Faith based (another political thread)

[Pure]

A couple proposed corrections:

Ogg said, [In France, in schools] Wearing a cross on a necklace is not allowed.

This is not accurate. Wearing a large, conspicuous Mel Gibson type cross is not allowed.**{see CBS story, appended below}

Weird Harold said,

I do have a problem with the lawsuits that followed Ms O'hair's precedent -- both successful and unsuccessful that led to things like an elementary school girl expelled for wearing a pin she was awarded for doing well in bible study.

Show the evidence: 1) That is happened. 2) Whether the expulsion 'stood' and the policy continued, or the decision was immediately nullified. 3) That there ever a court decision to that effect, about wearing a pin. 4) Most crucially, that various court decisions, some of which I've posted summaries of, "led to" the girl's expulsion, assuming FTSOA that it happened.

I submit we're being given either a fairy tale, or a distorted account of an actual incident from one nutcase principal; for I'm sure children across the land are wearing crosses on necks and pins from Bible study, if they choose, and the "atheists" haven't started Stalinist rule of the US.

====
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/02/world/main597565.shtml

France Bans Head Scarves In School

PARIS, March 3, 2004


(AP) A law banning Islamic head scarves in France's public schools was adopted Wednesday in the Senate by a vote of 276-20.

The vote mirrored similar overwhelming support by the National Assembly, the lower chamber of parliament, which passed it 494-36 on Feb. 10.

President Jacques Chirac must now formally sign it into law within 15 days. He had said such a law was needed to protect the French principle of secularism.

The law forbids religious apparel and signs that "conspicuously show" a student's religious affiliation. Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses would also be banned, but the law is aimed at removing Islamic head scarves from classrooms.

The measure is to take effect with the start of the new school year in September.

The Senate, which like the lower house is controlled by conservatives such as Chirac, dismissed 23 proposed amendments raised in two days of debate. The amendments were offered mainly by the left.

The law is to be re-examined after a year in force to see whether "conspicuous" should be replaced by "visible." [end verbatim excerpt}

 

[Weird Harold]

Weird Harold said,

I do have a problem with the lawsuits that followed Ms O'hair's precedent -- both successful and unsuccessful that led to things like an elementary school girl expelled for wearing a pin she was awarded for doing well in bible study.

Show the evidence: 1) That is happened. 2) Whether the expulsion 'stood' and the policy continued, or the decision was immediately nullified. 3) That there ever a court decision to that effect, about wearing a pin. 4) Most crucially, that various court decisions, some of which I've posted summaries of, "led to" the girl's expulsion, assuming FTSOA that it happened.

1: The incient was related by the mother of the little girl in a thread on the GB in the last week.

2: The "expulsion" stood only long enough to remove the "offensive" pins bcause the mother didn't fight the school rules.

3: The school rules are not court mandated, but like many other school rules are the result of a FEAR OF LAWSUITS.

4: The rulings you posted are all prior to the lawsuits I object to -- they're precednts for successful suits about religion in schools, but subsequent lawsuits have gone far beyond the valid issue of compulsory prayer. It's gone from protection to repression.

The problem is also not the successful lawsuits but the unsuccessful lawsuits and threats of lawsuits that lead to repressive school rules that bar the personal expressions of faith that exert no "compulsion" on their fellow students other than simply exposing them to another's beliefs.

The mother who complained about her daughter not being allowed towear a pin withthe word "God" on it a) can't afford the expense of fighting the rule and b) believes she wouldn't be able to win if she did because of the misunderstandings rampant about the meaning of decisions like those you posted.

The school, like many others, has such strict rules on religious symbols and religious expression because of the FEAR of lawsuits that a) take scarce school funding to defend against and b) given the variety of lower court cases which produce what appear on the surface to be conflicting opinions rather than fine distinctions in the law, they aren't sure they could win.

The Supreme Court is revisiting the Ten Commandments issue because of conflicting opinions by lower courts. The Ten Commandments Issue is an outgrowth some of the precedents set regarding voluntary religious expression in the schools, which in turn are an outgrowth of precedents set regarding compulsory religious expression in schools.

The issue of "religious repression" through lawsuits and threat of lawsuits has gone far beyond the schools and "compulsory prayer" in schools.

The issue has spread far beyond "Christian Prayers and symbols" to lawsuits about menorahs in public parks, christmas trees and nativity scenes that are "too prominently displayed" on private or church property, wiccans being allowed to gather for soltice celebrations in National Parks, on land controlled by the BLM, and in City Parks, and a whole host of other lawsuits, both successful and unsuccessful, that have made the news in the last two decades.

There is a "climate of fear" about public expression of religion in this country that results in schools and local governments "erring on the side of caution" in imposing rules and regulations that forbid any public expression -- or in some cases even publically VISIBLE expressions -- of religion that bar both majority and minority religions from freely expressing their religion; except of course quietly behind closed doors so nobody could possibly be offended by their faith.

Whether Atheists are behind the "conspiracy" or not, they are, by default, the sole remaing belief system that is "permitted" to publically express their "faith" without a court battle to insure their "freedom of speech." There is at least a perception that there little chance of them winning a case based on their "freedom of religion."

I object to anyone forcing anyone else to participate in any religious practice, but I also object to anyone denying anyone the right to publically display that they even have a religion.

The USA hasn't descended to the level of the French example of expelling Sikh's for following their religion's dress code because it violates their school dress codes -- dress codes explicity enacted to supress another religion's dress code, BTW

At least the USA hasn't descended quite that far YET. But our litigious society is certainly headed that way because our schools and local governments can't afford to risk lawsuits and, IMHO, rightly expect lawsuits over permitting any hint of public religious expression or symbolism where they have jurisdiction.

 

[cantdog]

Undoubtedly, Weird is right. People have scared themselves silly over this stuff.

The crap about atheist liberals taking your Bibles away is a big part of what caused it; so, in my view is the usual level of rationality in administrators, who cannot grasp a legal argument with a pair of glue dipped gloves.

 

[oggbashan]

A couple proposed corrections:

Ogg said, [In France, in schools] Wearing a cross on a necklace is not allowed.

