Damn, we've been found out; the prospect of banning the Bible

[snooper]

Now this is interesting - an amphisbænic thread.

 

[Pure]

It's a little known fact--probably so to the doctrinaire amicus--
that the US founders, in the constitution, simply forbade the FEDERAL government from 'establishing' a religion (as in England, France, etc.).

Iirc, at least a couple *states* had established (i.e, official, subsidized) churches, and this did not bother the founders. AFAIK, this situation lasted a few decades, but more importantly, was made illegal/unconstitutional only in the last 100 years or so, through broadening the interpretation of the 14th Amendment (incorporation).

Do I approve of the broadening/incorporation: Yes, but life was not exactly as in Calvin's Geneva before it happened.

Note to snooper: I prefer the ouroboros as a symbol of this thread.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

How is their religion threatened? The threat is only that their religion is not to be given preeminence over all other religions, or over the founding principles of this country — the country which first gave them the freedom to practice their religion.

Unless they were C. of E. it wasn't in the cards for their religion to prosper, before this country separated government from religion.

I don't doubt that there are some in Arkansas who are as blinded by their religion as you say. It is just that I cannot believe enough of these exist in any state to make that much of a difference.

In any case, I plan to do all within my power to prevent those who appease these fanatics from retaining power. To see that those who — amongst other things — will not permit these fanatics to take more power than that which is each person’s right in our society. What more do you wish me to do?

Finally, if this is your true opinion — if you can see this so clearly — why are you not leading the opposition against those leaders who pander to this threat?

Let me try again Burley. Liberals aren't attacking Muslim values, symbols, or institutions. They aren't filing lawsuits to have buddah removed from the public eye. They are systematically attacking everything Christian. The explanation is quite simply that the protestant faiths are the only ones who achieved or were granted significant accomodation with government to become traditional. It isn't that difficult, for me at least, to see where the perception that liberals are anti-christian comes about.

Where a perception like this exists, appeals like the one Pure posted to open this thread become easily manipulated and become a powerful tool for mobilizing voters. What you fail to grasp, or refuse to grasp, is that a significant portion of the population was brought up to believe theis is a christian nation, founded on Christian principals, by god fearing founding fathers. I was educated down south, not so very long ago, and that was what I would have taken from american Civics, U.S. Government and Modern U.S. History, were it not for the fact by 11th grade I was more well read than my instructors.

As to leading the fight against them, I am pretty much unable to lead anything. I have withdrawn my vote for the GOP, the party I have voted for all my life. I recognize the threat the far religious right posses and have withdrawn my vote. I questioned everything, listened to opinions, studied facts and decided I could no longer support what my party has become.

Liberals, are supposed to be open minded. They fancy themselves as an intelligensia. Yet when I apply the same critical analysis to your party and point out problems, rather than discussion, I generally get shouted down. Even more curious, when this intelligensia is cornered, the vast majority of you retreat into a very simplistic rendition of we're better than the alternative. Ignoring that there are multiple alternatives. In fact, I have seen liberals here retreat into the GWB line of, if you aren't for us, you're against us, with an almost sickening regularity.

There is such a thing as being Neutral. You can be positively Neutral, like Himmler was with Hitler & Rhom, admiring both. You can be truly neutral, not caring one way or the other, and you can be negatively neutral, finding both to be equally odious.

When the Democratic party began to spend millions to keep Nadar off the ballot, only one Liberal I speak to regularly expressed dismay. The rest, leaped to the defense of the tactic. And yet, trying to keep someone off the ballot to increse your chances goes against the precepts of liberty, Democracy, allowing people the freedom to decide. The standard answer is to A.) defend it by saying the GOP is trying to get him on the ballot or B.) saying things are so dire that you have to sacrifice you rprincipals in order to get GWB out.

I am discovering that liberals & Democrats are no more intelligent, openminded, tolerant or concerned with democracy and liberty than the GOP, you just talk a better game.

-Colly

 

[cloudy]

Very well said, Colly.

When I've dared to say that I find both major candidates equally horrendous, I've received extremely patronizing replies, Virtual Burlesque being one of the most prolific.

I highly resent some assuming that I am either stupid, or just ignorant. I am neither, I assure you.

