DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: hnumpah on December 10, 2007, 01:49:24 AM
-
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM -- THEN, NOW AND ROMNEY
Sun Dec 9, 3:47 PM ET
MANCHESTER, N.H. -- I had trouble choosing a lead for this column on Mitt Romney's nice speech about religious freedom last Thursday morning. I am for religious freedom and for freedom from religion. I am not for Romney, though, God knows -- oops! -- he certainly looks like a president should.
I considered four first paragraphs:
Lead 1: More than 175 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville, an intellectual Roman Catholic, traveling in the new United States to write a book he came to call "Democracy in America," wrote this in his notebook:
"It's incredible to see the infinite number of subdivisions into which the sects of America have split. ... Each new sect separates a little further while nearing pure Deism. ... The reformed religion is a sort of compromise."
Lead 2: More than 20 years ago, I received a package in the mail from a man named Arthur Glauberman, in Newton, N.J., a place my father often went to fish for trout he never caught. He said his father, Isadore Glauberman, who died in 1978, had found a Bible in the attic and thought it might be mine. The inscription on the first page read: "Presented to Richard Reeves by the Primary Department of The Church School of Old Bergen Dutch Reformed Church, September 22, 1946." It was mine and still is, well-thumbed and read, one of my most important possessions.
Lead 3: Sometime in the early or mid-1970s, I settled into my seat on a United Airlines flight, and the man next to me, wearing a small gold cross in his lapel, turned to me and said: "Have you found Jesus?" I reached for the overhead button, then told the stewardess I wanted to change my seat.
Lead 4: In 1979, I had a conversation about religion in the White House with former President Nixon, who was raised a Quaker and rather cynically began a tradition of White House prayer breakfasts, and he said something interesting: "When religion started talking about the masses rather than what it could do for the individual, then religion went ..." He thrust both his thumbs down and made a noise something like "Phffft!"
I debated using one of those because I think it would be offensive and too provocative to begin by saying that I consider many of the tenets of Mormonism to be very odd stuff. I can handle its rejection of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, in favor of a God who is Himself a physical being.
But I will never get over my first visit to the museum of the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City. A great mural there depicts the origins of the phrase "Latter-Day Saints," the idea that when Christ was resurrected he did not go to the side of his Father, but instead stopped off in North American to preach to and convert Jews who were dressed as Indians. OK, believe what you will -- I agreed with Nixon that religion should personal -- but all the feathers did me in.
Obviously, Romney did not want to try to defend such beliefs, though he did say he believed the doctrines of his faith. His Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has a singular kind of problem. It was founded in 1830, while Tocqueville was in America, and that means it has modern records; it was all written down at the time. We remember historically that a guy named Joseph Smith was talking to angels and found golden plates from God -- which no one else ever saw -- that ordered the creation of a new religion. And we know that the greatest of Mormon leaders, Brigham Young, the Moses who led his people to the promised land of Utah, had 56 children and 51 wives and was indicted for murder in a massacre of innocent farmers heading west on the Oregon Trail.
You can read all about these things in accounts by participants and witnesses. Jews, Christians and Muslims are better protected because their religions were founded before writing was common, and their histories are essentially verbal.
As for us, we live in interesting times. I, for one, am thrilled by the diversity of the candidates in both parties. But I am appalled by the rise of public religiosity that I began looking into after my airplane encounter with a fellow "born again." It is people like him, and their evangelical fundamentalism, who have been determined to turn American democracy into a struggle between religions, values and cultures. Not only have they succeeded, but they have been a driving force in turning American foreign policy into a cultural-religious war with Islam, a horrific, deadly confrontation that will do neither side any good.
There was a reason our Founding Fathers, who had seen Europe tear itself apart in religious wars, were so determined to separate church and state. They were right then, and they are right now. The candidates would do well to reaffirm that separation.
-
"There was a reason our Founding Fathers, who had seen Europe tear itself apart in religious wars, were so determined to separate church and state."
[[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]]
Is there any evidence that they were "so determined to separate church and state"?