This is not accurate. Wearing a large, conspicuous Mel Gibson type cross is not allowed.**{see CBS story, appended below}

The law forbids religious apparel and signs that "conspicuously show" a student's religious affiliation. Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses would also be banned, but the law is aimed at removing Islamic head scarves from classrooms.

The CBS story does not match the reality. The interpretation of the law in French schools depends on the local view of 'conspicuous'. A small bandanna is regarded as 'conspicuous' if worn by an Islamic student. No doubt the interpretation of the law will evolve to permit some variation over time.

It seems to have had the desired effect of stopping 'conspicuous' display despite attempts by some fundamentalists to use students as agents provocateurs in an attempt to portray the law as an assault on their particular form of religion.

The CBS comment is not the law. The law applies to all religions, not just Muslims.

Og

 

[Pure]

Ogg said,

The CBS story does not match the reality.

Where is the mismatch. What is your source (url).


The law applies to all religions, not just Muslims.

Well, application to all was stated by me and in the cbs news (I posted), so I'm not sure who youre arguing with.

The point is about your statement:

Ogg said, [In France, in schools] Wearing a cross on a necklace is not allowed.

It is not correct. All of us agree--based on English news stories-- that the law refers to 'conspicuous' display, not 'visible' display.

Indeed the French, according to cbs are going to review that point. If you have sources to the contrary, post them. I see no point in tracking down the French wording, since you're not consistent in your claims and/or in engaging the point at issue.

===
The full Og,

The CBS story does not match the reality. The interpretation of the law in French schools depends on the local view of 'conspicuous'. A small bandanna is regarded as 'conspicuous' if worn by an Islamic student. No doubt the interpretation of the law will evolve to permit some variation over time.

It seems to have had the desired effect of stopping 'conspicuous' display despite attempts by some fundamentalists to use students as agents provocateurs in an attempt to portray the law as an assault on their particular form of religion.

The CBS comment is not the law. The law applies to all religions, not just Muslims.

 

[Pure]

Weird Harold said,

I do have a problem with the lawsuits that followed Ms O'hair's precedent -- both successful and unsuccessful that led to things like an elementary school girl expelled for wearing a pin she was awarded for doing well in bible study.

Pure said,
Show the evidence: 1) That is happened. [...]4) Most crucially, that various court decisions, some of which I've posted summaries of, "led to" the girl's expulsion, assuming FTSOA that it happened.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Weird H replied,

1: The incident was related by the mother of the little girl in a thread on the GB in the last week.

2: The "expulsion" stood only long enough to remove the "offensive" pins bcause the mother didn't fight the school rules.

3: The school rules are not court mandated, but like many other school rules are the result of a FEAR OF LAWSUITS.

4: The rulings you posted are all prior to the lawsuits I object to -- they're precednts for successful suits about religion in schools, but subsequent lawsuits have gone far beyond the valid issue of compulsory prayer. It's gone from protection to repression.

The problem is also not the successful lawsuits but the unsuccessful lawsuits and threats of lawsuits that lead to repressive school rules that bar the personal expressions of faith that exert no "compulsion" on their fellow students other than simply exposing them to another's beliefs.

The mother who complained about her daughter not being allowed towear a pin withthe word "God" on it a) can't afford the expense of fighting the rule and b) believes she wouldn't be able to win if she did because of the misunderstandings rampant about the meaning of decisions like those you posted.

The school, like many others, has such strict rules on religious symbols and religious expression because of the FEAR of lawsuits that a) take scarce school funding to defend against and b) given the variety of lower court cases which produce what appear on the surface to be conflicting opinions rather than fine distinctions in the law, they aren't sure they could win.[/i]

-----

While I don't have a problem with the claim that some administrators might be overly afraid of legal complications, and prefer to err on the side of caution, I do object to the attempt to characterize a "climate of fear" and repression. For one reason, it has an element of being self induced by wild (mis)apprehensions among evangelical Christians.

In any case, the evidence is strikingly scant. One woman on the GB of literotica.

I'd ask.

What's her name.
What's her child's name.
Where did this happen? In what school?
What exactly DOES the school regulation say?

However, assuming it happened, ftsoa. Assume we should accept 'general board' evidence: Is there more than one piece? Harold, were there dozens of posters who, in response to the woman, reported similar incidents?
---

As far as the other key issue, I'm glad we reaching some bit of agreement:

Whether Atheists are behind the "conspiracy" or not, they are, by default, the sole remaing belief system that is "permitted" to publically express their "faith" without a court battle to insure their "freedom of speech." There is at least a perception that there little chance of them winning a case based on their "freedom of religion."

I object to anyone forcing anyone else to participate in any religious practice, but I also object to anyone denying anyone the right to publically display that they even have a religion.

Youre questioning, I think, whether 'atheists' are behind the current turns of events, though you're claiming they're the sole beneficiaries. You are admitting it's quite hard for 2% to 'repress' the 98%, in the American setting? How do you account for the absence of a constitutional amendment for school prayer?

Corroborating your claims about 'climate', one news source stated that, in a poll taken after the Schempp and Murray decisions (1963) , 75% percent favored a constitutional remedy. My theory is that there was a big 'head of steam', in light of church officials saying 'God is now unconstitutional' but that it rapidly dissipated.

 

[Weird Harold]

However, assuming it happened, ftsoa. Assume we should accept 'general board' evidence: Is there more than one piece? Harold, were there dozens of posters who, in response to the woman, reported similar incidents?

The instance reported on the general board did generate a couple of other anecdotes in support.

But you miss the point that this was just one recent anecdote that citing polls and reactions from 1963 do nothing to address.

I've said several times that I don't have a problem with the court decisions from the 40's 50's and 60's although they mark a turning point in the separation of church and state.

What I have a problem with is people who use those precedents as a wedge and threat to suppress personal expressions of faith in public.

You haven't commented on my references to an unsuccessful lawsuit to keep a Texas student body from using the school stadium PA for pre-game prayers.

