Modern day 'persecution' of christians in the west

hairyheretic

This is mostly directed towards any of the posters from the continental US, but I'm curious of others thoughts as well.

On another international board that I'm on, there is a certain segment of posters who espouse the view that christians in the West (ie mostly in the U.S.) are being persecuted through such things as the removal of their religious symbols from secular places of authority.

I'm curious to hear others thoughts on this.

My own view is that there should be a separation between religious and secular, with no favour bestoed on any religion. Thats why I find the likes of this:

http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/030206ccklrKmovreligionbill.7d361c3f.html

to be a disturbing trend, though given the religious rights activities in the U.S, not a particularly surprising one. They're the ones that tend to scream the loudest about christian persecution ... how can they say that, when at the same time they push an agenda like this?

Asiaprod

hairyheretic wrote:

My own view is that there should be a separation between religious and secular, with no favour bestoed on any religion.

I can go with that. It seems only fair.
What I did not like was the following from that link

State representative David Sater of Cassville in southwestern Missouri, sponsored the resolution, but he has refused to talk about it on camera or over the phone.

That says it all, what the people think basically does not matter. They will make the laws and the people who voted them in will just have to lump it.

Excelsior

It is a preposterous and unconstitutional proposal. More than that, it is deeply disrespectful of their neighbours. Mo. may be an overwhelmingly culturally Christian place, but I could never imagine Paul passing on Jesus' teaching like this:

"In the light of God's mercy, always make sure to exert your majority influence where you can by legislating other faiths out of existence".

As a student I met a girl from Uzbekistan who grew up in a extremely Islamic environment. Jesus came to her in her dreams and she converted to Christianity. She tracked down a Bible and began to read it from cover to cover. She was discovered with it one day and her family decided that such shame had been brought on their heads that they should kill her. She escaped with the help of Christian friends and she now lives and studies in Oxford. That is persecution. It is an insult for the real persecuted church by Christians in America or anywhere else when they describe the outworking of societies that offer true religious freedom of expression as persecutative. No school prayer doesn't mean you can't pray in school! Argh!

Asiaprod

Excelsior wrote:

It is a preposterous and unconstitutional proposal.

Nice post Excelsior, and nice story. Glad it had a happy ending. If I might ask I would like to hear your take on what these religious rights activities in the U.S are up to. To be frank, standing outside looking in it is all most as if they were setting the church back 1,000 years into the relms of authortarianism. It does not at all seem to follow the current movment i see in Europe where the church is trying to loosen up and get on the same wavelength as the people they are dealing with. Its all very perplexing. What gives.

John Doe

Shocking stuff. Have y'all heard about the Catholic town that the founder of Domino's Pizza (and multi-billlionaire) wants to set up in the U.S.? It would be run along strict Catholic guidelines, with all the negatives that are in this Bill and much, much more.

Asiaprod

John Doe wrote:

Shocking stuff. Have y'all heard about the Catholic town that the founder of Domino's Pizza (and multi-billlionaire) wants to set up in the U.S.? It would be run along strict Catholic guidelines, with all the negatives that are in this Bill and much, much more.

Yes, it was so mind boggling that instead of talking about it I just decided to changed my brand of pizza from Dominos to pizza hut. I eat pizza at least twice a week, but damned if my money is going to build that kind of Utopia.

wolfsbane

Yes, all attempts to establish a state religion/ideaology are dangerous, even where the intention may be good. They do not allow for the idea that we will not have a perfect truth to enforce; or that we will not enforce it perfectly; but that the assumption and attempt will lead us to suppress the opposition, even to prison and death. Our forefathers had some excuse in their attempts at this - ignorance - but we have the historical record to show us where such thinking carries us.

Especially is it not to be undertaken in the name of Christ, as Excelsior points out. His kingdom is not of this world; the church is not to impose its rules on the outsider; God judges them.

BrianCalgary

I'll play a little bit of the devil's advocate here.

The American Christian has the view that their country was founded and grew strong on the recognition of the supremacy of God. That the laws enacted in the USA were built on a foundation using the Bible as the authority.

What is now happening is that foundation is being eroded by a system that no longer recognises the supremacy of God nor thae Bible as the foundation by which to build the legal system.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

I'll play a little bit of the devil's advocate here.

The American Christian has the view that their country was founded and grew strong on the recognition of the supremacy of God. That the laws enacted in the USA were built on a foundation using the Bible as the authority.

It's a fair viewpoint, I think. Many of the English-American colonies were certainly set up by Christians. On the other hand, they were largely set up to escape religious persecution by other Christians, and in particular by an established church (CoE). Hence the separation of church and state in the Constitution.

Certainly this Bill, if passed, would be very close to creating an established church in the state. In fact, while it only (AFAIK) establishes a particular 'religion', it is difficult not to see how it can fail to create two tiers within Christian churches as well, as some Christian churches will presumably be considered unChristian by the establishment.

BrianCalgary wrote:

What is now happening is that foundation is being eroded by a system that no longer recognises the supremacy of God nor thae Bible as the foundation by which to build the legal system.

