eagle scout ordered to take god out of park project

[FScouter]

"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."

 

Come now Meryln, be reasonable. As is commonly understood, a "lie" is a false statement made with the intention to deceive. A statement that "In God We Trust" has no religious significance sounds more like an opinion than than a blatant lie with the intention to deceive others.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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.

[FScouter]

A statement is not a lie unless it is untrue and the purpose of making the untrue statement is to deceive others. An opinion that In God We Trust is not a religious phrase and should remain on currency is not a lie unless it can be proved that it IS a religious phrase AND that the person made the statement did so with the intention of deceiving others as to the real truth of the phrase.

 

Of course anyone may declare anyone else to be lying, but doing so outside the generally accepted definition of the words tends to erode ones credibility.

[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.

[Venividi]

I see that the diversion of the discussion from displays in public parks to statements on currency was successful.

[Beavah]

Yah, I think "In God we Trust" is a statement about belief, one that's held in common by many religions. It is not a religious message in the sense that it is not denominational.

 

More to the point, it's a "no big deal" thing, eh? It isn't oppressive, it doesn't change anyone's behavior, and in fact nobody ever really looks at it, eh? Pretendin' it amounts to religious persecution is just silly.

 

I've got it, let's just put a Goddess stone next to the God stone. After all, she was the one who really birthed the universe....

 

I agree. In fact, in the context of that sort of display, it seems quite appropriate. If a Wiccan scout put up a planet walk and included just a Goddess stone of the same sort of poetic, tactful type, I would not be offended, feel that I was oppressed, or insist that the stone be removed along with the gol-darn moon-worshiping Truffula Trees. Any more than I object to the pagan/Masonic symbols on the dollar bill, or the use of Latin in what should be an English speaking country .

 

I think those that truly care about freedom from oppression are best to direct their energies toward real oppression in the world. There's plenty of it.

 

I also don't think that whole branches of human thought should be banned from public lands, in an effort to sanitize that view from public discourse in future generations by turning it into a private, "taboo" topic. That's book-burning - forcibly removing a set of ideas from public access and view.

 

Now, if yeh make government a lot smaller, so that area of funding and public view amounts to only 5% and not 45% or 85%, then it matters less, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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)

[FScouter]

I'd be in favor of removing "In God We Trust", if the Treasury Department would also agree to eliminate the dollar bill, replacing it with the dollar coin. That would save billions. While we're at it, get rid of the penny too. That would save more billions, and conserve copper and aluminum natural resources at the same time. It would help my back too if I didn't have to pick them up off the ground anymore.

[evmori]

There is a dollar coin. I get them as change. They are roughly the size of quarters & just as confusing as the $2 bill.

 

Now, back to your topic.

 

Do all views need to be presented in public displays?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Beavah]

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).

 

What about a reflection, prayer, or short reading offered by a different child each morning, eh? You'd get more Christian than not, but each person's contribution would be welcome. No generic prayers. No outright elimination of prayers. Genuine diversity, welcomed and shared.

 

Celebrate all holidays. Invite the imam and the priest and the rabbi and the anti-theist to come teach. Not generic. Not prohibited. Genuine diversity, welcomed and shared.

 

They are "public" schools, after all, right? Not "government" schools. So they should reflect the character and makeup of the public, not the worries about government "establishment."

 

Unless they really are government schools, and parks, and such. In which case, there should be choice, and funding should be provided to anybody serving a public purpose, not limited to a government monopoly. Government monopolies are dangerous. They can lead to exactly what you say - government officials choosing who has access or privileged access, based on legislation or ideology, rather than courtesy/decency. Like, say, Berkeley?

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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.

[Beavah]

Yah, Merlyn, I tried, eh?

 

Yeh now have a view from the other side. A chance to look at the world in all its diversity. An opportunity to see that folks get a bit upset with havin' their view excluded from public spaces. "You can teach about religion" and all that. As FireKat says, that experiment was tried in the old Soviet state, eh? What got taught "about" religion wasn't pretty, eh? Imagine if we said "you can teach about science, but you can't teach science." That distinction is just nasty, ain't it?

 

Seems like yeh don't really want diversity. Yeh want to manipulate the system so that views you dislike are excluded from public places and public life. OK. I get that. That's where you are at. Reminds me of a lot of teenage scouts, so black and white.

 

To the extent your approach affords no nuance nor room for polite civility, I think it only contributes to the voices of polarization. Your attempts to manipulate the system only encourage a response from the other pole to manipulate back. Judges can be replaced, laws altered, public entities defunded. Better a Christian nation than one where Christianity is excluded from public life, eh?

 

I don't care for that approach. I believe in right and wrong, but don't much care for unnuanced thinkin'. I'm a more relaxed and easy-goin' sort that welcomes diversity of ideas and notions.

 

So me, I vote against your extremism. I wish you'd give it up, but failin' that, I stand with those who gently oppose your views and your efforts to manipulate the instruments of governance for your own ends.

 

Guess that's about all I can say, eh?

 

May you find in the New Year opportunities for sacrificial service to people in the world who are truly oppressed. Or at least may yeh find good health, and a mind open to new understandings.

 

God bless,

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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?

[Trevorum]

(Sidebar comment having nothing to do with religion.)

 

"While we're at it, get rid of the penny too. That would save more billions, and conserve copper and aluminum natural resources at the same time."

 

FScouter, pennies don't have any aluminum. Mostly zinc these days with a tad of copper. There has actually been some serious consideration in Congress towards eliminating the one cent piece. Coinage history tells us it's gonna happen sooner or later. Personally, I think that 2009 should be the last year of the Lincoln cent - on his 200th birth year and the 100th anniversary of the Lincoln cent.