You haven't commented on my allegations of all religious expression being banned from National Parks, BLM land, and other public places. (Surely the National Park Service and BLM have enough lawyers to know whether a lawsuit is likely or likely to succeed but use permits for religious gatherings are routinely denied.)

I'd run down specific citations for specific instances if I was inclined to wade through the mass of news stories involving religious expression in schools, lawsuits, and threats of lawsuits.

Even after a several of decades of legal opinions, court cases won and lost, and carefully drafted school regulations, there is at least one news story a year touching on the issue of what is and isn't allowed in the way of religious symbols concerning the Clark County Nevada school system.

From my somewhat casual awareness of national news it seems that Clark County is in no way abnormal in that respect -- assuming that only a fraction of such stories make the national news -- and two or three stories each year do make it to the national news. If only ten percent of school district have one case a year that still adds up to hundreds of small instances every year -- and those are just the cases that are challenged. The passive acceptance cases where students a just shrug their shoulders and comply with rules they disagree with are unknowable.

Now it's been at least 41 years since the supreme court ruled on prayer in school. Dozens of additional Supreme Court decisions have followed -- you'd think that the limits of religious expression would be fairly firmly defined by now.

Yet the Supreme is once again taking up a separation of church and state issue in the current session. Not over a compulsory participation issue but over a passive symbol of religion that 99% of the people exposed to it ignore as a simple decoration -- if they notice it at all.

I think the issue of coercion and official promotion of religion by government agencies is fairly well defined -- so who is behind the continuing lawsuits and threat of lawsuits over increasingly less significant religious expressions?

What is the purpose of these lawsuits if not to completely erase religious expression from public view? The vast majority of religious expression lawsuits are directed at Christian symbols but then the majority of targets for repression are Christian -- menorahs and other jewish symbols aren't exempt, nor are pentagrams and other pagan symbols.

I wonder when religious artwork will make the change from "art treasure" to "religious symbol?"

Oh wait, no I don't wonder after all -- it started about two years ago when a proposed mural for a city hall somewhere in new england was accepted and then rejected to settle a threatened lawsuit; the mural depicted an historic church in the area that showed the cross on it's steeple! The story made a very short splash in the news during a slow news week when I was bored enough to actually read the crawl on Headline News Channel -- not a big enough splashto make the actual news commentary, mind you, just enough to be used as filler on the news crawl nobody pays any attention to.

You ask how 2% of the population can "coerce" or "impose" their will on the majority? The answer is to file suit over every little instance of religious symbolism or just threaten to sue if the government body is small enough they can't afford to push the issue.

You can create a "climate of fear" that lead schools to adopt blanket "Zero Tolerance" policies that single mothers can't afford to challenge in court.

2% of the population can win just enough of their spurious challenges in the courts to make any lawsuit that includes the word religion too expensive for any school district or city government to risk.

2% of the population can make enough noise that they make news and thus give the impression that the people and/or the courts support their agenda to repress all visible signs of religion.

 

[Pure]

I'm not sure the argument can go anywhere, Harold. To argue the 2% atheists are oppressing and repressing the 98% is much like the argument that the 10% gay are foisting a gay agenda on the 90%.

Evangelicals of right wing bent are going to be finding the sort of cases you speak of, under every bed.

You haven't commented on my references to an unsuccessful lawsuit to keep a Texas student body from using the school stadium PA for pre-game prayers.

I don't doubt that by scouring the papers, the right wing zealots can find a few dozen cases like that every year. That's the sort of thing Limbaugh or Coulter is going to run with.

I don't even doubt that somewhere a cautious principal may have asked a student to remove a 'God Loves Me' pin.

What I doubt is the whole worldview; the eagerness of the right wing Christians to find persecutory incidents, and (in a sense) be persecuted.

Out of all the tens of thousands of incidents, frivolous lawsuits, etc., selection of facts can produce seeming backup for any conclusion. There are right wing publications and websites and news commentators hunting this stuff down, like diamonds in the mud.

These people, of course, ignore any of the incidents of the sort that Cant reported. The pressure on a 'nonbelieving' child to 'find Jesus' is not reported by these folks. Indeed, if they knew of it, they'd see nothing wrong.

My contention is that, in reality, the picture is usually *opposite* to what you've presented. It's usually the atheist or muslim or wiccan that's getting shafted. Just as it's usually the gay or lesbian that's getting a raw deal. The reality is that perceived 'deviants' get the shaft, and the claims of 'repression of the majority' through lawsuits are almost entirely bogus. IMHO.

 

[Weird Harold]

You haven't commented on my references to an unsuccessful lawsuit to keep a Texas student body from using the school stadium PA for pre-game prayers.

I don't doubt that by scouring the papers, the right wing zealots can find a few dozen cases like that every year. That's the sort of thing Limbaugh or Coulter is going to run with.

It doesn't take a great deal of searching unless you're looking through the newspaper morgues for past cases. They usually fade away fairly wuickly unless one side or the other has the will and finances to press the issue into the courts.

These people, of course, ignore any of the incidents of the sort that Cant reported. The pressure on a 'nonbelieving' child to 'find Jesus' is not reported by these folks. Indeed, if they knew of it, they'd see nothing wrong.

The incidents of the sort Cantdog reported don't exist any more -- for the most part, they haven't existed since the early sixties, late sixties at the latest. The court case you cited from the forties fifties and early sixties killed them and justly so.

Cantdog and I are roughy of an age, and I also experienced prayer over the school PA system and mandatory recitation of the pledge of allegieance with the newly added phrase "under God" in it.

Apparently my school district was a bit mor religiously diverse because there were several students who had religious issues with the form of the morning prayer and the pledge of allegiance. The school district accomodated their religious needs to the satisfction of the children and their parents without resorting to lawsuits. None of them seemed to be scarred or affected adversely -- well except for one pastor's daughter that went a bit wild in high school, but I don't think it was listening to the wrong prayer or listening to the Pledge in the first grade that caused it.

My contention is that, in reality, the picture is usually *opposite* to what you've presented. It's usually the atheist or muslim or wiccan that's getting shafted.

If that were the case, I'd be very much in favor of as many lawsuits as it takes to protect their right to observe their religion as they wish. The problem is that they are NOT the only ones being told they can't display religious symbols or follow the dictates of their religion in public.