...which is a major reason for having an Established Church. Unfortunately, as the Founding Fathers would tell you, the cure is worse than the disease.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> The American Christian has the view that their country was founded and
> grew strong on the recognition of the supremacy of God.

Yes, that's correct -- many american christians believe this very strongly indeed, in defiance of the facts.

> That the laws enacted in the USA were built on a foundation using
> the Bible as the authority.

Completely untrue. The founding documents in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, mention god in passing only, and specifically base their legal system completely upon the idea that human beings have rights which must be protected -- a human-rights based view of the law which is understandably absent from religion. Additionally, the Bill of Rights explicitly prohibits congress from legislating in favour of any religion. Finally, the bible is not mentioned or referred to anywhere and its ideas form no part of any of these documents.

This is hardly surprising, given that James Madison, the author of the general form of the Constitution, understood very well the dangers inherent in religion and did his best to separate religion from any part in the running of a state (see some of Madison's thoughts here, here and, of course, here). Also influential was Thomas Paine, another strong anti-religionist who advised Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin, amongst others, wrote eloquently about religion -- see a few quotes here.

> What is now happening is that foundation is being eroded by a system
> that no longer recognises the supremacy of God nor thae Bible as the
> foundation by which to build the legal system.

What is happening now is that fundamentalist religion has taken over the operation of the USA by stealth with despotic results that James Madison, Thomas Paine, and no doubt most of the other signatories of these various founding documents, would repudiate utterly.

Scofflaw

James Madison wrote:

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

cordially,
Scofflaw

hairyheretic

BrianCalgary wrote:

The American Christian has the view that their country was founded and grew strong on the recognition of the supremacy of God. That the laws enacted in the USA were built on a foundation using the Bible as the authority.

I've seen that view expressed, and as robindch has already posted about, it doesn't seem to hold with the views expressed by the founding fathers.

BrianCalgary wrote:

What is now happening is that foundation is being eroded by a system that no longer recognises the supremacy of God nor thae Bible as the foundation by which to build the legal system.

Another view I've heard expressed, and again one that I feel is incorrect. The bible is not the foundation of the legal system. The legal system is built mainly on the laws that have existed before, or ones newly created to cover more recent (criminal) activities.

If you go back to a time before christianity held sway, you will still find laws, and in general they take the same view as is held today. The likes of stealing and murder is wrong, and punishable.

robindch

> The bible is not the foundation of the legal system. The legal system is
> built mainly on the laws that have existed before, or ones newly created
> to cover more recent (criminal) activities.

Not exactly right. At the risk of delivering a lecture, the legal systems of most countries these days is based upon a constitution which states the personal rights that the state's citizens are supposed to enjoy and what entities msut exist in order to enact laws which uphold these rights, or at least, not to deny them. The courts then interpret the laws provided by the legislature. The supreme court exists only to hear cases only in which a citizens' constitutional rights may been denied by some piece of legislation, in which case, the legislation is declared unconstitutional and must be struck from the books. All in all, it's a clever and deceptively simple system which tempers the controlling instincts of the parliament with the jealously-guarded independence and interpretation of the judiciary (cf, Justice Curtin!) and the rights of citizens as guarded by the constitution and the supreme court.

This was all in distinct contrast to the legal systems prevailing at the time in Europe when royalty was all the rage and the "divine right" to rule was the legal "basis" for government. In the case of the USA, exactly the opposite was declared, where the right of the citizens were basis for government (note the bit in italic):

[...] certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

This is a clear and simple statement of the secular humanism which most religious fundamentalists find so odious and which at the time, was a remarkable, and truly revolutionary, departure from standard practice.

The intellectual foundations of the US constitution are based in the values of the Enlightenment and the works of Descartes, Pascal, Voltaire, Rousseau and others. Consider Voltaire's core ideas of the autonomy and usefulness of reason, the ideas of perfectibility and progress, confidence in the ability to discover causality and the principles governing nature, humanity and society, a solid distrust of authority, the effectiveness of of enlightened intellectuals and a disgust at nationalism ... and then compare each of these admirable humanist ideals with what's going on in the USA at the moment

Regarding the country being founded on the christian religion, there is of course the treaty with tripoli:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

As for the laws being founded on the bible, most of the ten commandments aren't punished by law, iirc.

staple

It seems breath taking that US Christians trying to erode the traditional separation of church and state are claiming to be persecuted. They want to change the law that has protected all religions. Surely the US saw its origins in Europeans fleeing sectarian persecution and for that reason has no official religion so that none can feel persecuted.

If you live in a community with other religions (or colours or languages) then it is deeply offensive to try to legislate against them.

John Doe wrote:

Shocking stuff. Have y'all heard about the Catholic town that the founder of Domino's Pizza (and multi-billlionaire) wants to set up in the U.S.? It would be run along strict Catholic guidelines, with all the negatives that are in this Bill and much, much more.