In my opinion, neither side can claim any honor in the way they have treated anybody, especially in this forum.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Liberals and the rhetoric of this election. Yes, they find the alternative so bad that a total surrender of principles, compassion, and anal virginity seems warranted by most of them. The odiousness of their own candidate is apparent but they find him far better than the alternative. It's like picking someone like Castro over someone like Stalin to use a horrendous analogy. Now, enough on nature of modern liberalism and more on religion.

Liberals have gotten their bad rap as "anti-Christians" mostly due to their opposition in the schools. Why? Because the schools are the only mandatory institution in America and it occurs at a young and (in some ways) impressionable age. Liberals have been making strides to make schools and schools more religion-neutral in America. This means that the teachers are banned from teaching or forcing religion on the students.

Now, hardcore Christians have been in a furor since it occured that prayer in schools was not allowed. This was of course a misnomer. Prayer in schools was still allowed, it was just no longer allowed to be teacher-sponsored. A student can still pray in a school (just walk in on a final if you don't believe me), join a religious club (which can request money from the school's budget), advertise their religion on their shirts (only applies to Christians, anti-religious shirts are burned immediately), and try and recruit their fellow classmates.

Still, such controls were far too strict for religious parents who have no clue what actually goes on in schools and thus rely on what paranoid people tell them about it. Many believed that the liberals had banned their children from praying aloud in school or being Christian.

This led the pro-christianity in schools movements that fight anything smacking of a removal of religion from the school-sponsored level. Atheists, pagans, muslims, etc... are expected to suck it and deal.

On the same hand, these parents whom I shall refer to as paranoid christian parents or PCP, are very focused on what their kid gets out of school to make sure it is clean. Many of them complain loudly about what the kids wear, listen to, watch, etc... because that filth may contaminate their child. So, to placate them, all movies at school are forced to be Disney until late High School, dress codes are created and enforced, and other restrictions were invented.

However, the point that the PCP bring about the most pain is in what is taught in school. Sure in the South and other religious areas, being taught God's truth in schools is not an abhorent practice, but it exists even in schools in wildly liberal states like California. My old school system was not able to teach anything about evolution until AP Biology, even then they had to ask if anyone in the class found the theory offensive. They tried to teach it in middle school, the PCP complained and we learned about cumulus clouds for five weeks instead.

In literature the PCP are worse. Any books not conforming with proper Christian values that is on the required reading list is met with a squadron of angry parents complaining about the "filth that their children have to read to pass". I knew some of these parents through a collection of Christian friends. They would brag to me of how they forced a in-their-opinion "filthy" book off the required list. Many of them gladly swaped their secrets with each other for the removal of "unsuitable" books. Thus, it took a strongly willed teacher to get anything with even the hint of a sexual nature (such as Brave New World) or controversial plotline (East of Eden) to stay on the list. Even then, alternatives had to be found for those with detracting parents.

Such intrusions are hardly anything to write home about. The standard frets and cries of all those parents who end up in a living Hell when their children run away, never to call, at 18.

However, there is more. Here were just a few of the activities, Christians and Christian organizations were allowed to do on my high school campus (im talking about adult christians):

A tiny Christian sect used our school for religious services during the weekends.

Christian recruiters handed out flyers to "save our souls" on the edge of the school when it let out.

Christians were allowed to wear anti-atheist and anti-pagan shirts but the opposite was not so.




Such things may seem ludicrous to those not of the faith, the all consuming love of Christ. However, this is the face of a truly benevolent Christian allowance. My same friends were always abound with horror stories of what was banned from their household because of Satanic influences.

My best friend of this time was banned (at the age of 17, right before he moved out) from watching any movies that contained a sexual scene which includes direct innuendo, fantasy novels and RPGS (because crystals and magic is the work of the devil (note that he was also a huge geek in this area, majorly obsessed)), any non-christian music (again big problem as he loved metal except for black metal), hanging out with friends with non-christian parents (had to hide the fact that my mom was a pagan), and much more.

Such Christians find themselves under seige in a world of immorality. Everywhere they look the fashions are becoming sexier and sexier younger, the public is more content with novels that have witches and wizards and fantastical creatures in them, the public is becoming more non-religious or less-church-oriented religious, the children (like all generations of children) seem unwilling to swallow as much of the old bullshit, women are becoming more liberated, people are being allowed to love in ways that aren't a man and a woman, and so on. Plus, as a dominant religion founded on a "why do you persecute me" vibe, it is difficult for them to accept their humongous power in America.