I've watched the progress of removing religion from schools and public places for forty years or so that I've been politically aware to one degree or another.

I've watched the goals of the lawsuits change from removing active coercion to removing passive permission to removing passive public symbols, to removing personal expression of faith on the part of teachers and government officials -- including "smear and fear" campaigns against JFK claiming he'd turn the US over to the Pope and force everyone to be Catholic -- to suppression of stuents' rights to religious expression.

I've watched the targets of lawsuits connected to schools progress from school districts to individual school administrators to individual teachers to individual students.

I've watched the lawsuits expand from schools, to courthouses, to city halls, to public libraries in a few cases, to public parks, to public streets, to areas merely visible from public streets, to national parks, and to BLM controlled expanses of empty desert.

I've watched the slow reactions to the lawsuits and fears of lawsuits change the holiday decorations and names of school breaks -- no "Easter Vacations" or "Christmas Vactions" is the result of a successful lawsuit, BTW; like kids care why they don't have to go to school.

I've watched the restrictions and repressions expand to ALL religious expression in any venue that can be remotely considered "Public" whether it's visible or not -- some amorphous possibly divine being forbid that some poor hiker stumble on a religious retreat's sunrise service ten miles from the nearest road.

I don't know whether it's "an atheist plot" or interfaith warfare or hiding suppression of perverts behind repression of all religions or waht (or who) is behind the expansion of the scope and targets of anti-religion lawsuits, but I've been watching it get worse for forty years now and it gets more effective every year in spite of the proportions of religious people of all faiths in this country.

Just as it's usually the gay or lesbian that's getting a raw deal. The reality is that perceived 'deviants' get the shaft, and the claims of 'repression of the majority' through lawsuits are almost entirely bogus. IMHO.

You're entitled to your opinion, but how do YOU explain the changes I've witnessed over the last forty years.

Incidently, I'm a "pantheistic agnostic" and have no real stake in the repression of religious expression -- other than an occasional religiously based profanity, I have no external signs of my faith. I just see no logic or benefit in forcing religion into the closet.

Unlike some people, I don't feel threatened by other people's religion -- I grew up in a town of 3,500 people that had thirty different churches and learned to respect others beliefs. I miss tht diversity -- an areligious world is boring and sombody is trying to turn America into an areligious country; an Officially areligious country, which it was never intended to be.

It seems that we've reached the point where only the Seventh Day Aventists and Latter Day Saints are brave enough to admit to having a religious belief to a stranger and even most of them aren't brave enough to do so in a public school.

I can't remember when the last tie I saw a nun's habit in public or a priest wearing his collar away from his Parish business.

I don't want to go back to the bad old days of regimented and coerced prayers and judges preaching from the bench, but I would like to see some of the religious tolerance this country claims to hold dear and I experienced in my home town.

In just twenty-some years, we've gone from celebrating the quiet but very public faith of Jimmy Carter to reviling GWB for admitting that the various religion sponsored charities are doing a better job of caring for people than welfare and the government.

 

[oggbashan]

The French Experience

There have been only two sets of expulsions from French schools under the new law - one for Muslims, one for Sikhs. In both cases the expulsions came after some months of attempted mediation and compromise. - source Yahoo France News files (in French of course)

Locally, we are twinned with a French town. I can get to that town nearly as quickly as to Central London. They come here frequently. Talking to the twinning association I have heard that some teachers in that town have had to have a quiet word with one or two pupils about overt or 'conspicuous' Christian imagery but that their few Muslim pupils have complied with the law after discussion at their mosque. The 'Christian' pupils have generally taken the line that not wearing Christian symbols is a courtesy to their Muslim friends who feel hurt by the new law.

The emphasis appears to be that people can be French Muslims but not Muslims who are French. Therefore the Muslims in the French community should fulfil their obligations as French people and while they are free to be Muslim or to be members of any other religion that should come after acknowledging their nationality. Even non-French Muslims are expected to obey the law at school. Saudi Arabia is quoted as an example of reciprocal treatment. Women visiting Saudi Arabia are expected to comply with local customs in public. 'When in Rome...'

Og

 

[cantdog]

Welfare systems are a liberal device, a New Deal device. Without liberal government to maintain it, of course it fails.

Non liberal governments have made the social safety net much more hostile to applicants. Reagan with his New Meanness programs (whatever they were officially called, a New Meanness is what they represented) and all the rhetoric about Cadillac-driving, opulent welfare moms, largely gutted the welfare systems in favor of nothing at all. At least now an alternative is proposed.

It is workfare of one sort or another, sometimes. For me this is indentured labor in a debtor's-prison setting. If you are now homeless or poor, work as we tell you to, in exchange for bare bones subsistence. Great deal, eh? Charitable impulse at its most compassionate!

The alternative to workfare is to shovel government monies into selected churchly enterprises, and let them provide charitable help to the extent they like. Good deal for a churchly enterprise. Not so good for a homeless person, but at least slave labor isn't part of the package.

It sounds like enriching churches and developing another pool of cheap labor is the new answer to poverty. No answer at all, of course, but these people actually like poverty. It makes people desperate enough to work for very little and accept being dropped ruthlessly from the payroll for any reason or for none.

Corporations benefit, short-term, from a general impoverishment of the underclass, and lowered expectations.

Desperation can be dangerous, of course. But they have a very large and well-armed army of uniformed people to respond to any real threat the desperate might pose. They now have a surveillance capability unprecedented here to monitor the moves toward a free society and check them before they can develop into anything strong.

This isn't what I was told America was like, but it seems to suit the business community. People, to a business, are just one more cost.

 

[Pure]

I don't know about you, Ogg, and others, and it may be very non-PC of me, but, with some reservations, I lean toward supporting the French law.

OTOH, the Sikh turban issue has arisen here, and I lean toward allowing that-- how else can the hair, never cut, for some, be kept out of the way.

The Sikh 'dagger' (kirpan) issue has arisen also, and the compromise--in most places-- is that the Sikn students will carry a smaller, plastic replica of one; symbolic, as it were.