Surely this is a bit different? This is a kind of withdrawal. Isn't it okay for Christians to form communities? Isn't this like a group of Benedictines living in a self-sufficient monastery in the eighth century? Sure, I believe Christians should engage with the rest of the world, but others are entitled to live an enclosed life.

BrianCalgary

Completely off topic, but noticed this tidbit in the Articles of Confederation:

Article XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.

Should I be scared?:D :eek:

BrianCalgary

staple wrote:

Surely this is a bit different? This is a kind of withdrawal. Isn't it okay for Christians to form communities? Isn't this like a group of Benedictines living in a self-sufficient monastery in the eighth century? Sure, I believe Christians should engage with the rest of the world, but others are entitled to live an enclosed life.

Across Western Canada we have Hutterite colonies that thrive and are self sufficient. In Pennsylvania there are Amish communities that seem to work well. My question to the ACLU and others, why haven't you tried to shut them down? If the pizza magnate owns the land and builds on it with like minded people who all agree to the community standards, then why not? Are they not pursuing life, liberty and happiness in setting up the community?

The ACLU's reaction is a slam against religious freedom and is prejudicial against the Catholic's desiring this.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

What is happening now is that fundamentalist religion has taken over the operation of the USA by stealth with despotic results that James Madison, Thomas Paine, and no doubt most of the other signatories of these various founding documents, would repudiate utterly.

Sorry Robin, you are mistaken here. If the USA was being taken over by fundamentalist Christians, a law like this would have no trouble passing. The USA is embroiled in a battle over the foundations of it's laws. Similar to what we are facing in Canada.

Two countries that have been built on Christian principles and two countries where Christian prayer is not acceptable. Where any religious group on a campus can get a room for their prayer meetings, but Christian groups have to rent the rooms for their meetings. Where the mainstream media has an anti-Christian bias. Where the popular culture shows Christians as being fundamentalist wacko's with little or no brain.

Christians are a major enough voting block in the USA and their wishes are being taken into account. After all democracy recognizes the wishes of the majority while respecting the rights of the minority. Otherwise you would have a minority dictating to all how things are to be run, that is how the ACLU and the Human Rights Commissions in Canada operate. They are a minority with an agenda who wish to impose their views outside the democratic process and impose their views on the rest of us.

Nevyn

Religious freedom is a wonderful thing but one group should not be able to use thier right to self determinate to curtail the freedoms of others or make cultuaral or religious differences illegal by passing town bylaws, county or state law.

So if a group of 1,000 followers of a certain religion or spiritual path go and by land and create a community and live in thier community accourding to thier beliefs fine; but when the town/county the create starts passing laws or bylaws that say impose a fine for eating meat on a black fast day or working on the sabath or not covering your hair in public then they have gone to far.

Yes there are Amish communities but you don't see them passing bylaws to make it illegal to use and wear velcro in thier towns.

BrianCalgary

Thaedydal wrote:

Religious freedom is a wonderful thing but one group should not be able to use thier right to self determinate to curtail the freedoms of others or make cultuaral or religious differences illegal by passing town bylaws, county or state law.

So if a group of 1,000 followers of a certain religion or spiritual path go and by land and create a community and live in thier community accourding to thier beliefs fine; but when the town/county the create starts passing laws or bylaws that say impose a fine for eating meat on a black fast day or working on the sabath or not covering your hair in public then they have gone to far.

Yes there are Amish communities but you don't see them passing bylaws to make it illegal to use and wear velcro in thier towns.

Agreed

robindch

> If the pizza magnate owns the land and builds on it with like minded
> people who all agree to the community standards, then why not?

Because, for every few relatively-well meaning, inoffensive, quiet and peaceful communities like the Amish appear to be, there seem to be a few nasty operators, like in the town of Bountiful, BC, run seemingly as a personal rutting range for its leader Winston Blackmore, he of the rumored 26 wives, 80 children, with other guys "marrying" girls as young as 14. Not that things have gone too well, though, since CBC turned up in 2003 and kicked back the covers -- quite the opposite in fact, with a second "prophet" turning up in town and reducing the place to something a bit like civil war. See CBC's recent documentary on this miserable town here and the text of an interview with Winston Blackmore here and tell me if you think that rule by religion is a good idea.

> Sorry Robin, you are mistaken here. If the USA was being taken over
> by fundamentalist Christians, a law like this would have no trouble
> passing.

No, I am not mistaken. The problem is that you do not understand the legislative system in America. In particular, you don't understand that the system which is in place has been specifically designed by the founding fathers, as I outlined above, to prevent any one religion dominating others. The fact that this fatuous bill seems to have been proposed seriously is an indication of the immense political power of fundamentalist christianity. The fact that it is unlikely to become law is an indication that the power of the constitution is greater than the power of any one religion. Just as it was designed to be.

> The USA is embroiled in a battle over the foundations of it's laws.