Overall, these Christians are quick to believe that there is a liberal conspiracy to irradicate them. That if they don't fight, the bibles will be flung on pyres. It is easy to see why, not just because of the liberal actions in schools, but because of other uses of rhetoric. The huge noises made about tying things to Hollywood liberals is meant to resonate with these PCPs. The PCPs already believe that Hollywood's lack of morals and degenerate filth is polluting their children. Tying that to the liberals makes them view the liberals the same way. The fact that liberal candidates spend less time on sermon-campaigning helps seal this belief.

The conservatives cry out again and again about Jesus, thus they must stand for him. This one works because as the christian best friend pointed out, few church-going people actually spend all that much time reading the Bible. Oh sure, they preach it and cite it and condemn others, but they are quick to take sermons on blind faith. He loved to relate to me how his pastor often made the mistake of citing verses that weren't in the Bible or weren't where he said they were. No one called him on it, because no one bothered checking.

So, in conclusion, people are stupid. Sure that's not the real conclusion, but it works for me especially when any form of politics is concerned.

P.S. I apologize to you Colly if any of my statements are among those that give you a bad view of the socially left. And I'll apologize for sher for her attacks, because she is far too paranoid what with living in a swing state (especially the one that started this mess) to be likely to do it herself. Perhaps after it's all done, she'll offer it herself.

 

[cantdog]

Very well said, Colly.

When I've dared to say that I find both major candidates equally horrendous, I've received extremely patronizing replies, Virtual Burlesque being one of the most prolific.

I highly resent some assuming that I am either stupid, or just ignorant. I am neither, I assure you.

In my opinion, neither side can claim any honor in the way they have treated anybody, especially in this forum.

Hear, hear.

I was there before official prayer was removed from the schools. In homeroom, there was not only the Pledge and some announcements, but a prayer as well, from the principal or his assistant. A Christian prayer, in the name of the trinity or "in Jesus's name."

Jewish kids were in the classrooms, too. They had to endure that day after day. The homeroom thing, and another dedicatory prayer by a person in authority at every assembly, every game. "In Jesus's name we pray; amen."

The town had a manger scene in the city hall lawn every December. The list goes on and on. I was agnostic at the time, so I could shrug it off; the Jewish kids weren't so lucky.

What the supreme court decision accomplished, in theory, was to make authority figures quit browbeating those Jewish kids, and any muslims or whatever, with all this Jesus-ing day in, day out. Pray all you want as an individual, but stop the official espousal of one religion over another.

Three hundred years of religiously directed massacres led the men who wrote thje Bill of Rights to prohibit the State from adopting an official religion. Whe the Kings of Europe made Catholicism official, the bigots slew and despoiled Huguenots with complete impunity. Look at the history! Bloody Mary, St. Bartholomew's Day, instance after instance. Not even considered really murders, if the official religion's adherents were doing it.

Now, you tell me, in the South, despite the law, the same public prayers are being said again.

Sure, the Christians lost ground when the decision came down. They had to, because they had taken what they had no right to take.

And sure, they felt it as an attack. It was. They were, in essence, whacked on the nose with a newspaper because they were acting in an un-American fashion. I saw it; I heard them doing it.

But make no mistake, they resented the decision, and they still do. That kind of message-- that the Liberals are anti-Christian-- will strike a chord in every state in the Union. Rural places, small cities in the heartland of this country, do not live in the polyglot mix of cultures which you find in large urban centers.

Big cities have Italian neighborhoods, Syrian neighborhoods, Chinese neighborhoods, and thousands of others. It is easier for people in such places to remember that other cultures exist and have to be reckoned with.

Most of America is hundreds of miles from the nearest border.

Tolerance is for the enlightened and the cosmopolitan. Why should a true Christian tolerate someone whose belief is just plain wrong? Where's the advantage in it?

Christians know how to pray; you say "in Jesus's name" whenever you do it. No government can dictate to you to pray without those words. Even the liberal Court knew that. So they made it the rule not to pray at all in an official capacity as an agent of the State.

And here we are, at the turn of a millenium. "End times" talk is everywhere, and people are looking for omens. In the late nineties, story after story hit the news about people who believed some zealot preacher and sold all their worldly goods to accompany him to the mountaintop. Or a roomful of cultists would be found who killed themselves together for some religious motivation. The millenium brings this sort of idea into the front of people's minds.