-
I think Mitt doesn't want to defend his specific doctrinal beliefs because of slanted nonsense like that. There is so much misinformation and ignorance about Mormonism that trying to put out those fires is a futile exercise. But my main disagreement with this article is that the author puts the blame on Evangelicals and the like for trying to make this a country of sectarian strife. He acts as if this is a new phenomenon. That's not even close to true. Mormonism itself was born in an era known as the "Second Great Awakening" when religious fervor (and the attendant sectarian strife) was rampant. The history of violence and persecution against Mormons, Catholics and other sects - not to mention interfactional bickering and denunciation is nothing new. Heck, we have a couple of Church of Christ congregations here in my town that are carrying on a battle in purchased inserts for the local daily paper condemning each other to hell because one group believes in organ music in church and the other doesn't. (I swear I am not making that up!) We have less of the kind of extreme violence than our old world counterparts did, but not less sectarian strife.
The battles over church and state today are based just as much on Atheist and anti-religious zealotry that did away with a lot of the religious freedom that we once had as it is on Christian sectarianism. Starting most relevently with Madeline Murray O'Hare's victory over school prayer, our society has gone down the slippery slope that starts with demanding religious freedom for smaller factions and ends up restricting religious freedom for everybody. Not only has the country rejected the idea of mandatory religious participation (a good thing) but it has rejected religious expression altogether in many places. Beyond that, we have also rejected the moral values once defined by our generally shared religious backround. We can't pray in public, but we can show our asses. We can't hang a poster defending religion in a school, but we can hang a poster advocating a gay lifestyle. We can't ban "Heather has Two Mommies" but we do ban the Bible. We can't force a child to learn the Bible in school, but we can force them to learn evolution. It's one thing to seek freedom for minority groups. It's another thing to restrict majorities to accomplish it.
What has made religion such a big issue in politics today is not that Christians are trying to change this country. It's because we are trying to change this country back.
-
<<Is there any evidence that they [the Framers of the Constitution] were "so determined to separate church and state"?>>
Yes, it's called the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Plainer than that it just doesn't get.
-
Yes, it's called the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Plainer than that it just doesn't get.
Taken literally the clause means that the federal government will not establish an official Church or the United States like the Church of England.
It does not mean that church and state cannot recognize each other or cooperate.
-
Yes, it's called the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Taken literally the clause means that the federal government will not establish an official Church or the United States like the Church of England. It does not mean that church and state cannot recognize each other or cooperate.
PRECISELY
-
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress shall make no law...
...respecting an establishment of religion...
...or...
.....prohibiting the free exercise thereof....
All right I see Congress being forbidden to make restriction , perhaps restricted from offering encouragement to religion.
Where does all the other meaning come in?
How does one go from this to forbidding prayer at football games? High school is not Congress.
-
How does one go rom ti to forbidding prayer at football games? High school is not Congress.
Public schools are generally entities of local and state governments.
-
How does one go rom ti to forbidding prayer at football games? High school is not Congress.
Public schools are generally entities of local and state governments.
Right , neither are they Congress.
-
It means that Congress shall make no laws in which it advocates or bans any specific religion.
Congress cannot allow a specific religion (ie Christianity, or any form thereof) from carrying on religious services within any entity controlled by the local, state or national government.
I know of no posters in any school advocating a gay lifestyle, by the way.
-
I think Mitt doesn't want to defend his specific doctrinal beliefs because of slanted nonsense like that. There is so much misinformation and ignorance about Mormonism that trying to put out those fires is a futile exercise. But my main disagreement with this article is that the author puts the blame on Evangelicals and the like for trying to make this a country of sectarian strife. He acts as if this is a new phenomenon. That's not even close to true. Mormonism itself was born in an era known as the "Second Great Awakening" when religious fervor (and the attendant sectarian strife) was rampant. The history of violence and persecution against Mormons, Catholics and other sects - not to mention interfactional bickering and denunciation is nothing new. Heck, we have a couple of Church of Christ congregations here in my town that are carrying on a battle in purchased inserts for the local daily paper condemning each other to hell because one group believes in organ music in church and the other doesn't. (I swear I am not making that up!) We have less of the kind of extreme violence than our old world counterparts did, but not less sectarian strife.
