The atheists thing again

[LongHaul]

Lisabob,

Tried to PM you but they came back so I've sent you a personal email.

LongHaul

[TheScout]

Dan I was of the understanding (I could be wrong) that any child with a religious observance can be excused from school on that day.

[packsaddle]

Lisabob, I wish you could have met NJCubScouter. He had a great sense of humor.

[DanKroh]

"Dan I was of the understanding (I could be wrong) that any child with a religious observance can be excused from school on that day."

 

Any child belonging to a "mainstream" religion can generally be excused for a religious observance (i.e. Jewish kids can get off for Yom Kippur, etc.), but they still have to make up any work they missed that day, including any tests. While I have not actually tried to have my sons excused for any of our observances, I do know Pagan families who have been told that their children could NOT be excused from school for their religious observances.

 

Here's another example of the special treatment of Christians in public schools. I notice that school lunches on Fridays during Lent always are "meat free" (i.e. fish). But during Passover, they do not offer a "kosher for Passover" alternative (i.e., no leavened bread). Unless you count the salad (which probably has croutons, so much for that). But how many second graders do you know who voluntarily (or even involuntarily) eat salad? Many, many Jews who do not keep kosher during the rest of the year still feel it is important to keep kosher during Passover, which is only 8 days.

 

Yet, some people still want to claim that Christians are being discriminated against in our schools. Can you explain these discrepancies?

[TheScout]

I can explain the discrepancy. It is called democracy. These rules are not made in a vacuum. They are made by school boards and elected legislatures which were elected by the people. The majority of people in the majority of places in this country are Christian, which is why those beliefs are respected.

 

If the Wiccan (or any religion) are a majority in any town and wish to elect a school board which would give off for those holidays and not Christian ones, I believe it is their right. I would not sue in court to overturn the democratic process of the majority of my fellow citizens.

 

It is easy to believe in the democratic process when the decisions suit you. It is much harder when they don't.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Suing in court is certainly part of the democratic process; all that does is trigger judicial review to decide if the law was properly followed.

[LongHaul]

Democracy! in the sense that majority rules I like that. If we can give them Christmas and Easter off why can't we put a Nativity Scene in the School Foyer? Well actually we can't give them Christmas and Easter off we give them a WINTER or SPRING break cleverly scheduled to coincide with the respective religious observance. HEY! How about if we call the Nativity scene a diorama depicting ancient birthing customs?

LongHaul

 

[DanKroh]

" I can explain the discrepancy. It is called democracy. These rules are not made in a vacuum. They are made by school boards and elected legislatures which were elected by the people. The majority of people in the majority of places in this country are Christian, which is why those beliefs are respected."

 

So minority beliefs don't deserve respect? How about those of us in the minority who respect those (Christian) beliefs because we think it is the right thing to do, not because they are in the majority?

 

"If the Wiccan (or any religion) are a majority in any town and wish to elect a school board which would give off for those holidays and not Christian ones, I believe it is their right. I would not sue in court to overturn the democratic process of the majority of my fellow citizens."

 

Hmm, I don't recall anything in the DoI about those rights being inalienable only for those in the majority. Can you show me the part in the Constitution that says that rights don't apply to any minority?

 

"It is easy to believe in the democratic process when the decisions suit you. It is much harder when they don't."

 

Yeah, and some people find it hard to do what's right when they are not being forced to. Having the moral high ground means taking care of those without power (i.e. in the minority) because you think it's the right thing to do.

[TheScout]

Merlyn,

 

"Suing in court is certainly part of the democratic process; all that does is trigger judicial review to decide if the law was properly followed."

 

I suppose I am just a believer in judical restraint. That controversial issues should be decided be elected legislatures, not judges. Judges can trample rights as easily as a legislature. It seems judges can read into the constitution whatever they wish in the name of equal rights. That is not democracy.

 

 

Dan,

 

There is a large difference between respected religions, and making the government respect them. The people, through their elected government, should not have to respect every minority religious group and it does not. We all know Christianity gets special privleges due to its majority status and the heritage of this country. This does not stop individual citizens from respecting minority beliefs.

 

"Hmm, I don't recall anything in the DoI about those rights being inalienable only for those in the majority. Can you show me the part in the Constitution that says that rights don't apply to any minority?"

 

Please point out the 'right' which someone is being denied. Nobody has a right to have schools close on any day they deem is a religous holiday for their faith.

 

"Having the moral high ground means taking care of those without power (i.e. in the minority) because you think it's the right thing to do."

 

And it is not morally correct to respect the beliefs of the majority of Americans and two hundred years of tradition in this country? It is not a question about not taking care of anybody. Wiccan are not being persecuted. It is simple about not making the government respect every single religion.

[Trevorum]

After all this time, we're back to Rooster's definition of "respect".

