One nation, Under God, but lately pretty divisible

Sure, there are more of us then there are of them, but they are pretty loud and we're rather lazy. And the problem with not beleiving in a god is that when others tell you there is one it's easy to take it as a personal attack. "You don't believe in god, your going to hell you evil person" So they grab onto the seperation of church and state and go nuts with it. Woohoo, one nation completly insane

Why do those of us who fall into that 85% have to listen to criticism from the Pope and the now deceased Mother Theresa on what an evil nation we are?

Well the Pope and Mother Theresa were Christians too - who better to criticise than the voice of God and a living saint? After all, that's what Catholics are supposed to believe these two were.

So they grab onto the seperation of church and state and go nuts with it.

you may not believe this--in fact, youre very likely going to reject it out of hand--but there's an equally good chance that people concerned about the incessant attempts to erode the wall of separation are motivated by trying to protect (that's right...protect) the rights of those who permit their enthusiam for their particular sect to blind them to the dangers inherent in government entanglement with religion to any degree, even by default or implication.  what may appear benign today can very easily become malignant tomorrow.

Cactoblasta, you missed my point. Despite the fact that 85% of Americans are Christians, both the Pope and Mother Theresa have called America an evil country because of things like abortion, the high divorce rate, etc, which do exist, but those of us who are not divorced, who are pro-life, etc, get no notice.

people concerned about the incessant attempts to erode the wall of separation are motivated by trying to protect (that's right...protect) the rights of those who permit their enthusiam for their particular sect to blind them to the dangers inherent in government entanglement with religion to any degree, even by default or implication. what may appear benign today can very easily become malignant tomorrow.

Yes, but my agrument is that it can go the other way too. It's not easy to draw a line between church and state and keep them separate because both Church and State are comprised of the people, and one does not belong to either group exclusively. Separation between Church and State doesn't mean that you can't practice your religion in public. It means that the state will not control relgion as long as it doesn't impinge on other rights, and that the Church will not control the state.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Separation between Church and State doesn't mean that you can't practice your religion in public

agreed.  it does mean that should be no endorsement or promotion of religious beliefs by the state.  consider the following scenario.  for a number of years now, the la county dept of parks and beaches as well as the mta (public transportation) have both sold advertising space on beach buildings and bus bodies to radio stations and the studios.  while i find that annoying, when i see the ads i recognize them for what they are.  if, however, each lifeguard and bus driver (or their supervisors) allowed placement of ads without regulation, we'd all be upset no?  we pay for those buildings and the busses and there's no justification for using our property to further private enterprises we may or may not support.  what if you owned an interest in a competing enterprise?  wouldnt you be concerned the public might perceive there was county support for a particular film or broadcaster?  more so than if you are aware the ads are being paid for? 

ill admit this is a fairly clumsy analogy but perhaps it still makes the point. 

i know of noone who wants to restrict privately hosted displays of religious faith.  if you own a store or a billboard, by all means use it to advance your particular sect. nobody is trying to purge magazines of religious messages.  there are more than a few religious broadcasters who are totally unconstrained from promoting their beliefs 24/7.  you can freely organize public gatherings to pray.  you can freely proselytize on the streets.  this is not--and should not--be the case when that expression involves facilities or programs that are clearly state-owned/operated/supported/sponsored such as government buildings and schools. 

that is the point where it impinges on other's rights and, at very least, attaches the appearance of church involvement with the state or vice-versa.

no religion or sect is going to support having government buildings display symbols or references specific to other belief systems to which it is directly opposed.  there are two ways in which the playing field may be leveled in that event.  provide an equal amount of space to every such belief system...or deny it to all. 

which makes more sense?

 

Sure, there are more of us then there are of them, but they are pretty loud and we're rather lazy.

That, Danny, is EXACTLY the problem. Too many of us don't want to get involved, because we think someone else will do it. We ALL need to stand up and make our voices heard...since we are the majority in this country, we need to start acting like it, instead of letting other people drive us and our beliefs underground. We do NOT have to hide what we believe, nor should anyone in this country....and if you DON'T believe in a higher power, then by all means, feel free to tell us that, as well.  THAT'S the beauty of living in a free country!!

there are two ways in which the playing field may be leveled in that event. provide an equal amount of space to every such belief system...or deny it to all. which makes more sense?

