Merlyn_LeRoy

Beavah writes: Rather than exclude folks of faith Which programs are you referring to here?

I'd like to point out that this is my country too, and I have the same rights to free speech and religious expression as anyone else. It is not dependent on others' approval of my views. All this complaining is over a once-grossly-tilted playing field becoming more level.

Yep, Focus on the Family blames the atheist parent for insisting that 4-H, a youth program from the US Department of Agriculture, actually follow the constitution and not hold prayers and bible readings: http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006190.cfm

Why are "ideas" so threatening to some?

You'll notice a lack of lawsuits when everyone has the same access to public forums.

Oh, if you want a legal basis, the government doesn't have the power to promote religion, and is explicitly prohibited from doing so. I do agree that the "harm" is usually pretty small, but that seems to be a legal requirement for bringing a lawsuit in many of these cases, so even incidental harm is cited for reasons of standing. A lot of money would be saved if people didn't try to use the government to push their religious views, too. But there seems to be no end to people who want the government to promote their views and not promote those "other" peoples' views. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, any religion that needs to use the government to promote itself probably isn't a very good one.

No Beavah, I just don't want your theocracy, where members of the majority religion get to vote on what religion their public schools will celebrate, what prayers the kids will say, and what religious phrases are permitted on public property. What do you have against public forums where everyone has equal access?

FireKat, I'm an atheist, a former cub scout (from about 40 years ago), and a regional director for Scouting For All, which is an organization of scouts & non-scouts advocating that the BSA change its discriminatory membership requirements. I enjoy actual word games like cryptic crosswords, but I don't have much patience for word games in policy arguments, like people who equivocate on "discrimination," for example. I DO believe in allowing individuality and letting it be expressed. I am against having discriminatory, supposedly "private" organizations like the BSA using tax money to pay for or subsidise their discriminatory programs, and I'm against letting the majority vote on whether the minority gets to use a public forum. Both of these are counter to individual expression. The government isn't just prevented from promoting specific sects; generic statements such as "the heavens declare the glory of god" or "god hates fags" or "gods are myths" are not tied to a specific religious sect, yet all of these are still unconstitutional government promotion of religious views. If it's a public forum where anyone can put up their ideas, fine. And you'll have to explain to me just how I'm "forcing" my opinion on you. Am I forcing you to read my words? Perhaps you just don't want me to argue my opinions so forcefully -- well, that's the only way I know how. You can argue meekly if you like.

Oh, and while some high schools actually DO invite religious leaders to speak to students about religion (as it's perfectly OK to teach ABOUT religion), public schools have no business CELEBRATING any religious holidays.

Berkeley only allocates free berths to organizations that serve all of the public; the BSA doesn't. As for your proposal of having a rotating period each morning where every student can say whatever they like, go ahead and try it. Usually such policies are changed as soon as anyone with 'unusual' views gets to speak, so it's typically another case of censorship in the end, as the majority gets to use it until someone in the minority says something the majority doesn't like. This not only keeps the minority opinion from being heard more than once, but also scapegoats them for "spoiling" it for everyone by voicing unpopular opinions. But you seem to think the majority should be able to squelch the rest, beavah, what with your earlier remarks.

skeptic writes: explain how the simple exposure of someone to the mention of God is somehow hurtful to you. It isn't. I haven't said it was. You do not believe God exists, nor any other power beyond yourselves, I've already explained how the second clause of this is false, at least for me. Why can't you simply "not believe", rather than find it necessary to belittle and demonify others for their their audacity "to believe"? For the most part, I argue about civil rights in this forum. For ridiculing theists, I usually go to alt.atheism, which is unmoderated. You seem to have ignored my first reply in the other thread; will you pay attention in this thread?