There is no battle over the foundations that I'm aware of, outside of the imaginary one taking place on "conservative" talk shows with unpleasant buffoons like Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and the ilk. Certainly, there is a politically extraordinarily powerful fundamentalist christian lobby group which is making repeated attempts to get crap like creationism onto school syllabuses (because it makes for excellent electioneering for the Republican party). However all of these attempts will fail because the constitution, thankfully, prevents it. At some stage in the future, it is possible that the fundamentalist christians will become so politically powerful that they may ultimately be able to force a change to the constitution's ban on legislation in favour of religious institutions (the approval of two-thirds of the state legislatures, AFAIR, is sufficient), but for the moment, this is a pipe-dream.

And the change is somewhat moot anyway, given that President Bush has neatly sidestepped the constitutional ban by setting up his "Office for Faith-Based And Community Initiatives", which disburses billions of dollars each year to religious organizations for one cock-eyed "program" or another.

> Where the popular culture shows Christians as being fundamentalist
> wacko's with little or no brain.

The media cannot control how christian fundamentalists cavort in front of the cameras or journos. All they can do is report on what they find and if they find fools, well, whose fault is that? And anyhow, what about all those ghastly religious channels produced by fundies themselves? The eye-wateringly embarassing antics on these far exceed the weirdness-quotient of anything that I've ever seen on any outlet for "popular culture".

> that is how the ACLU and the Human Rights Commissions in Canada operate.
> They are a minority with an agenda who wish to impose their views outside
> the democratic process and impose their views on the rest of us.

Complete nonsense. The ACLU, and I've no doubt, the HRC in Canada too, operate within the framework defined by the constitution and the consequent law, by upholding the rights of citizens against, gosh, things like religions and political institutions which have a marked historical tendency to deny them (cf, Bountiful above). You should be thankful that they are there, looking out for your rights, in case someone tries to take them from you.

BTW, I watched an interview on CBC with David Suzuki a couple of weeks ago: he's an impressive guy -- intelligent, well-informed, perceptive and highly-articulate -- you're lucky to have him on your side, whether you appreciate him or not.

metrovelvet

This is all very well in theory but there is a line that cant be crossed.

For example, Santa Ria - a religion where sacrificing chickens is part of the ritual. I may think its disgusting but they should have the right to practise as long as the deparment of sanitation doesnt have to clean up their dead chickens.

Female circumcision. I dont care whose religion it is, I think it should be outlawed. So sometimes laws do have to curtail religious practises.
Whether people like it or not America is religious. It is a protestant nation and not only founded on all those principals robindh references so thoroughly and so well but also on John Locke's philiosophies, of life liberty and the pursuit of property.

Certainly in the more urban hot spots of the US christianity is laughed at. It would be easier for a muslim to be exempt from school 6 times a day for prayer than for me to take of St. Patricks Day for example, despite the law about no prayer in school.

Im not aware of any battle over the foundations of our laws. if it is this is nothing new. Political debate is a part of life here.

The US was founded on the principals of democracy which is a very protestant philosophy. It was a financial as much as political and religious revolution. Anti monarchacal and anti-tax paying priniciplas as the driving force.

Im not impressed with the ACLU in general. As usual, with the left, I support in spirit but in terms of policy and strategy think they are borderline retarded.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Because, for every few relatively-well meaning, inoffensive, quiet and peaceful communities like the Amish appear to be, there seem to be a few nasty operators, like in the town of Bountiful, BC, run seemingly as a personal rutting range for its leader Winston Blackmore, he of the rumored 26 wives, 80 children, with other guys "marrying" girls as young as 14. Not that things have gone too well, though, since CBC turned up in 2003 and kicked back the covers -- quite the opposite in fact, with a second "prophet" turning up in town and reducing the place to something a bit like civil war. See CBC's recent documentary on this miserable town here and the text of an interview with Winston Blackmore here and tell me if you think that rule by religion is a good idea..

Interesting you should bring this group up. They are operating outside the laws of the country in which they are located. ie. Bigamy. The town to be started by the pizza magnate would not operate outside of the laws, as the Hutterites live within the laws of the jurisdictions in which they are located,

robindch wrote:

No, I am not mistaken. The problem is that you do not understand the legislative system in America. In particular, you don't understand that the system which is in place has been specifically designed by the founding fathers, as I outlined above, to prevent any one religion dominating others. The fact that this fatuous bill seems to have been proposed seriously is an indication of the immense political power of fundamentalist christianity. The fact that it is unlikely to become law is an indication that the power of the constitution is greater than the power of any one religion. Just as it was designed to be...

