View Full Version : Church and State -- Whar's the real issue?
Today, the city council in a small town near here stopped handing out calendars which had some "religious pictures". Someone complained to the ACLU. I don't think the council was in any way promoting religion. I wonder how long it will be until some of the greatest art in the world such as "Michael Angelo" will be banned from State museums and art galleries.
My Question: I this a matter of people of faith "regardless of which" trying to push their faith on others or a matter of athiests/agnostics pushing their own personal philosophy on the rest of the country?
I don't know who coined the phrase, but I like the idea behind the saying, "The Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion."
I think some people should get laid.
I don't know who coined the phrase, but I like the idea behind the saying, "The Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion."
I'm not quite so sure I agree. The relevant text is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"; while the second clause, taken by itself, would support that now-common saying, I do not believe the first does. That is to say, my "translation" of the above would be something along the lines of "Congress shall do nothing to establish any religion, nor prohibit anyone from practicing any religion." At first "state religion" would seem to fit better in the first clause, rather than "any religion," and some people have used such an interpretation; however, doing so does not work with the second clause, which hinges upon the definition of "religion" as stated in the first (through the "thereof," which refers directly back to the first clause): no one, I would think, would interpret the second half of that sentence to mean "Congress shall not prohibit free exercise of the state religion," which is what it would mean if "state religion" were the operative idea from the beginning of the sentence.
That being said, I honestly don't see where all of the controversey is, except among those who wish to make America an actively Christian nation. The idea of an active atheist conspiracy strikes me as a bit silly, especially when somewhere around 88% of the population consistently self-identifies as Christian, along with the vast majority of elected officials (coming out as atheist or even, in many cases, non-Christian, being political suicide in this country). I am not particularly bothered by the "In God we trust" on the coinage nor the "under God" in the Pledge, but it also strikes me a bit silly that their defenders, on one hand, argue that those phrases are there because America was founded as a Christian nation and is filled with Christians, while the courts rule they can remain because they are a commonplace, bereft of religious meaning by repetition and tradition. And as for the Pledge, someone in an earlier thread nailed it dead on: (paraphrase) "our nation got through two world wars and the Great Depression without 'under God' in the Pledge, so why is it such a big deal now?"
As a Christian myself, I just don't see the problem, or at least, don't see it as being as huge as it seems some people do. The vast majority of the population is Christian, Christians control the White House and the Congress, and I've never seen a church closed down for religious reasons. I'm just not seeing it as a big problem.
Well maybe the UCSB says it all. Back to being the #1 party school on the coast. :D
I think I agree with most of what you say but I'm not sure. Perhaps my ADD/old age prevent my from following all of the twists and turns in your logic. Are you, perhaps studying law? :D
The silly I see is people objecting to something as inniculous as a nativity scene, or an angel on calendar, or a mennorah displayed during Hannukah.. All I can ask is "What's the Problem!" To say that it is rare is to ignore the weekly news of some inane complaint whether it be the ten commandments, or a cross on a hill on an Indian Reservation (govt property) in memorium of veterans.
Since most of the silly challenges I see are from the godless side of the street, I don't think it is silly to question. :munchin
What I see is a very small minority (12% by UCSB count) constantly striving to force their values upon the vast majority. It's not all together silly since they are vastly sucessful.
Party school, maybe. But our faculty received two Nobels just this year. So I'll call it... a smarty school. ;)
Yes, there are little church-vs-state challenges almost every day. But in a country as large and diverse as ours, little challenges do not necessarily make for broad issues. So while there are these little fights going on (a cross here, a nativity there), I don't believe these make up a larger "attack on Christianity." This nation's population -and- government are overwhelmingly Christian; all this talk of atheists and evil activist judges and Michael Newdow just seems to me to be a straw-man held up for people to bash upon.
Party school, maybe. But our faculty received two Nobels just this year. So I'll call it... a smarty school.
You said it not me -- smarty! :D
Speaking of Nobel Prizes are these the ones?
http://www.improb.com/ig/ig-top.html
Which did Y'all win!! :D :D