New York public schools used to have a "non-denominational" prayer recited each morning by schoolchildren, but that didn't make it constitutional (and it wasn't). If IGWT is no big deal, it's no big deal if it's removed either. And I'm the one who has been saying all along that if city officials want to open the park to anyone to put up stones with their views, that's fine, too. But that means everyone, not just views that the city council likes.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Well yes, I DO claim that people who say "in god we trust" isn't a religious statement are knowingly and purposefully lying. I've been on jury duty, I know people deliberately lie at times. People are trying to get "in god we trust" moved off the edge of the presidential dollar coins and onto the face of the coins, but nobody cares about "e pluribus unum" still being there. Sorry, when religious types lie about religion, I call them on it. You may think that religious people really are concerned about IGWT for non-religious reasons, but I think that's laughable.

Sorry, I still consider anyone who claims "in god we trust" to not be a religious message to be lying. This is obvious when they use this argument to defend against removing the phrase; if it isn't a religious message, what's the problem with removing it? People don't want it removed because it DOES have religious significance for them.

Beavah, allowing only the religious majority to use public property to promote their religious views is, yes, dictating to the rest what they ought to believe, since only religious views favored by city officials will be permitted. Yes, there's a lot of worse religious oppression in other parts of the world, but that's no reason to allow more minor oppression in my country. And no, "in god we trust" should not be on currency, but I find it ironic that the only way religious people can justify keeping it is to blatantly lie and claim it has no religious significance. I'm sure all such people have no problem denying it has religious meaning three times before the cock crows.

skeptic writes: So, for Merlyn, and others of similar feelings; explain how the simple exposure of someone to the mention of God is somehow hurtful to you. I didn't say it was. You do not believe God exists, I don't believe ANY gods exist. nor any other power beyond yourselves, Wrong; other people exist, and they have the same simple powers over time & space that I do, so the six billion or so people on this planet constitute a power beyond me, if rather mundane. Plus it's quite possible that there is life elsewhere in the universe. so why do you care? Non-sequitur. Why WOULDN'T I care about being treated equally by my own government, regardless of my religious views? Do you think only theists care about the first amendment? No one has said you have to change your opinion or accept theirs. I haven't said it would. I've been arguing about equal access to public forums, and how public parks generally are not public forums. While they believe their beliefs are more viable or real, they have no effect on you. Or does the remote possibility, shown by the existence of the word God or Power Greater than I, traumatize your Id? Why can't you simply "not believe", rather than find it necessary to belittle and demonify others for their their audacity "to believe"? I haven't been doing that at all. I've been arguing about free speech and local government.

Beavah writes, responding to me: Well no, not when you phrase it like that. Apparently, you're one of those types who think statements that don't include your god are somehow promoting atheism. That's ridiculous. Reverse it, eh? How would you feel about this... Only books which connect theology to history/science/music, etc. are permitted in school. Only displays which make a connection to divinity are allowed on public property. Phrases and statements from any atheist or secular perspective (even generic, God-free viewpoints on tangential topics) were not permitted. That isn't a reversal. Right now, religious statements AND atheistic statements are treated equally, and neither are allowed special privileges. But you're trying to set it up as if religious statements are suppressed while atheistic statements are not. Statements that do not address gods are not atheistic, they are neutral. "2+2=4" is not an atheistic statement merely because it omits any mention of gods. Ethics at its root requires the ability to feel empathy for the other guy. If you don't believe in God, then the omission of God from everything doesn't seem at all unnatural to you. I understand that. But if yeh do believe in God, then the omission of God from every display, discussion, and text feels an awful lot like exclusion, eh? The omission of "gods are myths" from every display excludes me, right? A display showing the relative distances of the planets is not promoting atheism any more than it's promoting religion, but you're trying to portray it that way. I'm not buying that malarkey. But you would create what to us would be a sterilized version of all these things, and insist that be all that's allowed on public grounds. You'd cut our ideas off from public funding so that your ideas have access to nearly double the funding sources of ours, though you amount to only 2% of the population. All of your arguments are based on the false premise that not promoting gods at every opportunity is somehow promoting atheism. That's just ridiculous. Teaching math doesn't involve gods, but that isn't promoting atheism. You'd not allow our ideas in public schools, which educate 85% of the children. Public schools are not for instructing kids in religion; that infringes on their rights and the rights of their parents who have the authority to instruct their own children on religion without interference from the state. If you'd like to go back to the bible riots of the 1840s and have Christians killing each other over which version of the bible to use in public schools, I'd say you're nuts. If yeh really believe in equal treatment, then yeh have to welcome diversity into your public spaces, while also bein' mindful of courtesy and civility. And diversity includes that 98% of the population that might enjoy a small rock that says "The Heavens Proclaim the Glory of God," and civility suggests that's a "rated G", innocuous thing not worth raisin' a fuss over. Sorry, religious rights are too important to allow 98% dictate to the 2% what they ought to believe, even if you think the 2% are being uppity.