In some cases, the dagger rule has been successfully challenged on grounds that the dagger has not been ever used offensively, and is a religious symbol.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1994676.stm

Incidentally, I knew an Arab woman living in Israel, who wore a narrow (1/4 in wide) cloth band across her head (like the springy plastic things that keep women's hair back ) as a symbol of the scarf. That avoids the whole 'gray area' problem that's occured in other locations of trying to decide if a bandana is a scarf.

 

[oggbashan]

I don't know about you, Ogg, and others, and it may be very non-PC of me, but, with some reservations, I lean toward supporting the French law.

...

The French have a high proportion of Muslims. The law was discussed with the Muslim community (not agreed with them) before it was passed.

It only applies in state schools. It seems to be interpreted with discretion and is only a problem with extreme manifestations of religious symbolism - that is what it was aimed at.

In the UK there is no such law but schools can have rules about appropriate clothing. Again extremes are discouraged but there are more cases about fashion than about religious forms of dress. Face-veiling is not usually allowed but headscarves and turbans are.

The usual cases are about wearing gang identification symbols or extreme versions of school uniform - girls with too short (or too long) skirts; high heels; heavy boots; shirt-tails hanging out (a gang symbol); extreme hair styles; bare midriffs etc. Students will try to push the bounds. It is in the nature of many teenagers to rebel against authority and breaking the clothing rules is an easy way to be seen to be 'different' except they all tend to look the same.

In my school days, girls were forbidden to wear skirts shorter than three inches below the knee or petticoats with more than two layers; boys had to wear blazers, ties and caps when outside. Those rules were enforced by older pupils who had rights to wear acceptable alternatives to school uniform and they would oppose any infringement of their privileges.

Some UK schools have a Muslim version of the school uniform or a mandatory colour for the Sikh turban.

The French law appears to be working in France but the French have a tradition of ignoring laws they don't like e.g. bars are supposed to be smoke free if food is served. If they are smoke free a Los Angeles smog is a light sea mist.

Og

 

[bridgeburner]

With the overwhelming increase in Governmental support for Christianity in recent years---- faith-based initiatives, abstinance-only sex ed, Unborn Victims of Violent Crime Act, DOMA etc. --- I don't see how anyone can claim that the atheists are taking over the country. It's just not factual.

Over the past 50 years there have been changes made attempting to enforce the Constitutionally guaranteed separation of Church and State. This is not a repression of Christianity but a revocation of government subsidization of Christianity that Christians have taken for granted for many years. I understand that many Christians don't like it, but I also understand that many whites didn't like it when they were forced to share the front seats of busses with blacks.

To contend that some minority of athesists hold the US legal system in a forcible headlock is a specious argument. Litigants despite their number do not determine the outcome of court cases. That is decided by judges and juries. Fear of litigation in these matters is not due to the number of cases but due to the number of cases decided in favor of the separation of Church and State. Nobody likes to go to court knowing that the decision will be against him.

You can be mad about a decision that goes against you, but just because you're unhappy doesn't mean the decision was wrong or that you've been oppressed or conspired against. Sometimes no matter how staunchly you believe something you're just wrong.

One constantly hears the refrain "But why the lawsuit against 'Under God'? What't the big deal? Nobody makes you say it. It isn't important. Can't you just let it go?"

My question is that if it's so insignificant then why insist on keeping it? The truth is that it is in no way insignificant. The phrase was added very specifically to promote a Christian religious message. That was the stated purpose. The express goal.

If the pledge were to contain the words "Under Satan" no one would question that it was a specific religious message, highly offensive to non-satanists and clearly a violation of the Constitution. Those whose views are subsidized rarely recognize the special treatment they receive.

-B

 

[cantdog]

In Turkey the headscarf thing is charged with politics, since the state is resolutely secular and the more popular political parties are conservative Islamist. Islamists are for an implementation of Shari-a law, so they veil if they can.

Headscarves are thus not just muslim (everyone, practically, is muslim there) but arch-muslim in connotation. There have been imprisonments and beatings about headscarves in Turkey. The Sufi orders have a lot of clout and a good deal of money, and they tend to back the Islamist parties.

Just as well there isn't a chance France could become an Islamic "republic." It would add spice to the headscarf debate that no one would be happy about. People will send their kids in as shock troops for these causes, which seems reckless to me.


cantdog

 

[cantdog]

Bravo, bridgeburner.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

With the overwhelming increase in Governmental support for Christianity in recent years---- faith-based initiatives, abstinance-only sex ed, Unborn Victims of Violent Crime Act, DOMA etc. --- I don't see how anyone can claim that the atheists are taking over the country. It's just not factual.

Over the past 50 years there have been changes made attempting to enforce the Constitutionally guaranteed separation of Church and State. This is not a repression of Christianity but a revocation of government subsidization of Christianity that Christians have taken for granted for many years. I understand that many Christians don't like it, but I also understand that many whites didn't like it when they were forced to share the front seats of busses with blacks.

To contend that some minority of athesists hold the US legal system in a forcible headlock is a specious argument. Litigants despite their number do not determine the outcome of court cases. That is decided by judges and juries. Fear of litigation in these matters is not due to the number of cases but due to the number of cases decided in favor of the separation of Church and State. Nobody likes to go to court knowing that the decision will be against him.

You can be mad about a decision that goes against you, but just because you're unhappy doesn't mean the decision was wrong or that you've been oppressed or conspired against. Sometimes no matter how staunchly you believe something you're just wrong.

One constantly hears the refrain "But why the lawsuit against 'Under God'? What't the big deal? Nobody makes you say it. It isn't important. Can't you just let it go?"

My question is that if it's so insignificant then why insist on keeping it? The truth is that it is in no way insignificant. The phrase was added very specifically to promote a Christian religious message. That was the stated purpose. The express goal.

If the pledge were to contain the words "Under Satan" no one would question that it was a specific religious message, highly offensive to non-satanists and clearly a violation of the Constitution. Those whose views are subsidized rarely recognize the special treatment they receive.