 

I think there is a fundamental (heh, heh) difference in the connotation of the word, which leads Rooster, The Scout, and perhaps others, to believe it is wrong to show respect for religious beliefs one does not agree with.

[DanKroh]

"Please point out the 'right' which someone is being denied. Nobody has a right to have schools close on any day they deem is a religous holiday for their faith."

 

The right being denied is the right to be treated equally. Christians are given special treatment, including having schools closed for their religious holidays. No other faiths are given that consideration.

 

"Wiccan are not being persecuted."

 

Really? Well, I guess that depends on what you consider persecution. When Wiccan parents are taken to courts and told that they are not allowed to raise their children in their religion or they will be taken away, I would consider that to be persecution. When Wiccans are fired from jobs for wearing symbols of their religion, I would consider that persecution. When Wiccans are denied housing because of their religion, I would consider that persecution. When prominant religious leaders say that bad things happen in this country because of "pagan beliefs", I consider that persecution. When the president of the United States says that Wicca is not a valid religion, and that Wiccans should be kicked out or barred from serving in the military, I consider that persecution.

 

What exactly has to happen for you to consider the discrimination that takes place everyday against religious minorities to be persecution?

(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[TheScout]

Dan,

 

The only right to be "treated equally" would stem from the Fourteenth Amendment stating in part "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Notice it applies only to the states and not the federal government. Also, keep in mind the intent of the Amendment. Even you must admit its intent was not to allow Wicca or any other religious sect the right to have its holidays recognized or remove such rights from Christians in any way.

 

I am not familiar with all the cases of "persecution" you bring up.

 

I would say that it is wrong for courts to consider taking away children.

 

I would say an employer should have the right to fire someone for wearing religious symbols they deem inappropriate. Maybe some would not be a large fan of doing business with someone of an unorthodox religion. It is not my decision. It doesn't affect my pocketbook. Thats free market capitalism.

 

I think if I don't want to sell my house to someone or rent an apartment to them for any reason, I should be able to. It is my property.

 

I hope prominent religious leaders speak out against those who they believe are in sin. What else are our religous leaders for?

 

I suppose the President can say Wicca is not a valid religion. The President is allowed to make personal statements as well. Maybe they shouldn't be in the military. I don't know. Maybe a Don't Ask Don't Tell type of policy is in order. The government does not allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military due to their life of sin and impact on combat effectiveness. I suppose if those in the military think Wicca is wrong as well, they should not let those who practice it in. It seems only right.

 

So I do not consider individuals exercising their own economic rights is persecution. Nor public or religious figures speaking on their personal beliefs. I do not consider the military making decisions on who to allow in based on morality and combat effectiveness persecution. The military is not a place for social experimentation.

 

 

[DanKroh]

"The only right to be "treated equally" would stem from the Fourteenth Amendment stating in part "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Notice it applies only to the states and not the federal government. Also, keep in mind the intent of the Amendment. Even you must admit its intent was not to allow Wicca or any other religious sect the right to have its holidays recognized or remove such rights from Christians in any way."

 

I'm not going to quibble the interpretation of the Constitution, because I'm not a Contitutional lawyer, and I didn't say that the right to be treated equally was one listed in the Constitution. The idea that all men are created equal and deserve equal treatment is a founding principle of this country, or do you disagree with that, as well? If not, how about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? That pretty much says people have to be treated equally based on their religion (and a bunch of other things) at least by the government and places of public accommodation. And that's a federal law.

 

"I am not familiar with all the cases of "persecution" you bring up."

 

They are all cases that have been in the news, and fairly recently. So since you put the term in parentheses, does that mean that you don't consider them to be instances of persecution? All righty then. How very.

 

"I would say that it is wrong for courts to consider taking away children."

 

Why not? Isn't raising them in such an evil and immoral way an endangerment to their welfare?

 

"I would say an employer should have the right to fire someone for wearing religious symbols they deem inappropriate. Maybe some would not be a large fan of doing business with someone of an unorthodox religion. It is not my decision. It doesn't affect my pocketbook. Thats free market capitalism."

 

Ah, so can an employer also fire someone for having a skin color that they consider inappropriate? It's free market capitalism, right? Unfortunately, for such an employer, religion is one of the things covered by the EEOC. But the employer in question did not fire Christian employees for wearing crosses that were of the same size and visibility as the pentacle in question. It's against the law to treat employees differently based on their religion. But it happens anyway.

 

"I think if I don't want to sell my house to someone or rent an apartment to them for any reason, I should be able to. It is my property."

 

Again, federal fair housing law says different. Landlords are not supposed to be allowed to discriminate based on religion. But it happens anyway.

 

"I hope prominent religious leaders speak out against those who they believe are in sin. What else are our religous leaders for?"