Beavah writes, responding to this statement of mine "Not when you try to use the government to promote your religious views. ": Yah, Merlyn, I think it all just comes down to this, eh? If you're willin' to label me and all other Religionists as bad-idea folks tryin' to use government to promote our views, and at the same time you think your views (knowledge without reference to God) are just fine for government to promote while excluding ours, then there's nuthin' left to say, eh? Well no, not when you phrase it like that. Apparently, you're one of those types who think statements that don't include your god are somehow promoting atheism. That's ridiculous. Yeh want to put our books in a private closet or dungeon, we want 'em on the public shelf next to yours. Where's the atheist rock "next to" the scout's god rock? Funny how you've completely twisted the analogy around to having the Christian point of view be suppressed and are only pleading for equal treatment. And misrepresented my views, as I've consistently argued for equal treatment. But I expected that from someone who argues that Christianity isn't a religion, so it's OK for the government to promote Christianity. As I said earlier, if the park is a public forum where anyone can put up rocks with their own messages on them, it's fine. You know, genuine equal treatment regardless of the content. But that isn't the case here.

Beavah writes: Yeh know, Merlyn, it really does get tiresome the way everything for you descends into a semantic argument with personal overtones. It's tiresome when people come up with nonsense like saying Christianity isn't a religion, or that not allowing people to erect religious statements into public parks is censorship (while also advocating a system that would allow officials to censor views they disagreed with). If yeh treat evmori with a bit of respect and take a moment to understand what he's sayin', he's making an interesting argument. No, it's a really tired old semantic argument. Christianity is not a religion. He is quite correct in that, eh? No, he isn't. It's a generic term that applies to a bunch of very different religions that don't agree with each other, or even like each other! Just like "bird," the meaning of the word is abstract, and we're not even sure about things at the edges, like da old thread whether Mormons were Christian . That doesn't mean Christianity isn't a religion. So there's no "establishment" issue if you're just talkin' about Christianity. In fact, I rather suspect that was what da Framers intended, eh? Fortunately, the courts disagree with you. That there be no Church of America as a specific state denomination of Christendom, the way there had been a Church of England which variously persecuted Puritans and Catholics and Scotch Presbyterians and other Christians. It goes far beyond that. That doesn't risk losing First Amendment protection for religions - Catholic, Methodist, Mormon, etc. Nor any of the other privileges you mention. Those First Amendment protections apply to religions (aka denominations), not more general categories of thought or belief. Seventh Day Adventists are a religion. Christianity is not. Yah, the approach is interestin' because it implies that expressions which are generically Christian rather than denominationally Christian ("In God We Trust", "One Nation, under God", "The Heavens proclaim the glory of God", etc.) should not be treated as Establishment Clause issues. Which is one reason why people like you and Ed try to argue that Christianity isn't a religion. It's so you can use the government to promote your religious views, while trying to claim that you aren't doing that. Sorry, that doesn't work. Nor should expressions which are generically pagan, if there is such a thing ("We give thanks for the Blessings of Mother Earth"?). Or generically atheist? "Gods are myths" ok by you? Like Scouts Own services, such relatively generic inclusive statements can comfort and inspire large numbers of citizens of different beliefs, and perhaps be respectfully tolerated by the rest with gentility and understanding. Not when you try to use the government to promote your religious views. It also provides a rationale (beyond my thoughts on common sense citizenship) for saying "no" to a specific expression of a particular denomination like "God hates fags", while allowing more generic expressions. As I pointed out before, you're advocating censorship. If you think "god hates fags" is too denominational, how about "homosexuality is a sin"? There are a number of religions, and not just Christian religions, that would agree with that. Now, there's a part of me bettin' that rather than think a bit on Ed's idea or mine, you'll find a sentence or two to take out of context and attack. Or perhaps set up another extreme straw man so yeh can jump in and accuse us of censorship or somesuch. Both of your ideas are really bad ideas; but that's why you won't find courts ruling that way.