I understand the system perfectly. What I see you are not grasping is that Christianity has been the foundation of the USA since it started. Christianity has and is being eroded in the USA as stated by Metrovelvet, a muslim muast be excused for his six times a day prayer, but a Christian will be denied his time. The same is happening in Canada. A sikh in Montreal has been granted the right to carry his kirpan to school. Which contravenes the law about carrying a weapon. But his religious freedom wins. A group of Christian kids wanting to prayer are dednied that right. Why don't you get the fact that the laws made to protect religious freedom are denying Christians that same right? BTW, I agree Excelsior, it does seem petty compared to the persecution in Islamic and hindu countries.

robindch wrote:

There is no battle over the foundations that I'm aware of, outside of the imaginary one taking place on "conservative" talk shows with unpleasant buffoons like Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and the ilk. Certainly, there is a politically extraordinarily powerful fundamentalist christian lobby group which is making repeated attempts to get crap like creationism onto school syllabuses (because it makes for excellent electioneering for the Republican party). However all of these attempts will fail because the constitution, thankfully, prevents it. At some stage in the future, it is possible that the fundamentalist christians will become so politically powerful that they may ultimately be able to force a change to the constitution's ban on legislation in favour of religious institutions (the approval of two-thirds of the state legislatures, AFAIR, is sufficient), but for the moment, this is a pipe-dream....

It sounds like you wish to ban all Christian discussion from schools because you personally don't believe it? It also comes across that you discount the political views of Christians just because they are Christians?

And the change is somewhat moot anyway, given that President Bush has neatly sidestepped the constitutional ban by setting up his "Office for Faith-Based And Community Initiatives", which disburses billions of dollars each year to religious organizations for one ####-eyed "program" or another.

robindch wrote:

The media cannot control how christian fundamentalists cavort in front of the cameras or journos. All they can do is report on what they find and if they find fools, well, whose fault is that? And anyhow, what about all those ghastly religious channels produced by fundies themselves? The eye-wateringly embarassing antics on these far exceed the weirdness-quotient of anything that I've ever seen on any outlet for "popular culture".....

The media can and does. They can put any slant on any story. You should hear the difference on the reporting between our French Quebec based network vs. the English. I have also personally witnessed the antics of a well respected journalist in our city as he twisted the words of a politician to make him look suspect.

robindch wrote:

Complete nonsense. The ACLU, and I've no doubt, the HRC in Canada too, operate within the framework defined by the constitution and the consequent law, by upholding the rights of citizens against, gosh, things like religions and political institutions which have a marked historical tendency to deny them (cf, Bountiful above). You should be thankful that they are there, looking out for your rights, in case someone tries to take them from you."

The HRC was created for such a purpose. But they have gone beyond that. A printer in London, ont who turned down business from a gay and ####### association was taken to court. The Gay and ####### group did not have to pay. The printer had to pay all his legal costs and eventually declared bankruptcy. His rights did not matter. They push their own agenda regardless of the law. They are not accountable nor elected.

robindch wrote:

BTW, I watched an interview on CBC with David Suzuki a couple of weeks ago: he's an impressive guy -- intelligent, well-informed, perceptive and highly-articulate -- you're lucky to have him on your side, whether you appreciate him or not.

He is all you say. I just don't like his politics nor his refusal to offer God as an option.

Scofflaw

Christianity has and is being eroded in the USA as stated by Metrovelvet, a muslim muast be excused for his six times a day prayer, but a Christian will be denied his time. The same is happening in Canada. A sikh in Montreal has been granted the right to carry his kirpan to school. Which contravenes the law about carrying a weapon. But his religious freedom wins. A group of Christian kids wanting to prayer are dednied that right.

Prayer at six stated times a day is obligatory for a Muslim. A Sikh is obliged to carry his Kirpan.

When and where a Christian prays is up to the Christian, although they are expected to do no work on the Sabbath, and ideally devote it to prayer. Are they at school on the Sabbath? No they are not. Is this to provide for the religious practices of Muslims and Sikhs? No it is not. It is to cater for the religious obligations of Christians, around which the whole school calendar is arranged.

Talk about not being able to see the wood for the trees. Or comparing oranges to apples (in an orchard).

regards,
Scofflaw

robindch

> I understand the system perfectly. What I see you are not grasping is
> that Christianity has been the foundation of the USA since it started.

If you hope to convince anybody, you will have to produce some evidence to back up what you're saying more convincing than simply repeating the same idea time after time when exactly the opposite has been shown to be true from source documents and quotes from the people involved.

> Christianity has and is being eroded in the USA

We've been over this before too -- over the last twenty yeasr, christianity has grown enormous and enormously powerful to the extent that, through the republican party, it now controls the presidency, both houses of congress and are suspected of now having a majority on ths supreme court. And seeing that you're still seem to insist that this is not the case, I can't help but wonder if you also apply the same procedures here, as you do when you're evaluating evidence for evolution -- you simply ignore it because it suggests that what you want to believe is true, is actually false.

> It sounds like you wish to ban all Christian discussion from schools
> because you personally don't believe it? It also comes across that you
> discount the political views of Christians just because they are Christians?

Not at all. I think that in the USA, christians should have rather more respect the secular humanist constitution that they have. If people want to indoctrinate their kids at home or in Sunday school with whatever religious notions they want to, then I'm not going to do anything to stop them (though I do think they should be more responsible). But don't do it on state-funded time or property.

> The printer had to pay all his legal costs and eventually declared bankruptcy.