The battles over church and state today are based just as much on Atheist and anti-religious zealotry that did away with a lot of the religious freedom that we once had as it is on Christian sectarianism. Starting most relevently with Madeline Murray O'Hare's victory over school prayer, our society has gone down the slippery slope that starts with demanding religious freedom for smaller factions and ends up restricting religious freedom for everybody. Not only has the country rejected the idea of mandatory religious participation (a good thing) but it has rejected religious expression altogether in many places. Beyond that, we have also rejected the moral values once defined by our generally shared religious backround. We can't pray in public, but we can show our asses. We can't hang a poster defending religion in a school, but we can hang a poster advocating a gay lifestyle. We can't ban "Heather has Two Mommies" but we do ban the Bible. We can't force a child to learn the Bible in school, but we can force them to learn evolution. It's one thing to seek freedom for minority groups. It's another thing to restrict majorities to accomplish it.
What has made religion such a big issue in politics today is not that Christians are trying to change this country. It's because we are trying to change this country back.
Wonder what Mitt has in mind, if he gets elected to lead the charge in getting the country "back?"
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/blackwaters-buine-by-jeremy-scahill/
-
It means that Congress shall make no laws in which it advocates or bans any specific religion.
Congress cannot allow a specific religion (ie Christianity, or any form thereof) from carrying on religious services within any entity controlled by the local, state or national government.
I know of no posters in any school advocating a gay lifestyle, by the way.
This seems contradictory.
If you forbid a religious practice in a place or a circumstance are you not making " law respecting an establishment of religion" just as congress is forbidden to do?
-
Congress cannot allow a specific religion (ie Christianity, or any form thereof) from carrying on religious services within any entity controlled by the local, state or national government.
Why? As long as there's no official endorsement or government mandate to listen, then there's no establishing of an official Church of the United States akin to the Church of England, as referenced in the Establishment clause to the 1st amedment
-
I think anyone who wants to pray at school can already pray.
I always did before a math test, no one stopped me. I heard a lot of muttered Hail Mary prayers back then.
-
Why should parents have to put up with a teacher in a public school teaching their child a religion they might not believe in? Why should a child of, say, Buddhist or Hindu or even (gasp!) atheist parents feel like some sort of outcast because they don't participate when the teacher calls for a prayer, or a Bible verse to be read every day? If you want your kids to learn religion in school, instead of at home or at church, then there are any number of church run schools you can send them to. For the rest of us, we should be able to send our kids to school to learn the things they need to know to get along in life without getting some sort of religious indoctrination in the process.
-
Why should parents have to put up with a teacher in a public school teaching their child a religion they might not believe in? .......
Wo H. Where did that question come from? Students are indoctrinated about the religion of mother earth and global warming all the time. Many are indoctrinated about how "taxing the rich" is a good thing to help the poor and the children with bigger and more elaborate government programs all the time. Yet, I don't recall anyone here claiming that teachers should be allowed to teach their students in a public school that they should become Christian, or Hindu, or whatever. Where'd you get that idea anyway? My question was specific to allowing students to pray when they want & where they want, to gather together like minded students if they want to discuss their religion, for a teacher or student, on their own time, like lunch, leading a bible study perhaps, open to anyone that WANTS to come (read not forced)
Notice the common denominator.....those that WANT to, and by no means, forced to
-
If you forbid a religious practice in a place or a circumstance are you not making " law respecting an establishment of religion" just as congress is forbidden to do?\
===========================================================
Yeah sure.
If I forbid someone from building a scaffold to "bury the dead in the sky", on my front lawn, a la Cheyenne religious practice on my front lawn, I am not violating any law. Nor is the City of Malibu Beach violating a law to forbid me from having rotting corpses on the same scaffold.
To ban all religious ceremonies and trappings is the only way to be neutral.
-
Notice the common denominator.....those that WANT to, and by no means, forced to
Sure. I saw how that worked when I was in school. We had a girl whose family was atheist, and who did not participate in the morning prayer or the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Sure, she was allowed not to participate, and sat quietly while everyone else went about bowing their heads, then standing for the pledge. She was ostracized and whispered about by the rest of the class, and spent her free time alone and without friends.