-B

When you attack someone's religion, you should expect a powerful backlash. The fact that your attacks are acomplished with Lawyer's briefs and judicial review rather than burning torches and pitchforks, does not in any way mitigate the feeling of being persecuted. While you may consider it only right and proper, the perception of those who feel their religion is under attack is no less valid.

GWB & Co. are pushing faith and religion back into the public. 20 years ago, fundy christians didn't have the kind of political clout to influnce elections and legislatures. They are organized now and a powerful lobby.

It is my opionion that ordinary folks who are christians have flocked to the GOP's banners because the attacks on their religion come from the left. In effect, the monster that now threatens to send us all into a semi-theocracy was created by a few atheists and a lot of liberals. It is a monster of your own creation, and it is very close to consuming you.

If it were just you, I wouldn't care, but it threatens to consume me too and I do care about that. I'm a conservative, so it stands to reason I might feel this way, but I don't stand alone. A lot of liberals and leftists are begining to think the same way. Even Fiore, who is a little left of Lenin did a flash cartoon on it.

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/pledge.html

If there is a genisis of the religious right becoming a force in politics, I think you can trace it back to the non religious left making it an issue. When you asault someon'e religion they will, in general fight back. Wheter you view it as an assault or not is immaterial, it's the way they percieve it.

This isn't a hot button issue for me. I don't really care that much one way or the other. For those of you who see it as just and proper, I would suggest you exercise a little judicious restraint and try seeing it from the other side. As long as you are pounding court cases and they are pounding their bibles, no reasonable accomdation can be reached. Another four years of W and company and you may well find yourselves living in a world where "faith" is more a part of the public and political landscape than it ever was when you began this crusade to remove religion from public life in the first place.

-Colly

 

[Weird Harold]

The alternative to workfare is to shovel government monies into selected churchly enterprises, and let them provide charitable help to the extent they like. Good deal for a churchly enterprise. Not so good for a homeless person, but at least slave labor isn't part of the package.

There are several non-religious homeless and battered wives shelters in this area that benefit from the "faith-based initiatives." Ther are also Salvation Army and Catholic Charities operated homeless shelters here that have benefitted.

I don't have a problem with not discriminating against any organization that provides assistance to the poor and homeless whatever their motives -- which is what the "Faith Based Initiatives" is all about.

In the words of one homeless person interviewed by a local TV station, "being prayed over don't hurt none and it's better than going hungry." (This was BEFORE any faith based initiative was passed.)

Places like the Salvation Army Food Bank help people the government won't and don't require five pounds of paperwork before they'll consider helping. If my tax dollars MUST be used to help the poor and homeless, I'd prefer it was through an organization that actually helps without judgements.

Most of the Effective help for the poor and homeless comes from non-government non-profit organizations -- SOME of which are religious organizations.

 

[Weird Harold]

With the overwhelming increase in Governmental support for Christianity in recent years---- faith-based initiatives, abstinance-only sex ed, Unborn Victims of Violent Crime Act, DOMA etc. --- I don't see how anyone can claim that the atheists are taking over the country. It's just not factual.

As Collen points out, the increase ingoverment support for "christianity" is a result of the preception of a drive to drive ALL religious expression into the closet.

In efect it's aconfirmation that I'm NOT a lone lunatic who sees repression of religion instead of freedom of religion.

Over the past 50 years there have been changes made attempting to enforce the Constitutionally guaranteed separation of Church and State. This is not a repression of Christianity but a revocation of government subsidization of Christianity that Christians have taken for granted for many years.

The legal decisions began as enforcement of Separation of Church and State -- which IMHO is a bogus interpretation of the no establishment clause of the Constitution, BTW.

Ove rthe forty years I've observed the process, it has mutated to an attack on all public expression of religion -- whether Christian or otherwise.

To contend that some minority of athesists hold the US legal system in a forcible headlock is a specious argument. Litigants despite their number do not determine the outcome of court cases. That is decided by judges and juries. Fear of litigation in these matters is not due to the number of cases but due to the number of cases decided in favor of the separation of Church and State. ...

From the public statements of in defense of repressive school rules, the deciding factor is usually not whether a lawsuit can be won or lost, but the COST of defending against a lawsuit vs avoiding or settling a lawsuit.

[/B][/QUOTE]My question is that if it's so insignificant then why insist on keeping it? The truth is that it is in no way insignificant. The phrase was added very specifically to promote a Christian religious message. That was the stated purpose. The express goal. [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, the STATED Purpose of adding the phrase "under God" was to establish a clear antithesis to the State imposed atheism of the "godless communists" in the USSR. It was presented and adopted as a purely political statement that the US would never limit religious freedom as the USSR had.

In and of itself, the pharse is unimportant as a religious statement. I happen to believe that not resisting it's removal is an abandonment of the principle it was added to express.

If the pledge were to contain the words "Under Satan" no one would question that it was a specific religious message, highly offensive to non-satanists and clearly a violation of the Constitution. Those whose views are subsidized rarely recognize the special treatment they receive.

Since "under Satan" is a reference to a specific "God" it would indeed violate the establishment clause of the Consitution. However, Christians are not the only religion to believe in a "God" and noone has EVER legally been required to include that phrase when reciting the pledge of allegiance. (I'm sure that somone is going to assert that they were required to recite it exactly as written, but it has NEVER been legal to require that.)

The phrase "Under God" was chosen as much for poetic reasons -- it doesn't destroy the rhyme and meter of the pledge as much as the alternatives considered woud have -- and is as generic and ecumenical as possible.

What began as a "no-establishment" movement has morphed into a "no religion" movement that encomapasses ALL religions and violates the principles of religious freedom the founders wrote into the Consitution.

Were to apply for a grant to open a food bank or homeless shelter, I would doom any possibility of government assistance if I were foolish enough to answer "It's my christian duty" or "Allah told me to" -- whether I had any intention of diplaying religious symbols or requiring a religious observance.

That isn't Separation of Church and State, that's discrimination AGAINST Religion. If the grant would be given to me "because they need the help" or "because it would reduce crime" or any secular reason, denying it for an admitted religious reason is discrimination.