The "end times" is the winnowing of the faithful from the damned; it is not the time for compromise!

No, this isn't funny. This isn't stupid, or laughable. It's deadly serious. And very powerful.

cantdog

 

[cloudy]

Thank you, Cant.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm not offended at all LC. I don't expouse the views I stated. What concerns me is the off hand way so many who are liberals quickly pronounce an intellectual deficiancy and scoff at the notion that htere are enough "rednecks" who are so gullible as to buy that line that they can make a difference.

Assuredly some folks who are extremely religious are ignornat of the wider world, but a great many are well educated and well read. They simply need the direction in life religion provides.

As the one person who was upset about trying to keep nadar off the ballot observed, the vote on removing federal jurisdiction from hearing the pledge case was passed in the hopes of making Democrats vote their concience. I belive she was right about the timing.

I merely find it curious, as well as dangerous, that most liberals can't broaden their minds enough to narrow them. They seem so attached to the cursader for the constituion tag they have bestowed upon themselves that they no long seem capable of realizing that the crusader is almost always seen as a villian by those he is crusading against.

Let me be emphatic, least I left any doubt, I live in fear of the growing power of the religious right. I am broad enough minded to see their side, but I reject utterly the idea your conviction that this is the one true religion gives you any right to foster it upon someone else.

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thanks Cant,

You ahve articulated what I was trying to say far more eloquently than I did myself.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I'm not offended at all LC. I don't expouse the views I stated. What concerns me is the off hand way so many who are liberals quickly pronounce an intellectual deficiancy and scoff at the notion that htere are enough "rednecks" who are so gullible as to buy that line that they can make a difference.

Assuredly some folks who are extremely religious are ignornat of the wider world, but a great many are well educated and well read. They simply need the direction in life religion provides.

As the one person who was upset about trying to keep nadar off the ballot observed, the vote on removing federal jurisdiction from hearing the pledge case was passed in the hopes of making Democrats vote their concience. I belive she was right about the timing.

I merely find it curious, as well as dangerous, that most liberals can't broaden their minds enough to narrow them. They seem so attached to the cursader for the constituion tag they have bestowed upon themselves that they no long seem capable of realizing that the crusader is almost always seen as a villian by those he is crusading against.

Let me be emphatic, least I left any doubt, I live in fear of the growing power of the religious right. I am broad enough minded to see their side, but I reject utterly the idea your conviction that this is the one true religion gives you any right to foster it upon someone else.

-Colly

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was arguing against you.

What I meant was if anything I said when a leftist politico on the forum gave you a bad view of liberals, I apologize for those statements. It had nothing to do with opinions of liberals or religious people.

Most of my post was reminiscing on living around the paranoid bits of Christianity and what they did to affect school life and what I've noticed of those people in their opinions of liberals and with religious calls like these.

Believe me, as part of a community that knows who you are and to the religious right what you are, I know well your fear of their policies. Heck, most of what currently is the democratic party is cobbled together of groups frightened of how much power the religious right is wielding.

I also hope I didn't sound like I was bashing religion in general. My best friend and many other of my friends are devout Christians who heavily read and interpret the Bible. My dismay has never been about those like them who live their faith, but rather the paranoid ones who were their parents, who were quick to interfere in all ways of life in the name of religion and morality. Hope I'm making any sense.

 

[sweetnpetite]

So, in conclusion, people are stupid. Sure that's not the real conclusion, but it works for me especially when any form of politics is concerned.

Especially when it comes to how there own minds work.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Jett: I always thought hypnotism was a bunch of bunk.

Jimmy: It is, but lesser mind are always succeptable to cheap theatrics.

 

[Weird Harold]

I merely find it curious, as well as dangerous, that most liberals can't broaden their minds enough to narrow them. They seem so attached to the cursader for the constituion tag they have bestowed upon themselves that they no long seem capable of realizing that the crusader is almost always seen as a villian by those he is crusading against.

It isn't just the liberals who seem incapable of seeing someone else's viewpoint -- except where it reveals some fear that can be used to sway their opinion.

Intolerant people on both extremes of any issue treat the opposition like idiots and work to force their ideas on them.

I grew up in a small town of 3,500 people with 35 different churches -- including a small jewish congregation and a very small budhist group.