To me, denying it to all makes the most sense.  However, in many cases recently, that is not what is happening....any song referencing "Christmas" is banned, but songs about Hanukkah and Kwanzaa can be sung.....Nativity scenes are not allowed, but menorahs are.  Do you see the point...85% of the population of our country is being told that their beliefs can't be sung about or displayed in schools, but that OTHER people's can.

 

 

Most of the links I checked placed the percentage of Christian Americans to be around 85%.

Also, I would like to point out that Christians are generally good people, who support charities and hospitals that minister to the poor and sick.

First, the 85% are people who claim their religion to be "Christian".  Jehovah Witnesses are sometimes considered Christian, but actually aren't (they pray directly to God) as do a few other religions.  Saying that Christians are generally good people is a poor blanket statement.  Go to the prisons and see how many Christians you meet.  People try to correlate Christianity with ethics, but it's simply not the case.  And, that statement would also hint that non-christians are not typically good people.  Ethics and morality are not tied to religion.  You could argue that church going Christians are typically good, but even that wouldn't hold water- a lot of the inner city youth attend church regularly, but still end up in jail for crime.

there are 5% more who are Jewish, Muslim, Buddhists, and Other. That's 90% of Americans who have some kind of faith in a God.

Buddhism is not actually a religion.  They also do not believe in a single God.

If people really wanted to end this, all they would have to do is adopt a definition for a federal God.  We'll call it the "giver of life".  If you don't believe in the Christian God, or another "God" at least you can believe in the sun (without it there would be no life) and call it God.....Oh, wait, then you would run the risk of being called "pagan"

I'm not Christian, but aI also don't have a problem with Christian beliefs or having "God" and "Christmas" celebrated (I like my pagan tree just as much as the next person).  However, I am in the minority of the minority in being "OK" with that.  You see this reverse action all the time.  People want "equality" even when it doesn't make sense.  And, sometimes, people see "equality" as having to be "better".  For instance, can you imagine if a started a "white pride" day?  What about a "Straight" parade?  I would be accused of being racist for the first and being filled with hate for the second.  Religion is getting to be the same way.  I don't believe that 85% of the country is *really* Christian.  However, if you listen to the media, you would think it's only about 50%.  This is the same media that would like you to believe that 20% of the people are also gay. 

And, that statement would also hint that non-christians are not typically good people. Ethics and morality are not tied to religion

I didn't mean to imply that. I was trying to say that the Pope and Mother Theresa were misjudging a lot of people.

However, in many cases recently, that is not what is happening....any song referencing "Christmas" is banned, but songs about Hanukkah and Kwanzaa can be sung.....Nativity scenes are not allowed, but menorahs are. Do you see the point...85% of the population of our country is being told that their beliefs can't be sung about or displayed in schools, but that OTHER people's can.

i dont think thats the case, and id be very interested if you could provide details.

However, in many cases recently, that is not what is happening....any song referencing "Christmas" is banned, but songs about Hanukkah and Kwanzaa can be sung.....Nativity scenes are not allowed, but menorahs are. Do you see the point...85% of the population of our country is being told that their beliefs can't be sung about or displayed in schools, but that OTHER people's can.

I hear this all the time from certain conservative opinion shows, however , they either don't mention the specific case, or if they do they misrepresent the facts. If they mention specific instances I usually try to follow up on them only to find out that the way they are representing the situation is totally different from what the specific court decision, town policy, or schoolboard policy actually states. To be fair certain liberal opinion shows do the same thing with other issues. It sucks when you have google government documents because valid news outlets are not picking up the stories and everyone else is manipulating the facts.

It sucks when you have google government documents because valid news outlets are not picking up the stories and everyone else is manipulating the facts

you just earned yourself an insightful with that.  too true.

Reply By: kingbeePosted: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 However, in many cases recently, that is not what is happening....any song referencing "Christmas" is banned, but songs about Hanukkah and Kwanzaa can be sung.....Nativity scenes are not allowed, but menorahs are. Do you see the point...85% of the population of our country is being told that their beliefs can't be sung about or displayed in schools, but that OTHER people's can. i dont think thats the case, and id be very interested if you could provide details.