Schools are for teaching children what they need to get along in the world. Religion should be taught at home or in the church. That way you can be sure your child is taught according to your own beliefs.
-
She was ostracized and whispered about by the rest of the class, and spent her free time alone and without friends.
I know religious kids that spent "free time alone and without friends" - nature of the beast. Cliques gang up on individuals who refuse to submit to everything they demand. Has happened since before we evolved to our current form; it has been observed in many other species.
-
She was ostracized and whispered about by the rest of the class, and spent her free time alone and without friends.
I know religious kids that spent "free time alone and without friends" - nature of the beast. Cliques gang up on individuals who refuse to submit to everything they demand. Has happened since before we evolved to our current form; it has been observed in many other species.
Precisely. What we have here is nothing to do with the notion of teachers trying to turn kids into Christians on the Public dollar, counter the Establishment clause to the 1st amendment, but everything to do with the PC induced "we can't offend anyone" dren.
Strange, how I'm offended everytime I hear how a student led Bible study is prevented from meeting on their own time, between classes. Strange how Christians are now largely ostracized, and must embrace the diversity of intolerance on school grounds. Cliques are as common to school life as pop quizes. The only difference here is the idea that someone exercising their 1st amendment rights to discuss & practice their own religion, might offend others. So, best we offend the Christians, or any other like-minded group, that would like to come together and simply discuss their religion, possibly even....*gasp*....pray
-
What we have here is nothing to do with the notion of teachers trying to turn kids into Christians on the Public dollar...
Bullshit. Who do you think led the prayers, the Bible readings, and the pledge?
If a bunch of kids wants to get together and go to a teacher or other school official and set up a Bible study or prayer meeting at school, in private, on their own time, I don't have any problem with that. My problem is with the adults taking it on themselves to set it up, and 'inviting' everyone to join in.
'Diversity of intolerance'? What the fuck are you talking about? Nah, nevermind.
-
If you forbid a religious practice in a place or a circumstance are you not making " law respecting an establishment of religion" just as congress is forbidden to do?\
===========================================================
Yeah sure.
If I forbid someone from building a scaffold to "bury the dead in the sky", on my front lawn, a la Cheyenne religious practice on my front lawn, I am not violating any law. Nor is the City of Malibu Beach violating a law to forbid me from having rotting corpses on the same scaffold.
To ban all religious ceremonies and trappings is the only way to be neutral.
Nurality may not always be the best choice.
I don't want to argue against your right to choose what religous events occur on your own land , or what the City government might choose to allow in the city. Priviate persons and city governments are not Congress.
The first admendment clearly prohibits Congress from establishment or religion and also prohibits Congress from hindering the free exercise there of.
What is the justifacation for forbidding other levels of government , and other types of government from Religious involvement?
-
What we have here is nothing to do with the notion of teachers trying to turn kids into Christians on the Public dollar...
Bullshit. Who do you think led the prayers, the Bible readings, and the pledge?
And who was mandated by the government, or even the school for that matter, to listen, learn, and believe?? This might shock you H, but I was in school way back when (having just turned 40something), I recited the pledge, and at NO time did I believe I was in Sunday School, listening to sermons, or having to acknowledge my Christianity. At no time was I being made to act or be a Christian. I was learning math, english, history, science, etc, without any attempt either direct or indirect to apply Christianity to those subjects.
No, what you have here is, with the cover of supposed seperation of Church & State, and teachers enforcing their religion on their captive audience, is political correctness running amuck, and how dare we might offend someone for actually hearing the word God, or *gasp* watching others pray. Oh, the horror
My problem is with the adults taking it on themselves to set it up, and 'inviting' everyone to join in.
How you made my point so well. Thanks. Oh, and the "celebrating diversity of intolerance" is simply the push to suppress Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, within the Public arena, because it dares to offend those that don't believe, or makes them feel "uncomfortable" Others might even be speaking about them, behind their backs. egads
-
And who was mandated by the government, or even the school for that matter, to listen, learn...