At my high school Graduation in 1968, we had not one but three prayers as part of the commencement ceremony -- Delivered by a Catholic Priest, a Jewish Rabbi and a Methodist Minister. At my Sister's graduation in 1964, the three religious representatives were a Lutheran Priest, an Episcopalian Pastor and a Budhist.

Perhaps my town and school district was unusual in it's calculated ecumenism but I find it preferable to trying to ban religion entirely from the schools because I, at least, learned to tolerate and respect of others beliefs from the inclusive nature of the school district's policies.

Personally, I object to the imposition of Atheism as the only permissible Religious Display as much as I would the impostion of any other religion as the only permissible Religious Display.

Intolerance on all sides is what makes a speciaous threat to ban the Bible believable to many otherwise rational people and in the context of a close election it doesn't take convincing a big percentage of voters to make a difference in the election.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was arguing against you.

What I meant was if anything I said when a leftist politico on the forum gave you a bad view of liberals, I apologize for those statements. It had nothing to do with opinions of liberals or religious people.

Most of my post was reminiscing on living around the paranoid bits of Christianity and what they did to affect school life and what I've noticed of those people in their opinions of liberals and with religious calls like these.

Believe me, as part of a community that knows who you are and to the religious right what you are, I know well your fear of their policies. Heck, most of what currently is the democratic party is cobbled together of groups frightened of how much power the religious right is wielding.

I also hope I didn't sound like I was bashing religion in general. My best friend and many other of my friends are devout Christians who heavily read and interpret the Bible. My dismay has never been about those like them who live their faith, but rather the paranoid ones who were their parents, who were quick to interfere in all ways of life in the name of religion and morality. Hope I'm making any sense.

LOL,

My view of liberals has improved tremendously since I began posting here

 

[cantdog]

Weird, my towns had dozens of churches, too. [I have to say "towns" in the plural because we moved every two years until I struck high school.] There was a smattering of eastern religions, a few muslims (who in most cases had to have Friday prayers in the basement of the Unitarian Universalist churches) and a decent proportion of Jews.

As I passed through the schools in question, the distance from WW II increased, but Jews have had reason to fear the exclusivity and dominance of Christians. WW II was not an isolated case, just a record-setter. Pogroms occurred all too frequently.

Again, this is history. I resent the aversion to "political threads," when the discussion in them is frequently merely historical. It bears on the human condition generally. Ignoring your situation to discuss a television show or pop music is hardly virtue.

Very well. Despite the acres of churches, the prayers I described and the panicky bannings and persecutions Lucifer Carroll alludes to continued just the same. The prayers themselves largely ceased with the Warren court's fatwa, and the teachers became more diffident about religious subjects in class, but the drumbeat of persecutory pro-Christian campaigns persisted.

A pentacle was inflammatory and inappropriate, as were the mogen david, the peace symbol, the image of Lenin or of Che, and so on. Not to mention To Kill A Mockingbird and The Catcher in the Rye and Portnoy's Complaint!

Over time, evolution became equally inappropriate and the school texts were Bowdlerized out of all usefulness. My daughter's Earth Science text was extremely timid about asserting the age of the planet, for example.

This accomplished an image of Christians as anti-scientific kooks who deliberately pretended to flat-earth views, and they did it to themselves. Some of liberal's contempt for these people rests on their experience of their children being subjected to that kind of pressure. Creationism, dating the rocks by the calculations of Bishop Usher-- These people would also have forced Galileo to recant, one felt.

As the millenial aspirations supervened beginning about 1984, the agitation in Christian circles became more intense. The Church of the Living God, Pillar and Ground of Truth preached from the pulpit that the End Times were here; the Jehovah's Witnesses were completely convinced that 1984 was IT, and then 1990-something, I forget. Social security numbers were the Mark of the Beast. Little tracts were passed out about 666 occuring in the computers of the world, and whatnot. People began to worship the Bible itself as if it were an idol. Only in the KJV, of course...

So I do not find the anti-Christian sentiment groundless.

I am a tolerant man. I used to believe that, as you say, these sorts of "Christians" do not actually represent the views or beliefs of the mainstream Christians. So why didn't these majority, mainstream churchgoers denounce the Creationist schoolbooks and help us out getting a sane education for our children? Now, I'm pretty certain that this kind of bizarre fringe Christian is indeed the majority and that the Christian agenda in the main is hostile to the muslim, the Jew, and the atheist alike.