 

How about being concerned about what their own religious adherrants are doing and not to be making hate-filled speeches towards others? Just an idea.

 

"I suppose the President can say Wicca is not a valid religion. The President is allowed to make personal statements as well."

 

He can as a private citizen, but not as the President, who is part of the government. Perhaps he should have a talk with the IRS then, who keeps granting Wiccan (and Pagan) groups tax-exempt status as religious organizations.

 

"Maybe they shouldn't be in the military. I don't know. Maybe a Don't Ask Don't Tell type of policy is in order. The government does not allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military due to their life of sin and impact on combat effectiveness. I suppose if those in the military think Wicca is wrong as well, they should not let those who practice it in. It seems only right."

 

Except remember that Civil Rights Act that I mentioned above? It covers the military, as well. And while sexual orientation is not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act, religion is. Also, can you explain why is Wiccan soldiers any worse for the military than soldiers of any other religion that isn't the "right one"?

 

"So I do not consider individuals exercising their own economic rights is persecution. Nor public or religious figures speaking on their personal beliefs. I do not consider the military making decisions on who to allow in based on morality and combat effectiveness persecution. The military is not a place for social experimentation."

 

Frankly, that's a load of rationalizations to try to justify discrimination and prejudice. Persecution is defined as "persistent mistreatment of an individual/group by another group". It doesn't specify whether those doing the mistreating are breaking the law when they do it. If these same incidents were applied to Christians in another country, I have a hard time believing you wouldn't be crying persecution. And if not, again, I can only reiterate that I thank all my Gods that you are not in a position to dictate the treatment of me and mine.

 

Since none of my examples meet your criteria, I ask again, could you give a specific example of what you would consider "persecution"?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout writes:

I suppose I am just a believer in judical restraint. That controversial issues should be decided be elected legislatures, not judges.

 

So, when the courts declared that laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional, they shouldn't have done that, and just deferred to whatever each state wanted?

 

Same question for segregated public schools?

 

If the courts aren't supposed to strike down laws, what tasks are left for the supreme court to do? All they do is review laws for constitutionality, they don't conduct e.g. criminal trials (well, the chief justice presides over impeachments).

[TheScout]

Dan, it seems you have a vastly different conception of freedom than I do. It seems you want the iron hand of government to force equality down the throats of Americans. I don't think that is the dream of America.

 

I am a great believer of personal freedom and would consider myself a liberetarian and that the government should not bother people in their everyday lives.

 

For that reason I do not think the governmetn should take away Wicca children.

 

I do think an employer should be able to hire or fire whoever they want.

 

I think I, or you, should be able to sell our home to whoever we want.

 

I think religous leaders should be able to speak their faith, no matter how bigoted you think it is.

 

I think even the President can speak of his own beliefs while in office.

 

So if individuals exercising their own individual freedoms is just a "load of rationalizations" to you, I think that is a shame. It is easy to be a supporter of liberty when everyone acts in your favor. It is much harder when they don't.

 

As a conservative libretarian, I also see it as a shame, that you think we should use the iron hand of government to enforce equality. Equality can never be brought about that way. It can only be brought about in the hearts and minds of Americans.

 

Do you really think it was consistent with the original ideas the Founding Fathers to have the EEOC telling private citizens who they can hire or fire. Or who they have to sell their homes to? What about the Civil Rights Act. What would the framers have thought about agents of the federal government going from state to state inspecting election practices and making sure they are consistent with some artificial federal standard of "equality." I think not.

 

And as a strict constructionist I would argue EEOC and the Civil Rights Act overstep federal powers and our unconstitutional. But that is a different argument for a different day. (If you can't wait, read the 10th Amendment)

 

I would consider persecution being imprisoned, physically assaulted, or killed for ones beliefs.

 

 

Merlyn,

 

Yes, on interracial marriage the SCOTUS should have deferred to the states. Loving vs. Virginia was a joke. The Virginia law was the definition of equality. Whites could not marry blacks the same as blacks could not marry whites. The law was also DEMOCRATICALLY passed by a legislature elected by the people of Virginia. It is easy to believe in democracy as long as decisions go your way I guess.

 

Same for Brown vs. Board of Education. The 14th Amendment says all must be treated equal. So why can't a district decide to have identical black schools and white schools. Constitionally, Plessy vs. Ferguson was more consistent with the intent of the 14th Amendment. Remember the Congress that passed it approved segregated schools for DC and most of the states that ratified also had segregated schools.

 

People, especially judges in these times like to look at the "good idea clause" (which doesn't exist) to write into the Constitution whatever they wish it says if they can't get it by the ballot box. Very sad.

 

There is an amendment process to change the Constitution.

 

If you and I made a contract I hope it can't just change without my consent.

 

 

Happy Easter!