What choice does a kid have when they are forced to sit in the classroom while this is going on? They may not have to believe, but they should not feel pressured by their teachers or other students to have to participate.
And I'm fifty-something - the prayers and Bible readings were still going on when I was in school, with the latter generally over the intercom system. Hard to get away from it when there's a loudspeaker on every corner and the principal is on.
I don't give a rat's ass what religion anyone practices, or whether they pray in public or not. I doubt you'd be so smug about it if it were Mohammed or Mustafa reading the Quran in class to your kids, and leading prayers to Allah.
-
And who was mandated by the government, or even the school for that matter, to listen, learn...
What choice does a kid have when they are forced to sit in the classroom while this is going on? They may not have to believe, but they should not feel pressured by their teachers or other students to have to participate.
Choice is kid can choose NOT to pledge anything. Choice is kid can choose not to participate in any prayer. Point being no one is FORCING them to do anything or believe anything. Or do you wish to show us examples of public school tests & quizes (outside of actual theology classes of course) that included answers specifically including God, Christ, or scripture reading. I can tell you right up front, I NEVER had any test in Public School that required my writing down God or Jesus, to validate what my belief system was, or needed to be
And I'm fifty-something - the prayers and Bible readings were still going on when I was in school, with the latter generally over the intercom system. Hard to get away from it when there's a loudspeaker on every corner and the principal is on.
Yea, AND? As I said, I lived it too. At NO TIME was there ANY effort to make ANYONE believe ANYTHING outside of what 2+2 was
I don't give a rat's ass what religion anyone practices, or whether they pray in public or not. I doubt you'd be so smug about it if it were Mohammed or Mustafa reading the Quran in class to your kids, and leading prayers to Allah.
If I were living in Syria, I most certainly would expect such. Here, I live in America, where the Constitution is SUPPOSED to give us freedom of religion. Difference being, there you'd be mandated/required to pray, to read, and to believe. Not the case in America. Here, we simply have a vocal minority going apesnot over being subjected to simply hearing the word Jesus, or seeing someone actually pray, while in Public School. And heaven forbid, daring to put up a manger scene. That's riot causing action
-
I know of no posters in any school advocating a gay lifestyle, by the way.
You don't visit many schools, I take it. Try hanging out in pretty much any Massachusetts High School. I'm not making that accusation up. I've seen what organizations like the Gay-Straight Alliance and the so-called "Human Rights Squad" posted with my own eyes. I remember the first one I saw at Ayer High School (or it may have been North Middlesex Regional - my kids attended different ones because Massachusetts - God Bless 'em - has School Choice). It was about a famous Jazz singer (whose name is right on the tip of my aging brain but simply refuses to pop out - stupid fifty!) who was a lesbian and how proud people should be to gay. Yet in that same school system, my son's class was told to write an essay stating who their heros were. They were specifically told they were not allowed to choose religious heros. That's nonsense.
-
Yet in that same school system, my son's class was told to write an essay stating who their heros were. They were specifically told they were not allowed to choose religious heros. That's nonsense.
Good frickin gravy >:( It most certainly is, Pooch
-
I know of no posters in any school advocating a gay lifestyle, by the way.
You don't visit many schools, I take it. Try hanging out in pretty much any Massachusetts High School. I'm not making that accusation up. I've seen what organizations like the Gay-Straight Alliance and the so-called "Human Rights Squad" posted with my own eyes. I remember the first one I saw at Ayer High School (or it may have been North Middlesex Regional - my kids attended different ones because Massachusetts - God Bless 'em - has School Choice). It was about a famous Jazz singer (whose name is right on the tip of my aging brain but simply refuses to pop out - stupid fifty!) who was a lesbian and how proud people should be to gay. Yet in that same school system, my son's class was told to write an essay stating who their heros were. They were specifically told they were not allowed to choose religious heros. That's nonsense.
Would the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. count as a religious hero?
-
[Would the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. count as a religious hero?