The policy of the 1,200 New York City public schools is that no purely religious symbols are allowed, only ones that have a “secular dimension,” such as Christmas trees, menorahs, and the star and crescent. But the star and crescent is hardly secular. It is the symbol of Islam. And the menorah, though now losing some of its religious significance, is the symbol of an intervention by God to save the Jewish people. The Thomas More Law Center filed suit on behalf of a Roman Catholic mother of two public-school students, saying, in effect, that if the city’s public schools are allowing brief and educational use of religious symbols for Muslims and Jews, then the Christian crèche should be permitted, too. Last February, U.S. District Judge Charles Sifton ruled for the school system. The case is under appeal. The crèche, for now, remains banned. Like New York’s schools, Bay Harbor Islands in Florida refuses to allow a Nativity scene on public property but has menorahs and the Star of David on lampposts and permitted a local synagogue to erect a 14-foot-high menorah on public land.

The South Orange/Maplewood, N.J., school district banned religious Christmas songs, even in instrumental versions. In Florida, an elementary school concert included songs about Hanukkah and Kwanzaa but offered not a single note of Christmas music. A recent winter parade in Denver looked very much like a Christmas event, except for one small thing: Every reference to Christmas was banned. Unless believers and religious-liberties groups begin to push back, the anti-Christmas trend will prevail in the public square.

These events have all been reported by the national media, not just by "certain conservative opinion shows."

 

"The policy of the 1,200 New York City public schools is that no purely religious symbols are allowed, only ones that have a “secular dimension,” such as Christmas trees, menorahs, and the star and crescent. But the star and crescent is hardly secular." "Bay Harbor Islands in Florida refuses to allow a Nativity scene on public property but has menorahs and the Star of David on lampposts and permitted a local synagogue to erect a 14-foot-high menorah on public land."

These communities allow christmas candles and stars also. The star certainly has religious significance so where do they draw the line? Local governments are trying to find the best compromise. They are trying to ward off lawsuits, not trying to single out religious groups. So they look at local government policies and legal precedent. There is a big difference between something that has a secular dimension and something that is purely religious. Although the hexagram, within the last two hundred years, has become most commonly associated with Judaism and Jewish identity, it is not exclusivly a Jewish or religious symbol. As to the menorrah the Bay Harbor attourneys are arguing it does have a secular dimension, however I don't know enough about this to argue either way. Seems to me crosses would have a secular dimension, however the Nativity? Personally I'm tolerant of whatever the courts decide so I'll leave it up to them. As to Kwanzaa it isn't even a religious holiday. It's fine with me if local communities themselves decide to allow their citizens to display any and all religious displays on their public lands. Some might want to think about certain displays that may include.

In Denver the parade is sponsored by a business association. Should they not be able to decide what is allowable? They are non governmental and are only trying to be inclusive while avoiding lawsuits. And if you look closer you will realize that every reference to Christmas was not being banned. They have by the way changed their policy recently to be even more inclusive. In any case it is fine to go after government, after all we need to settle these issues and I suspect judges are more capable at interpretation than many local officials. But if people start suing private enterprises over these specific parades and such, they may very well simply disappear.

As to Christmas carols in schools do you have links to valid sources that specify specific religious songs they are including? Personally I think it should be all inclusive, but something tells me that all inclusive means more lawsuits that the school districts can't afford so they will simply have no choice but to never have holiday parties,plays, and concerts.

I personally don't mind seeing the nativity in front of my town hall. But if others mind, I'm not willing to pay more taxes so local government can fend off a constant barrage of law suits. I'm quite content driving by the numerous churches,homes, and businesses around town knowing the spirit of Christmas is live and well.

In any case I know the national media is also reporting specific instances. Some more objectively than others. All this is nothing new....It's been going on for a long time. There are simply more media outlets spinning it.

beat me to it independent1.   responded to it in more detail than i was prepared to do (altho i did see an interview with the mayor of bay harbor island, fl earlier tonite) but to the same end. 

as far as the secular nature of the crescent/star and mogen david (hexagram), both are graphic elements of national flags.  the creche is definitely not secular.   merchants in denver--or anywhere else--are under no legal constraint against displaying whatever the market will bear.  there's no issue for a court to decide of which im aware.

although i have run across complaints about restrictions at public schools regarding carols, it would appear there are plenty of non-sectarian substitutes for the christian ones. im not sure what is sung to celebrate the other winter religious holidays.