I don't care what your religion is or how you express it. I do care that you are increasingly inhibited or outright prohibited from expressin you personal faith.

Your personal faith is part of who you are -- your employer is barred by the civil rights act and Consitution from denying you a reasonable expression of your faith -- unless of course there is the remotest of connections to the government, in which case your employers are not only permitted but required to totally suppress any visible signs of religion in the workplace.

 

[cantdog]

Bravo, Weird.

When I was there reciting the pledge it was carefully explained that it was permissible to skip the words "under God" if I wanted to do so.

They didn't tell me anything like that about the Lord's Prayer, but certain other kids didn't say it just the same.

My objections were to the loudpeaker prayers and the Lord's Prayer sing-along, not the Pledge, which I started skipping entirely anyway, soon enough. Even at seven, I figured if I've given an oath, no purpose is served by endlessly repeating it. Is my word water?

One teacher did ask, and I said I'd already promised, and they'd just have to believe I meant it the first time. It worked, I guess; he didn't mention it again to me. What he put in some record somewhere I couldn't say. They held an election that year and Kennedy got in.

They can frig with the Pledge or not, just as they please. Tempest in a teapot.

Weird:Were to apply for a grant to open a food bank or homeless shelter, I would doom any possibility of government assistance if I were foolish enough to answer "It's my christian duty" or "Allah told me to" -- whether I had any intention of diplaying religious symbols or requiring a religious observance.

Not now. It'll save them millions in welfare if they can get this idea to fly.

Weird:From the public statements of in defense of repressive school rules, the deciding factor is usually not whether a lawsuit can be won or lost, but the COST of defending against a lawsuit vs avoiding or settling a lawsuit.

Quite so. Fear, pure and simple. The Jewish kids felt fear about the Christian loudspeakers, too. Fear is a motivator.

I got a fist, too. I get to swing it, but it has to stop short of the other fellow. Same with the loudspeaker prayers. Expressing your religion in someone's face is something I will continue to feel was justly stopped. I shall do my best to stop it this time, too, if anyone asks me. I can organize, too. I helped stop the Bund in my high school.

Weird:Your personal faith is part of who you are -- your employer is barred by the civil rights act and Consitution from denying you a reasonable expression of your faith -- unless of course there is the remotest of connections to the government, in which case your employers are not only permitted but required to totally suppress any visible signs of religion in the workplace.

I'll believe you, Weird. So, what's the problem?

It seems to me we can leave the Pledge as it is, leave the situation you describe here as it is, leave school prayer as it is. It all sounds good to me. Now if the pulpit would quit lying about how it is and scaring people all the time, maybe the principals would quit being so pusillanimous about possible bible-pin lawsuits.

Weird again:There are several non-religious homeless and battered wives shelters in this area that benefit from the "faith-based initiatives." Ther are also Salvation Army and Catholic Charities operated homeless shelters here that have benefitted.

I don't have a problem with not discriminating against any organization that provides assistance to the poor and homeless whatever their motives -- which is what the "Faith Based Initiatives" is all about.

They benefit from United Way, too. They benefit from church congregations. I give to them personally, and I buy food for the Food Cupboard and take strays in. You best believe my initiatives are not faith based.

I trust the Salvation Army, but I notice Franklin Graham is one very very rich motherfucker. He gets lots of money, too, but not from me. His politics are wonky. They're a faith based initiative, I bet, because the White House politics are just as wonky.

In the meantime, the other organization that helps the poor and homeless, the Health and Welfare in its myriad non-communicating branches, is being administered under rules that are designed to deny as much assistance as possible.

I had a ward of the State in my house for a year and a half, and they removed her medical insurance three times in that period with two alternating excuses for it. The case was passed from caseworker to caseworker every two months, so that no continuity existed. Her allowance was stopped once because they'd taken it into their heads down there to strike her from their records.

This is a kid whose mother died, a kid for whom the State was responsible. She was denied medical care because the State said they wouldn't pay. It was my first experience being denied care, and I didn't like it.

I didn't get angry in front of them, but spread honey, and got the damn things reinstated every time, but it was difficult. They know their job is to deny as much as they can. The agenda of the holy crusaders is to dismantle this altogether and throw the orphans at anyone else who will take them. It sounds iffy to me. It sounds a lot like washing their holy hands of a problem while claiming they're doing the right thing. This is typical, pure tells me, of Christians everywhere.

cantdog

 

[Weird Harold]

My objections were to the loudpeaker prayers and the Lord's Prayer sing-along, not the Pledge, which I started skipping entirely anyway, soon enough. Even at seven, I figured if I've given an oath, no purpose is served by endlessly repeating it. Is my word water?
...
I got a fist, too. I get to swing it, but it has to stop short of the other fellow. Same with the loudspeaker prayers. Expressing your religion in someone's face is something I will continue to feel was justly stopped. I shall do my best to stop it this time, too, if anyone asks me. I can organize, too. I helped stop the Bund in my high school.
...
I'll believe you, Weird. So, what's the problem?

You keep harping on how good it was that compulsory in your face prayer over the loudspeakers was a bad thing and rightly repressed. I have repeatedly agreed with you on that point.

The problem is that things have gone far beyond what you so strongly object to.

I have a dusty plaque of the praying hands and "serenity prayer" where it's easily visible to me at all times. I have it because I'm a reformed lush and it reminds me everyday that I shouldn't drink -- as many recovering alcholics do; not because I believe that God will do anything about the characteristics the serenity prayer requests, but because it's a reminder that I need to work towards those goals.

If I were a teacher or other government employee -- or even if my employer bid on government contacts, I could lose my job for keeping that reminder I need in my personal workspace.

Do you feel that is an appropriate restriction on my right to a reasonable expression of my faith? (or lack thereof in my case.)

I mention the praying hands serenity prayer plaque specifically because it has been the subject of several teacher firings and -- unsuccesful challenges to those firings -- because having anything that begins "God grant me..." displayed ina classroom is "an unacceptable expression of religion to a captive audience" even if it is just on the teacher's desk facing away from the classroom and never mentioned or refered to.