I am beginning to see that my tolerant view, to let them have their religion, is no longer in my best interest. They are out on the street with their bloody-fetus posters, on the television with their anti-Semitic rants, and voting to inflict the millions with AIDS for fear of the condom.

 

[cloudy]

I think, Cant, that the reason you don't hear the more tolerant Christians speaking out against those that aren't is that they are more tolerant of differences.

My mother, for instance, is a practicing Methodist. I've been to church with her, and you don't hear sermons about the other religious denominations going to hell, and God isn't an angry, avenging diety.

I've always been very tolerant of other's beliefs - live and let live, I've always thought.

But, you're right. It's getting to the point where the live and let live mindset is becoming dangerous. I have no objection to others praying around me, no matter who they pray to, but when it looks like I'm going to have to live with legislation that will force me to act as the more vocal fundamentalist Christians see fit, I become worried.

I'm very worried.

 

[cloudy]

Jett: I always thought hypnotism was a bunch of bunk.

Jimmy: It is, but lesser mind are always succeptable to cheap theatrics.

Please do not assume that people that have a strong belief in something have a "lesser mind."

I find it extremely offensive, the stereotypes that abound here from the so-called liberals. IMHO, that's just as narrow-minded as others are accused of being.

 

[cantdog]

I think, Cant, that the reason you don't hear the more tolerant Christians speaking out against those that aren't is that they are more tolerant of differences.

My mother, for instance, is a practicing Methodist. I've been to church with her, and you don't hear sermons about the other religious denominations going to hell, and God isn't an angry, avenging diety.

I've always been very tolerant of other's beliefs - live and let live, I've always thought.

But, you're right. It's getting to the point where the live and let live mindset is becoming dangerous. I have no objection to others praying around me, no matter who they pray to, but when it looks like I'm going to have to live with legislation that will force me to act as the more vocal fundamentalist Christians see fit, I become worried.

I'm very worried.

I'm not sure the millenial hopes have left the churches in the same place about those things.

By that, I mean that the urge to fundamentalism comes from the occurrance of disasters. A planeful of murderers bash a building, a record number of hurricanes, whatever the provocation: the event or events are perceived suddenly as a wake-up call from the OT God (OT is Old Testament; it's the shorthand we use in the biz.).

When God is raining Assyrians down on you, plagues and floods, wars and the rumors of wars, the fundamentalist impulse is to consider what their society may have done to piss God off. Whatever it is has to be fixed, to get back on the good side of the deity. It's the gays! It's the godless evolutionists! Whoever it is has to be stopped!

I see a lot more excuse for fundamentalism in most muslim countries, which have been colonialized and can no longer make their own decisions as a people. Colonialized by non-muslims, even. Now those dudes have something that needs to be fixed. Islam is the most widely held religion on the planet and has the most adherents, and yet the world powers have not been muslim for a couple of centuries now. Of the muslim countries, only Pakistan has the bomb.

What did we do, they think, to make God so angry at us?

America, on the other hand, is sitting on top of the world. The worst fist-of-God thing lately to happen to us was 3000 killed, 6000 casualties all told. Not very bad, considering the immense numbers getting cancers and smashing cars into things. But they feel the same fundamentalist panic, just with less excuse for it.

But in these times (!) it's easier for Christians to feel the urge to uncompromising purification of their society. The actual causes of the hurricanes and the planeloads of martyrs for Allah are not even considered, for some perverse reason. On the 700 Club, the blame was laid on the sodomites right away, the day after the planes hit the towers.

cantdog

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I'd just rather not have the religious-anything at the button of a nuke.

 

[Liar]

I'd just rather not have the religious-anything at the button of a nuke.

I'd just rather not have nukes.

 

[Weird Harold]

Very well. Despite the acres of churches, the prayers I described and the panicky bannings and persecutions Lucifer Carroll alludes to continued just the same. The prayers themselves largely ceased with the Warren court's fatwa, and the teachers became more diffident about religious subjects in class, but the drumbeat of persecutory pro-Christian campaigns persisted.

I think a LOT of the "pro-christian campaigns" didn't really begin until the"Warren Court's Fatwa." They're more counter-attacks against the "Atheist Liberals" who are offended by anyone expressing their faith publically than attacks on other religions.