The very question my son asked. (This was rather courageous, too, because the teacher was a wonderful African-American lady he really loved.) He was told that Dr. King was not a "religious figure" but just a figure who happened to be religious. I can actually understand that. It's kind of the same way I feel about Mitt. But Dr, King was, in fact, the REVEREND Dr. King. He started his work, like Christ, in the churches (though in Christ's case it was the synagogues.) That differentiation aside, however, if my son wanted to say Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith or "My Sunday School teacher" what difference would it make? The question was about religion - it was about who the kids looked to as examples. This teacher, as I said, was a great teacher and very nice person, but she was as liberal as the day is long and couldn't see past her PC nose.
-
Why should parents have to put up with a teacher in a public school teaching their child a religion they might not believe in? Why should a child of, say, Buddhist or Hindu or even (gasp!) atheist parents feel like some sort of outcast
I'm sorry , which amendment is it that says citizens must be sensitive to the feelings of others?
I know it isn't the first because that simply says there shall be no established religion as in the Chirch of England nor should the govt interfere with religious expression.
-
I'm sorry , which amendment is it that says citizens must be sensitive to the feelings of others?
Which one states you can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater?
-
I'm sorry , which amendment is it that says citizens must be sensitive to the feelings of others?
Which one states you can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater?
So, now the effort is to equate the possiblilty of hurting someone physically, in a riot made by yelling fire in a theater, possibly even the loss of life, to hurting someone's feelings?? Yea....that's it, they're analogus ::)
-
Point being no one is FORCING them to do anything or believe anything.
You're not paying attention - didn't I just say the kid was forced to sit in class along with everyone else while this was going on? They may not have been forced to pray or recite the Bible reading, but they weren't allowed to leave, and the rest of the class certainly didn't go somewhere else for their devotional.
At NO TIME was there ANY effort to make ANYONE believe ANYTHING outside of what 2+2 was
If the only thing the kids in your school knew was that 2+2=4, I'd say they were a pretty ignorant bunch. Though the activities I've mentioned were done in class - why was that if it wasn't an effort to teach the students or get them to believe what they were being told?
What you are missing is that I don't have a problem if an individual student, or a group of students, wants to pray or read Bible verses (or from the Quran, or whatever) outside of class, even if it's somewhere else in the school building during their free time. But in class, students should be learning those subjects they need to get along in life - grammar, spelling, science, math, blah blah blah - and not religion. Save that for their parents to teach them, or their church. That way, their parents can be sure their kids are taught as they would want them to be taught.
Think of it like teaching birth control in school. A lot of folks make a stink about that because all they want their child to know about is abstinence, so they raise hell if mention is made of any other form of birth control or disease prevention. The difference is, not learning birth control and disease prevention can actually have serious consequences for the kids. Not learning the daily Bible verse in school, well, like I said, there's always mom or dad or Sunday school.
-
So, now the effort is to equate the possiblilty of hurting someone physically, in a riot made by yelling fire in a theater, possibly even the loss of life, to hurting someone's feelings?? Yea....that's it, they're analogus
They are, if you're talking about constitutional amendments for either one.
Or did you miss that?
-
Assigning students to write about some hero is okay, and if this is the assignment, I don't see anything wrong with writing about some religious figure.
I am not sure why the teacher has to have students pick a hero, though. There are an infinity of topics that could be assigned that would cause students to think about how to write an effective essay.
When I went to school, we had some sort of prayer in Elementary School if the teacher wanted to say one, which was not always the case. We always had the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. I cannot recall that these prayers had the teeniest bit of effect on me, one way or the other. I don;t think my feelings for the flag were affected much, either. I would never burn a flag in protest, though I can see where this is a valid form of expression, and it does tick me off when some moron business, especially used car lots, fly a flag day and night in weather both fair or foul, until the thing disintegrates into a fluttering assortment of pink, white and blue tatters.
I think that I am more pissed off about such ignorance of flag etiquette more because I was a serious Boy Scout and Explorer than anything I learned in school.
If everyone could agree on a common prayer, that would be just fine. But this is highly unlikely. So the best thing to do is to leave the manger scenes up to the Chamber of Commerce or some other civic group, and let kids pray silently when they feel the urge in school. I seriously doubt that commandeered mass prayers have any effect on anyone. Exceptionally long mass prayers mostly caused me to daydream.