I don't believe for one second that the story is as one-sided as you make out. Even with the facts as stated, perhaps you should consider whether or not the printer was acting in a discriminatory manner ("unchristian" in your terminology) and was rightly convicted for breaking anti-discrimination laws legislated by duly-elected representatives?

BTW, I'm intrigued by the #'s in your posting. Are these put in by you or a content filter? FYI - the "cock" in "cock-eyed" is not a synonym for penis -- see this etymological description -- so you don't need to replace the word with "####".

Akrasia

I think the central problem with this 'persecution complex' by certain fundamentalist christians and their desire to have the laws of the land reflect their personal beliefs is that they are trying to claim Public space as their own private property. The laws and institutions of the state are supposed to cover everybody, and not just a specific segment of the population.

robindch

robindch wrote:

BTW, I'm intrigued by the #'s in your posting. Are these put in by you or a content filter? FYI - the "cock" in "cock-eyed" is not a synonym for penis -- see this etymological description -- so you don't need to replace the word with "####".

Ohh, I was trying to figure out what ####-eyed could mean...

metrovelvet

First of all its not just Christian fundamentalists who are saying this. Catholics are feeling it too. Its the last religion that PC hasnt taken hold of.

Whether you like it or not the US is a Christian country, more specifically protestant. Hence why our calendar is the way it is.

I do not think that students should be allowed to carry knives to shool. Given that in NYC the public schools have metal detectors and kids cant bring guns to school I dont see how they can allow kids to bring knives under the auspices of religious practise.

Religion is a choice under which there are obligations, but you are choosing to honour those obligations by belonging to the religion. I dont see why any system should accommodate students leaving 6 times a day to go and face a wall and chant. Its not fair on the classroom as a whole.

This is why privatisation is an optimal choice in multi culturalist societies, where you have catholic schools, jewish schools, and not yet muslim school.

Yes majority has an influence and it does rule. Note how theres no Judaism forum. Not enough interest.

Akrasia

There should be no religion in any schools other than perhaps a course on the philosophy of religion. If parents feel strongly enough about religious education, they can teach their children at home or send them to sunday schools or after school religious instruction.

I don't think it's fair to indoctrinate any child in any religion at a young age when they can not question for themselves. Religion should be an opt in, based on the beliefs of each individual person, and not just inherited from the parents and the society.

robindch

> This is why privatisation is an optimal choice in multi culturalist societies,
> where you have catholic schools, jewish schools, and not yet muslim school.

Religious-based education is without doubt, the worst choice, because it leads directly to the sectarianization of society, as for example, in the North of Ireland, where around 95% of schoolkids go to sectarian schools with entirely predictable results as seen in the running battles a few years back in the pathetic and violent "Holy Cross" conflict (info here).

Imagine the outcry there'd be if (under legislation being debated today in the House of Commons), schools were to be set up which indoctrinated kids with Conservative or Labour propaganda, or Republican or Democrat or Communist or Maoist propaganda. So why do some people think that it's still acceptable to indoctrinate kids with religious propaganda?

metrovelvet

No it doesnt. The North is already sectarian . Its not the schools that are doing that.

NYC has plenty of private schools, and we are not sectarian. I have jewish friends, and I grew up around the UN so I grew up with children from all ove the world. I was sent to Catholic school as were many others, but because we have so many religions here, and because the state is separated from religion, the ideology doesnt have the same saturating effect as it does in Ireland or in ME countires where there a dominant belief system.

History is an inheritantly political discipline. I guess youd like that removed too? That is where the prime indoctriantion is, about national identity, personal identity, and is of course designed by the state, when it comes to state run schools.

Scofflaw

metrovelvet wrote:

I do not think that students should be allowed to carry knives to shool. Given that in NYC the public schools have metal detectors and kids cant bring guns to school I dont see how they can allow kids to bring knives under the auspices of religious practise.

Religion is a choice under which there are obligations, but you are choosing to honour those obligations by belonging to the religion. I dont see why any system should accommodate students leaving 6 times a day to go and face a wall and chant. Its not fair on the classroom as a whole.

Christianity is a religion whose "obligations", such as they are, are taken care of automatically, because the calendar is set around them. None of the other issues of complaint (freedom for prayer time) are in any way obligatory, and therefore they are indistinguishable from "hey I'd like some time off because I feel like it".

As for "you are choosing to honour those obligations by belonging to the religion" - well, yes. That's the whole point.

By requiring someone (say a Muslim) to choose between abandoning the obligations of their religion and abandoning a school you are forcing someone into a nasty position. Christians are not forced into such a position because the school calendar and schedule is set up to automatically cater for their obligations.

Prayer during the school day is not an obligation for a Christian. It is for a Muslim. To claim that as a Christian you're being prevented from practising your religion by not being allowed formal prayer time in school is rubbish. No such obligation exists.

regards,
Scofflaw

Akrasia

metrovelvet wrote:

No it doesnt. The North is already sectarian . Its not the schools that are doing that.

