religion? Or does it merely prevent you from forcing it on others?
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can tell you that there were plenty of times when I did NOT feel free not to participate (prayer in school, for example [Razz] ).
I did not feel that way. When I wasn't comfortable with the prayer in school, I would just be silent and wait it out. I wouldn't participate, but I wouldn't try to keep others from doing so.
Did somebody try to force you to participate in prayer in school?
Squicky -- I don't know what you just asked.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, on that note, I have to go to work. This has been a very interesting conversation, though! I'll be back when I can. Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say that the government is infringing on his rights to practice his religion as he sees fit and that I'm completely okay with that (as is the law of the land). In this case, he is using the power of the government to inappropriately infringe on the rights of others. Having something as part of your religion doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. When it affects only yourself, that's one thing (although there have been plenty of objections to this), but when you start affecting other people, rules some into play. You don't get to kill someone but be exonerated because the Bible told you to. Rights exist in a framework, not as isolated absolutes.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
porter, I was asking would you be okay with either version of the non-Christian religious stuff being forced on you?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter, not to the point of forcing me to pray, no (that, I would've fought kicking and screaming), but certainly to the point of exerting SO much social pressure in a classroom situation that there was no way I could've avoided it. I was stubborn, and I fought it, but it was DEFINITELY a fight, and it definitely WASN'T just against my peers--the teacher was also involved.
Still, I tend to think that anecdotes don't stand as proof for something. To me, the above story only illustrates the direction I think things will go if there is a wholesale endorsement of laws based on religion.
Anyway, I do have to go to work. Let me say again, though, that I do admire the way we can have a (for the most part) civil conversation about this here.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but which pork and mecca things? Because as I said before, the ones that you came up with are not even close to the current laws that you compared them to.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really shouldn't come into this thread at this point, showing up so late and all and having nothing original to say, so I'm just gonna echo what Chris said.
posted
porter, As I said, I don't agree that they are not analogous and, either version. And for good measure, do you think it would be as funny if someone mocked your religion the way that Annie mocked Wiccans? I mean, would you laugh like you did or at least think it was okay for other people to laugh?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that Megan's teacher was involved in the prayer makes it wrong to me, assuming this is a public school.
I'm all for students being able to practice their respective religions and being able to share their beliefs with other students. This does not include taking up class time. What it does include to me is sharing faith at recess and lunch time (hopefully respectfully--harrassment is NOT okay), and reading whatever religious books they want during their own free time, and praying whenever they want--again, just as long as it doesn't interfere with the learning process. For example, if a student is standing up in the middle of class praying loudly, that would certainly be interfering with learning. (Obviously.)
The problem comes when teachers are leading the class in prayer or sharing their religious beliefs during teacher-led class time. I would say it's okay for a teacher to read her Bible or other religious books during her own free time, but her position of authority in the classroom makes it innappropriate for her to bring religion into the classroom. Teachers may not always get the respect they deserve, but the fact is that their position commands respect for a lot of kids and those kids could follow their position blindly...
Was I clear there? I keep on getting interrupted.
Anyway, if the teacher was involved, then it wasn't right. It doesn't matter if Megan wasn't forced to pray--that teacher was using her influence wrongly.
quote: If the government denies him the ability to do that, to practice his religion, even during his time in court--ie Ordering people to attend a church perhaps, or sermonizing on the gospels, then isn't the government infringing on his right to practice the religion of his choice?
No, they are not. If the establishment clause means anything, it means that the government cannot use its coercive power to force a person to practice a religion. That's the bear minimum protection it affords under almost any reading. A judge, of all people, should be aware of the difference between acting in ones official capacity and acting in ones own person.
Of course, the equally obvious reading of the rest of the religious protection in the first amendment, "if the free exercise clause means anything, it means that the government cannot use its coercive power to force a person to commit* an act which violates their religion" isn't enforced by the courts anymore.
Dagonee *In this usage, I am distinguishing between commission of an act and ommission of an act; I do not think the free exercise clause grants unlimited rights to do anything justified by religion.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, so you are saying that not being able to purchase alchohol on Sunday is more like making pork illegal than it is to making it so you cannot purchase pork on Saturday?
You are also saying that inserting the words "under God" into the pledge is more like forcing people to face Mecca than it is to making the facing towards Mecca part of the pledge?
That's what it looks like you are saying. Am I misunderstanding?
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is no rationale (or at least none that I've seen presented) for making laws like it's illegal to sell alcohol on Sunday that are transferrible. The rationale presented for inserting "under god" into the Pledge of Alliegence was specifically to affirm that being American is inextricibly linked to being Christian (or failing that at least monotheistically religious). These are grave failings in living up to the principles of our country and the same people who champion them would be vehemently opposed to, for example, being prohibited from eating pork because it's not kosher or being forced to orient yourself towards Mecca when saying the Pledge.
Portabello said:
quote:Yes, but which pork and mecca things? Because as I said before, the ones that you came up with are not even close to the current laws that you compared them to.
If I could chime in here... I think the laws he imagines are very close to the Sunday Blue Laws. They're all based on religious principles, even though his examples are more extreme. I don't really think they need a particular day attached to them, but whatever... The fact is, the Blue laws extend to more than just liquor, keeping entire stores closed until noon on Sunday and closing around 6 (malls, for example). This makes NO sense in our current consumerism economy--I have often wanted to shop late on Sunday in a mall, but couldn't because of some really weird logic related to religion. It's ridiculous, but nobody really cares, do they? Well, Christians would get up in arms if similar laws were passed based on other non-Christian faiths. And I think that's the whole point.
posted
1) Yes, witohut a doubt. 2) Yes, in that there used to be consequences if you didn't say the "Under God" in the Pledge. Thus, people were forced to say it.
And yet, these are very ancillary issues to my point which is that either way (yours or mine) constitutes a serious infringement what we're supposed to be. Or do you disagree?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
porter, Ok, let's just take what you said then. Do you think it would be okay that people made it illegal to purchase pork on Saturday or made facing Mecca part of the Pledge of Allegiance? If that's not clear enough, I'm not sure what else I could say.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky -- I'm not sure what you mean, but I think I don't agree with all of it.
If I moved to a place where the vast majority of the population was Jewish, and I were unable to purchase pork on Saturday, I would not consider that a "serious infringement".
Not that I'd like it, I'll grant you.
edit: This post was made before I read your last post, Squick.
edit2: There is a huge gulf between "would it be OK" and "would it be a serious infringement".
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pretty much the same amount that the day of the week has for purchasing alchohol -- absolutely nothing, unless you belong to a religion that considers the day holy.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I moved to a place where the vast majority of the population was Jewish, and I were unable to purchase pork on Saturday, I would not consider that a "serious infringement".
I'm gonna butt in again... I agree with this statement IF the stores being closed had to do with the owner's personal beliefs or the fact that nobody would be shopping anyway--NOT if it was a law. We don't live in a Theocracy.
posted
Squick -- as to whether or not I would consider it OK (I already said I wouldn't consider it a "serious infringement") -- I don't know yet. I'm still thinking about it.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
). I DID feel forced into practices that did not reflect my beliefs in the slightest.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
