|
Post by Galadon on Nov 16, 2003 16:02:01 GMT -5
The pharse that begins the Bill of Rights is very short: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
But, since 1791, billion of words have been uttered in everything from angry riots to scholarly tomes to court decisions trying to explain what that phrase should mean.
And today it's impossible to ignore the role of religion in American public life. Religious issues are central in the debates about the display of the Ten Commandments in public spaces, school vouchers, abortion, sex education and the Pledge of Allegiance. Some churches actively suggest to their members how to vote.
The Iraq conflict has religious overtones - overtly for some Musslim fundamentalists and at least one pentagon general and more subtly in some of President Bush's language.
Debate over economic issues includes the voice of liberal Protestants and conservative Catholics pursuing social justice, and religious and ethical views are part of the discussion of cloning and other biotech dreams.
The debate about the role of religious belief in public life makes almost everybody unconfortable. True believers are frustrated when they can't convert others to their views. Dismayed religious moderates wonder why we all can't just get along. Determend secularists want the faithful to leave thier beliefs at home, not bring them to the public square. and new Americans, neither Christains nor Jews nor atheists, stand poised to enter the debate
What do you believe the role of religiuos beliefs should be in public life?
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Nov 16, 2003 23:07:16 GMT -5
Well, since America is generally a Christian state, I think that they might as well admit it and go all out (but stop just short of restricting other religions)
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 17, 2003 0:23:41 GMT -5
Which is basically what they do to a very large degree. However, I have a problem with the hypocricy of denouncing certain countries for religion in politics, such as Afghanistan and Iran and others and then allowing a fundamentalist Christian leader to do and say pretty much whatever he wants.
|
|
|
Post by Wyrmfire on Nov 17, 2003 4:37:02 GMT -5
He does what he wants because he has the mandate of the majority of the population, not because of religion (I'm talking about approval ratings, not the election.) What's hypocritical barely allowing the government to even acnowledge one of the most powerful forces that shaped this country.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 17, 2003 7:58:17 GMT -5
What? Slavery, oppression and forced labour? (I'm kidding, I just wanted to see the look on your face. Heh.)
While it may be true that America was a Christian country when it was founded, that is barely true now. Christians are barely a majority in the country even if you lump all different sects of Christians together. Why should Christianity be promoted any more than any other religion?
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 17, 2003 8:08:55 GMT -5
The US, until very recently, WAS a Christian nation. Thankfully it is no longer a truely Christian nation and is finally becoming the non-sectarian nation that the fine document that Galadon cited for us clearly shows us our founding fathers hoped it would be. At the time that the document in question was written easily 90+% of the citizens of the newly frocked nation WERE Christians and yet they had the foresight and the intellect to make it's becoming one unlikely.
Our founding fathers were a very liberal bunch, as is often the case with founders if they are rebels first, but the nation very quickly became bogged in conservatism as IT is the primary means for any group in power to retain power.
Of course conservatism isn't bad in and of itself... it's just very often the avenue of abuse for the powerful. You show the people how well off they are compared to others, implant the idea in their minds that it is a result of "the superior way in which we do things" and hook that to the idea that if these things change, we will no longer be superior. Instill a bit of subconscious fear that others envy you for your superiority and it becomes conservativism... with racism, chauvanism and sectarianism hard on it's heels.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Nov 17, 2003 14:41:07 GMT -5
Not a Christian state, eh? The national motto is "In God we trust". Every speech that Bush (and most presidents, for that matter) makes to the nation contains a "God" reference. Rumsfeld begins each day with a prayer session held with his advisors. Christmas is a national holiday. As a non-Christian I can see these things without ignoring them, and I am frankly appaled at the fact that the US just doesn't strike that seperation of church and state thing from the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 17, 2003 15:07:20 GMT -5
In "God we Trust" is a simple platitude. Presidents, and most politicians, play to the crowd. Hearing a reference to God in a speech makes (or made, before Bush jr) a religious Moslem or religious Jew feel as at ease as a religious Christian. It's not something that too many people will decry, because it is NOT only a Christian thing.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Nov 17, 2003 16:20:34 GMT -5
Naturally. Not many people will decry it because technically, Allah, Yahweh, and God are the same being. I'm talking about those born and raised outside of that large circle: we're, in general, more tolerant of the "God" references, but is it expecting too much to have minority recognition as well? "In God we trust" is far more than a platitude - it meant more than that when the founders (or whoever conceived of it) first wrote it and it has the same meaning nowdays.
I speak based on my perceptions as an observer viewing Judeo-Christian practices in America, simply stating a fact that I've recognized.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Nov 17, 2003 17:30:46 GMT -5
I am opposed to prayer during public school time, that is during a class not inbetween classes.
This is not because I'm an atheist, it's because which prayer are you going to say. In the U.S. we now have a wide range of different people who practice different religions. So it's one prayer that may offen others, many prayers that would take up alot of school time, or no prayers.
Now I don't care if some gather around a flag before or after school, as some had did before. The public schools don't have that much time in the first place and quite frankly some schools are not doing that good here. So this is one place that should be nonreligious to save time.
{{The fun of editing your stuff, some words didn't make it to the screen}}
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 17, 2003 17:43:53 GMT -5
Hi Eldritch Knight,
Actually if you take a close look at our founding fathers you will find a surprisingly irreligious bunch. Jefferson and Franklin were hardly the exception; they were closer to being the rule. As a collective they were free thinkers to a great degree and studiously irreverent for their time. Washington was an exception to this, but Payne and to a lesser extent, Hancock, were downright iconclastic.
One thing that they did share though, almost universally, was membership in the Freemasons. And friend EK, the Freemasons do definately NOT mean anything exclusively Christian when they intone "so mote it be". The ideal of God to a Freemason includes not only Allah and the great I am, but also can be said to include any God form of similiar ideal as well.
"In God We Trust" is perhaps even more likely in this form, from the beginning of this nation, the ideal of our founding fathers.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Nov 17, 2003 18:01:33 GMT -5
Personaly I'd rather everyone left it at home. If theres one thing that gets on my nerves it someone preaching at me. However being a bit of a realist in RL I don't see this happening. (Atleast with those who are the ones causeing all the fuss in the first place)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
This is one of those sentences that is a brilliant bit of thinking until someone takes the piss. Taken litterly I can excuse myself any crime by making up a religion that lets me get away with it. I don't think this is one of those things that you can put a definate rule to. Its intended as more of a guide line. Don't hinder religious groups and let them go about their bussiness in peace, but don't let criminals hide behind their religion.
Challenger
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 17, 2003 22:44:51 GMT -5
Actually Challenger, that doesn't quite work. You cannot simply invent a religion. There are a number of steps you must follow in order to become a recognized religion. To simply commit a crime and then say "well, my religion made me do it." is not a defense if it is not a recognised religion.
|
|
|
Post by Sightspitter on Nov 17, 2003 22:52:49 GMT -5
Also Challenger, the practices of a religion may not encroach upon the rights of another. I would go into further detail but I'm tired and lazy.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Nov 18, 2003 0:33:02 GMT -5
|
|