Or at least they started out that way -- fundamentalist intolerance has taken over a movement that only wished to maintain the status quo; which from MY experience wasn't all that bad.

I doubt "Liberals" will see the pro-christian movements as something THEY created any more than they can see how an allegation of "Liberals" planning to ban the Bible cna be taken seriously by anyone.

It's all about intolerance on BOTH sides -- or at least a perception of intolerance in the opposition that must be met with counter-intolerance.

 

[cantdog]

I think a LOT of the "pro-christian campaigns" didn't really begin until the"Warren Court's Fatwa." They're more counter-attacks against the "Atheist Liberals" who are offended by anyone expressing their faith publically than attacks on other religions.

Or at least they started out that way -- fundamentalist intolerance has taken over a movement that only wished to maintain the status quo; which from MY experience wasn't all that bad.

Nope. They were banning books and burning Beatle records right along. Try growing up gay in 1954.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a big deal. KKK stood for Kill Kikes and Katholics, too, remember. Nope, Weird. I don't think the Warren fatwa started Christian religious intolerance whatsoever. Ask the LDS folks whoi it was that ran them out of Nauvoo.

cantdog

 

[Weird Harold]

Try growing up gay in 1954.

Difficult to accomplish because I already exist in that time/space coordinate as an asexual small-town five year old.

Nope, Weird. I don't think the Warren fatwa started Christian religious intolerance whatsoever.

Religious intolerance has been around for centuries, but the legal battles against the influnce of the evil atheist liberals over schooling is a relatively recent twist brought to it's current state by the Warren Court decision on prayer in schools and subsequent decisions regarding religious displays on "public property."

Prior to the Warren Court's decision, the law had always protected religious expression -- Especialy from terrorist groups like the KKK.

From that point, the courts have been manipulated to suppress religious expression in public and force it into hiding. Protestants like being ghettoized no more than Jews, Catholics and Budhists do.

 

[fogbank]

You know, there's something really hypocritical at play here: atheists complain about Christians have entrenched their bias in the schools and in the courthouses of the nation; and then the atheists attempt to remove any Christian bias and replace it with an atheist bias. Fundamentalist atheists (I just made up that phrase, but I think it works) seek to create a nation in which their spirituality (or lack of it) is not challenged--really what any religious group has sought. It's a natural instinct, but atheists are wrong to take the higher ground and pretend that they are above the battles they accuse other religions of fighting. An atheist who seeks to remove prayer from school is as guilty of forcing their bias as a Christian who seeks to maintain prayer in school. Of course, the atheist will claim that s/he is speaking for all religious minorities, but I really don't believe that--the admittedly small sample of muslims and hindu I know don't particularly care about the prevelence of Christianity in north-american culture, as long as they are not hindered from practicing their own religion.

I have my own personal bias: I am an atheist/agnostic of muddled spirituality. A perpetual state of struggle between Christianity and atheism but tolerant of a wide range of religious beliefs is probably the sort of society I'd best like to see, as that sort of persuasion best reflects my own spirituality. But really, whatever my spirituality is, I believe that I could successfully practice it regardless of the political/religious climate of the country I live in--and for that reason, I really don't care if the country I live in swears by God or by Allah or by science or by anything else.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

On occasion, due to the nature of my environment, classes break off into discussion on topics like this one. I would agree with the notion of "religious people other than Christians care little for the preponderance of Christianity in America"... I can't say all of them, but most all I've ever known (and a liberal arts college can get pretty diverse).

I was in the middle of teaching, when one class steered into the park of "America is heavily Christian". Notably, one Hindu student--proper from India and very well spoken (I believe he was pre-Pharmacy)--commented on how he would take great offense to many of the more athiestic people he knew, were they where he came from. The heavily Hindu influences of where he was from was a part of the culture, and not everyone was Hindu of course and many were even athiestic, but the climate was different.

An athiestic person, where he was from, who labored for the removal of all religious experience in workplaces and schools, would be seen, as he put it, as a "jerk". The idea being that it doesn't harm or hinder the areligious for religious behavior to occur, and that it would harm but moreso hinder the religious for their right to express themselves spiritually to be censored.

I wasn't sure whether I agreed with him, the issue is really, really deep and not cut-and-dry at all. But he made a good point. He felt that America was a little strange because we "allowed people to be jerks about anything".