-
Which one states you can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater?
There isn't one. Why should it be protected anymore than calling you a sonofabitch be protected? And last i heard that wasn't.
-
So, now the effort is to equate the possiblilty of hurting someone physically, in a riot made by yelling fire in a theater, possibly even the loss of life, to hurting someone's feelings?? Yea....that's it, they're analogus
They are, if you're talking about constitutional amendments for either one.
Which of course there aren't for either one. One's, again, a public safety issue while the other is simply bad manners as perceived by someone else. Or did you miss that?
As Bt already asked, care to highlight the Constitutional amendment that claims one has the right not to be offended??
-
Assigning students to write about some hero is okay, and if this is the assignment, I don't see anything wrong with writing about some religious figure.
I am not sure why the teacher has to have students pick a hero, though. There are an infinity of topics that could be assigned that would cause students to think about how to write an effective essay.
You're right. I think the topic is a good one, though. One of the good things about literature is teaching moral values, and that is usually associated with a person (fictitious or otherwise) who exemplifies such things. As such the topic would seem valid. The restriction is the problem. It would be equally wrong to assign a topic that required ALL students to write about a religious hero figure. Many children have religious heros - many do not. Asking a student to consider the persons who have influenced their lives and moral values is a good thing. Dictating whether that influence has a religious significance or not is a bad thing.
When I went to school, we had some sort of prayer in Elementary School if the teacher wanted to say one, which was not always the case. We always had the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. I cannot recall that these prayers had the teeniest bit of effect on me, one way or the other.
When I was in the first grade (I had no Kindergarten) we said the Lord's Prayer along with the pledge every morning in Chestertown, MD. When I moved back to Baltimore I noticed our day started without the Lord's Prayer. I suggested to my teacher that we should say it (I was a pretty religious kid). Her face clouded over and she said "We can't do that anymore." I went home and told my mom, who then explained to me who Madeline Murray Ohare was.
I don;t think my feelings for the flag were affected much, either. I would never burn a flag in protest, though I can see where this is a valid form of expression, and it does tick me off when some moron business, especially used car lots, fly a flag day and night in weather both fair or foul, until the thing disintegrates into a fluttering assortment of pink, white and blue tatters.
Yeah. It's good to be patriiotic, but it's ridiculous to put a flag out and then watch it disintegrate. I also hated that our local Kroger store flew a gigantic flag (almost a third of the size of the flagpole). Patriotism is one thing - gaudy showiness is another.
If everyone could agree on a common prayer, that would be just fine. But this is highly unlikely. So the best thing to do is to leave the manger scenes up to the Chamber of Commerce or some other civic group, and let kids pray silently when they feel the urge in school. I seriously doubt that commandeered mass prayers have any effect on anyone. Exceptionally long mass prayers mostly caused me to daydream.
There is an issue of discomfort. We have Weekday Religious Education here. Children are taken out of school, put on a school bus and sent to a separate location for private Bible training during school hours. My youngest (who is a senior in HS now - Yay for empty nest syndrome!) came to me after the first day of school down here and told me I had to sign a form so she could go to Bible school during the day. I explained to her that I didn't think that was appropriate, since the sponsors of the program did not necessarily agree with our beliefs. (This, btw, is a difficult thing for a third grader to get her mind around. The Bible, after all, is the Bible and the idea that thousands of different sects can come about from the same book is hard to understand at that age.) It made her feel bad, because "everybody else was doing it." I just explained to her that she didn't always have to do what everybody else was doing. This is one of the reasons I personally oppose mandatory school prayer. It can be pretty tough on a kid trying to fit in and can indeed cause ostracism. Still, I took no action to protest the WRE program. I think that the kids who participated had as much right to their religious expression as my daughter did to hers. Children - religious or otherwise - have to learn that other people are going to disagree with them on a lot of things. They have to learn to deal with people who don't like them. It's a tough lesson, and many people have a more difficult time learning it than others. But it has to be learned and it is better to learn it early on than go through life thinking everything is roses and then having to face the real world. That's also a reason I disapprove of home schooling.