Ed writes: OK! I'll play! If the God stone is an infusion of religion, what religion is it an infusion of? An "infusion of religion" does not necessarily mean an infusion of a specific religion, Ed. A city official approved the project with the God stone in the original project. And higher city officials overruled that part. 99% of Christian churches belong to a religious denomination making your point moot, Merlyn. Argue about the 1% if you want. No Ed, you're the one pushing the nonsense view that Christianity isn't a religion. If it isn't a religion, a whole host of changes are in store. Churches that say they are tax exempt because they are Christian churches are denied tax exemption, because, according to you, Christianity isn't a religion, so religious tax exemptions don't apply. Never said religious speech was the only thing that needed protected. Ed, you wrote "Then again, since it [Christianity] isn't a religion, it needs no protection." That statement assumes that anything that isn't a religion doesn't need protection. You can plug anything into that: "Then again, since political speech isn't a religion, it needs no protection." "Then again, since a newspaper editorial isn't a religion, it needs no protection." The above statements use exactly the same logic you use in your statement above - all things that aren't religions don't need protection. But that's absurd.

Ed writes: The 1st Amendment guarantees us as American the freedom of religion. Yes, Ed, but you're claiming Christianity is NOT a religion. If it isn't a religion, the first amendment's religion clause doesn't apply to it. It also guarantees us the government will not force us to believe in a specific religion or persecute us for not believing in a specific religion. Yes, Ed, but you're claiming Christianity is NOT a religion. If it isn't a religion, the first amendment's religion clause doesn't apply to it. Do you still want to assert that Christianity is not a religion? The God stone in this display is in no way a violation of the 1st Amendment. I think it is, Ed. So did Arvada city officials. No Christianity isn't a religion. So it doesn't fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment. And Christian churches are no longer tax-exempt, right? Then again, since it isn't a religion, it needs no protection. If you think only religious speech needs protection, you're misinformed. Hope you enjoyed your Christian holiday off work, Merlyn. Saturnalia?

Ed writes: Well if you state it endorses religion, pick one! If ya can't then how is it unconstitutional? Because the first amendment doesn't just prohibit the government from promoting a particular religion, Ed. See Engel v. Vitale for example. No you can't outlaw Christianity, it's a belief. But you said it wasn't a religion; that means it isn't a religion that is protected by the first amendment's religion clause, right?

Ed writes: You advocate the removal of God from all government stuff by claiming this is endorsing religion, yet you have yet to say what religion this endorses. Oddly enough, I have yet to say what religion that endorses because it doesn't endorse a specific religion. However, that does not mean it's constitutional. And remember, Christianity isn't a religion. It is a belief. So Christianity could be outlawed, as it is no longer a religion protected by the first amendment? Is that really what you mean?

Beavah writes: Yah, Merlyn, I know yeh like to play da edges of every argument, eh? Again, that's legal thinkin', rather than usin' practical judgment. Nuthin' to say that yeh can't say "no" to a Fred Phelps addition to a street sign and "yes" to a poetic addition to a planet walk. Well Beavah, I'd say you're the one clearly advocating censorship; you'll allow ideas you agree with, and disallow ideas you disagree with. You judge whether certain ideas can be expressed based on how well you like them. That's genuine censorship.

So Beavah, would you agree that allowing a scout to put up a street sign that says "Elm Street" also must allow that scout to erect a sign that says e.g. "god hates fags"?