NYC has plenty of private schools, and we are not sectarian. I have jewish friends, and I grew up around the UN so I grew up with children from all ove the world. I was sent to Catholic school as were many others, but because we have so many religions here, and because the state is separated from religion, the ideology doesnt have the same saturating effect as it does in Ireland or in ME countires where there a dominant belief system.

History is an inheritantly political discipline. I guess youd like that removed too? That is where the prime indoctriantion is, about national identity, personal identity, and is of course designed by the state, when it comes to state run schools.

the schools didn't cause sectarianism in the north, but they certainly don't help.

It's pretty simple as far as i'm concerned. Children should grow up together playing together and interacting together no matter what their ethnic or religious background.
if have we nothing but seperate catholic schools and seperate muslim schools, and seperate athiest schools, you might as well say 'White kids to St michaels school, Arab kids go to Muslim school and then you are just storing up social problems for the very near future.

Akrasia

Scofflaw wrote:

Christianity is a religion whose "obligations", such as they are, are taken care of automatically, because the calendar is set around them. None of the other issues of complaint (freedom for prayer time) are in any way obligatory, and therefore they are indistinguishable from "hey I'd like some time off because I feel like it".

As for "you are choosing to honour those obligations by belonging to the religion" - well, yes. That's the whole point.

By requiring someone (say a Muslim) to choose between abandoning the obligations of their religion and abandoning a school you are forcing someone into a nasty position. Christians are not forced into such a position because the school calendar and schedule is set up to automatically cater for their obligations.

Prayer during the school day is not an obligation for a Christian. It is for a Muslim. To claim that as a Christian you're being prevented from practising your religion by not being allowed formal prayer time in school is rubbish. No such obligation exists.

regards,
Scofflaw

So catholics aren't obligated to pray anymore?

When i was in primary school i had to pray in school in the mornings, before small break and before big break, and there are the whole, confession, communion and confirmation preparations that take up a fair bit of class time. School was where i learned all my prayers in english and in irish.

If Catholic children can be facilitated in this way, then it should be possible to facilitate other people's religious needs. I would prefer if none of this was done as a part of the school cirriculum, but space could be given for individuals do so on their own or amongst other people of the same religion.

metrovelvet

Akrasia wrote:

the schools didn't cause sectarianism in the north, but they certainly don't help.

It's pretty simple as far as i'm concerned. Children should grow up together playing together and interacting together no matter what their ethnic or religious background.
if have we nothing but seperate catholic schools and seperate muslim schools, and seperate athiest schools, you might as well say 'White kids to St michaels school, Arab kids go to Muslim school and then you are just storing up social problems for the very near future.

Nonsense. You cant equate race and religion. One is a belief the other is a skin colour.

If religious groups want to start their own private schools then so be it, let them.

But dont expect a publically funded school to accomodate your religious pracitices. You think there should be a day off for every holy day of obligation? I dont. I think if you want that life, go to Catholic school.

Akrasia

metrovelvet wrote:

Nonsense. You cant equate race and religion. One is a belief the other is a skin colour.

If religious groups want to start their own private schools then so be it, let them.

But dont expect a publically funded school to accomodate your religious pracitices. You think there should be a day off for every holy day of obligation? I dont. I think if you want that life, go to Catholic school.

Race is more than a skin colour, and religion is more than just a belief system, and the simple fact is, the vast majority of Muslims in Ireland are new immigrants, so if we segregate children into religious schools, it's almost the same as having seperate schools for Irish or western people, and schools for immigrants.

robindch

> The North is already sectarian . Its not the schools that are doing that.

The schools are continuing it. Granted, it's not as bad as that elsewhere -- NYC for example -- but nonetheless, segregated schooling whether by religion, political allegiance of parent, ethnicity, etc, etc is a proven recipe for disaster.

The problem arises in the first place because politicians and religions both thrive on division and discord. The sad example of Bosnia springs to mind, where a peaceful, largely-capitalist (yes) society was reduced to feudal levels by the introduction of the fatal vapours of religion and the politics of ethnicity.

> History is an inheritantly political discipline. I guess youd like that removed too?

Don't be daft! No, I don't want it removed, but I would like it publicly reviewed like they're doing in Sacramento, CA (see this news story), where a Hindu group attempted, unsuccesfully, to force the authors of a history book to remove accurate, but unflattering, references to Hinduism.

While there's no such public review of history books that I'm aware of in Ireland (is there?), I do still presume that the standard must have improved somewhat from the tedious nationalist drivel that I was dripfed in the 1970's.

robindch

...this one in a few days ago, where the Vatican has unexpectedly come out in favour of a "Muslim Hour" in schools with a "strong muslim presence":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1728714,00.html

What a strange world we live in.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

[BTW, I'm intrigued by the #'s in your posting. Are these put in by you or a content filter? FYI - the "cock" in "cock-eyed" is not a synonym for penis -- see this etymological description -- so you don't need to replace the word with "####".

Put in by a filter by the computer I was working on.

metrovelvet

No its not a disaster here. It's the public schools which are a disaster.

Because in private schools people feel like they are making a choice and have control over their education. Because they make a choice they can't complain about anyone forcing things on them and they have to take responsibility for themselves. The reason this works is because the culture here is tempered by other competing ideologies.

Its not segregation from the government, its personal choice from the members of those communities, which is what makes the difference.

History will always be politcal, there is no way around it.

Scofflaw

Akrasia wrote:

So catholics aren't obligated to pray anymore?

When i was in primary school i had to pray in school in the mornings, before small break and before big break, and there are the whole, confession, communion and confirmation preparations that take up a fair bit of class time. School was where i learned all my prayers in english and in irish.

You're obliged to pray, but not at any set time. Most of that was just religious tyranny!

regards,
Scofflaw

robindch

> Put in by a filter by the computer I was working on.

Unless I mistake it, your employer doesn't trust you?

btw, I'm still waiting for any evidence you might have to offer -- primary sources only, please -- relating to your claim that America is a nation founded on christian principles.

.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> Put in by a filter by the computer I was working on.

Unless I mistake it, your employer doesn't trust you?

btw, I'm still waiting for any evidence you might have to offer -- primary sources only, please -- relating to your claim that America is a nation founded on christian principles.

.

It was on the computer that I was using at the Childrens Hospital where my daughter is quite ill, I resent the insinuation of the honesty remark.

As a result of my daughter being hospitalised I am not worrying too much on finding evidence on what founding fathers my or may not have said.

Quick comments though are that many of the founding fathers where Christian therefore would have brough their point of view into the constitution. As well as the currency that states "In God We Trust" and the pledge of allegiance that was written in the late 19th century that mentions "One nation under God".

BrianCalgary

John Jay, founding father and America’s first Supreme Court Chief Justice and Co-Author of the Federalist Papers wrote:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation, either through unbelief, or the corruptions of its doctrines, or the neglect of its institutions; in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom, and approximate the miseries of complete despotism. "

Benjamin Franklin Morris was a notable American historian, who in 1864 wrote "The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States." In this book, he states:

These fundamental objects of the Constitution are in perfect harmony with the revealed objects of the Christian religion. Union, justice, peace, the general welfare, and the blessings of civil and religious liberty, are the objects of Christianity, and always secured under its practical and beneficent reign. The state must rest upon the basis of religion, and it must preserve this basis, or itself must fall. But the support which religion gives to the state will obviously cease the moment religion loses its hold upon the popular mind. This is a Christian nation, first in name, and secondly because of the many and mighty elements of a pure Christianity which have given it character and shaped its destiny from the beginning. It is preeminently the land of the Bible, of the Christian Church, and of the Christian Sabbath....The chief security and glory of the United States of America has been, is now, and will be forever, the prevalence and domination of the Christian Faith.

Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, put it this way:

By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself.

robindch

> I resent the insinuation of the honesty remark.

I was not referring to your honesty at all and I sincerely apologise for my misphrasing it so as it could be understood that I was. What I had in mind was the kind of filter which companies install to enforce their view of what their employees should be able to read and write (ie, the kind of software available here). Which I've never understood because it implies that the company doing the filtering doesn't trust its workers; what I was referring to was the apparent lack of trust of the employer, not any dishonesty upon your part. From the local posting time (1901h), I had assumed you were still at work and not at a kids' hospital (where, i hope, your daughter's getting better). Again, apologies about my poor phrasing and the subsequent offence taken.

> that many of the founding fathers where Christian therefore would have
> brough their point of view into the constitution.

Yes, most of the founding fathers were deists of one kind or another and quite a few were christians (see here for a breakdown). However, as I've pointed out above, they produced a series of secular humanist documents which explicitly rejected religion and none of the documents included any indication that they used the bible as a basis for anything. Remember that your original statement was "the laws enacted in the USA were built on a foundation using the Bible as the authority." which cannot be backed up by any written evidence, either in the founding texts themselves, or in any of the other writings of the people who produced them (in fact, in general, quite the opposite).

> As well as the currency that states "In God We Trust"

This first appeared in 1864 on coins, and on notes only from the mid-1960's -- see this note from the US Treasury. The appearance seems to have had everything to do with the emotional climate of the civil war and certainly nothing at all to do with the founding fathers, all of them being long dead by then.

> the pledge of allegiance that was written in the late 19th century that mentions "One nation under God".

Wrong again. Most of the text appeared in 1892, but the "under god" bit was inserted in 1954, by an Act of Congress, in breach of the constitutional ban on its passing laws concerning religion. Regardless, the founding fathers had nothing to do with either the original text, or the modified text.

Anyhow, your two examples do show that the USA is slowly becoming *more* publicly religious, and not less as you seem to believe.

BTW, lest you think that I'm being needlessly argumentative, I am genuinely trying to figure out why you believe that christianity had a significant input into the legal system in the USA. Any guidance you can provide on how you acquired this belief would be gratefully received.

BrianCalgary

Hi Robin
Apology accepted. I will research this subject more as time goes on.

Thanks.