For your reference only with no intent to offend or convert you:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

 

[Pure]

Weird H said, in part,

Actually, the STATED Purpose of adding the phrase "under God" was to establish a clear antithesis to the State imposed atheism of the "godless communists" in the USSR. It was presented and adopted as a purely political statement that the US would never limit religious freedom as the USSR had.

In and of itself, the pharse is unimportant as a religious statement. I happen to believe that not resisting its removal is an abandonment of the principle it was added to express.

This is pretty far from the truth. It's hard to see how 'under God' implies 'no limit to religious freedom', except in the following peculiar way: IF religious freedom, as the right wing Christians say, means: "Freedom to be Christian or Jewish in any manner you choose." Or perhaps if it means "You're free to be a theist of any stripe."

Freedom concerning religion has to involve NOT taking it up. Correct, or not?

Remember that 'under God' was added in 1956, BEFORE the key decisions of Engel (1962) and Schempp/O'Hair (1963). I.e., before atheism was considered a protected position.

The religious purpose was clearly recongized at the time:
Here is Eisenhower's statement:


http://specials.about.com/zxfcp0.ht....about.com/cs/usconstitution/a/pledgehist.htm

The words "under God" were added in 1954 by then President Eisenhower, who stated at the time, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
--------

Notice that this is honest pro-religion, and directly counter to the interpretation you, WH, propose.

That the phrase is likely unconstitutional is stated in the following court case of Newdow, at the Appeals Ct level (The SC overturned it, on a technicality, see below; the issue stands; SC does NOT want this 'hot potato' at present.).

In closing, and before the references,

Your statement, below, is without foundation:

The legal decisions began as enforcement of Separation of Church and State -- which IMHO is a bogus interpretation of the no establishment clause of the Constitution, BTW.

Over the forty years I've observed the process, it has mutated to an attack on all public expression of religion -- whether Christian or otherwise.

Looking at the 'under God' controversy shows us that the issue is NOT 'attack on all public expression of religion', despite the scare tactics of the right. The attack is on official endorsement of theism, and subtle ways of offically placing nontheists outside the main body of devout, patriotic, and loyal citizenry.

Public *expression* of religion was seen in the Bush Kerry debates. Both *expressed* their commitments. This is no curtailment of the official *expression of religion, where informal and noncoercive, and no curtailment of UNofficial, individual, expressions of religion (e.g., the right to walk around town with "I love Jesus" in big letters on one's t-shirt) , bugbears of the Religious Right notwithstanding.

J.

PS. I'm checking these alleged firings over the serenity prayer; I suspect that IF TRUE, it's because posting it on the wall (or visible to all students talking to the teacher at his/her desk), including 'God', is saying to the kids, "This is how I pray to God" coming from the teacher *in an offical capacity.*

WH: I mention the praying hands serenity prayer plaque specifically because it has been the subject of several teacher firings and -- unsuccesful challenges to those firings --

A short Google search turns up nothing: Let me guess. Someone on the General Board *though not fired themselves* heard from some other person that this firing (of a third person) has happened somewhere, but no details were provided. We're obviously in the midst of a major repression of recovering alcoholics.

----


http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatedecisions/a/Newdow2002.htm
Newdow v. U.S. Congress (2002)

[verbatim summary and quotes from website]

Ninth Circuit Court Decision on Endorsement & Coercion

: After deciding that Michael Newdow had standing to bring his case and that it was possible for him and his daughter to be harmed by the state-endorsed recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, the Court considered whether or not the Pledge passed the “Endorsement Test” formulated by Justice O’Connor in Lynch v. Donnelly.

According to the majority opinion, the Pledge definitely endorses religion and religious belief: ...the phrase “one nation under God” in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and — since 1954 — monotheism.

...A profession that we are a nation “under God” is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation “under Jesus,” a nation “under Vishnu,” a nation “under Zeus,” or a nation “under no god,” because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion.Clearly, if “under no god” would entail a discouragement of religion and religious belief, then “under god” entails an encouragement of religion and religious beliefs. If “under no god” is unconstitutional, then “under god” must also be unconstitutional — they are two sides of the same question. Use of “under no god” would tell theists that they are outsiders; similarly, the Court held that the phrase “under god” sends a message to unbelievers “that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” (quoted in the decision from Lynch)

The Court further held that the Pledge fails the Coercion Test, as used in Lee v. Weisman. Just as in the Lee case, the Pledge forces students to choose between participating in an exercise with religious content or protesting — not something which the government should be permitted to do.

Although the Pledge could be invalidated on either of the above points, the Court then proceeded to apply the Lemon Test. To survive the Lemon Test and be found constitutional, a law must: (1) have a secular purpose, (2) have a principal or primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

According to the Court, the Pledge readily fails the first prong becausethe legislative history makes it clear that the purpose of the words “under God” was to advance religion. The defendants argued that the whole Pledge was not religious, but the Court recognized that this wasn’t relevant due to the fact that the problematic words “under God,” were specifically inserted long after the Pledge as a whole was formulated.

The school district’s policy itself failed the second prong of the Lemon Test because “the policy is highly likely to convey an impermissible message of endorsement to some and disapproval to others of their beliefs regarding the existence of a monotheistic God.”

The Court applied every possible test to the Pledge and the policy of reciting the pledge, finding that none of the tests were successful. As a result, the Court held that both the addition of the words “under God” and the school district’s policy itself were violations of the Establishment Clause. The decision of this panel of three judges was not unanimous.

According to the dissent, the conclusions reached above would end up being problematic because: ...we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings. “God Bless America” and “America The Beautiful” will be gone for sure, ....

[end verbatim summary and quotes]

{{Note: The judges suspended the *effect* of the above decision, pending review}}
-----
Supreme Ct and Newdow:
------

Supreme Court Dismisses Pledge Case on Technicality

Justices Do Not Decide Constitutionality of Reference to God in Pledge of Allegiance
By William Branigin and Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 14, 2004; 1:30 PM

The Supreme Court ruled today that a California atheist did not have the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, dismissing on procedural grounds a lower court's ruling in his favor but sidestepping the broader question of whether the pledge itself is constitutional.

The ruling effectively preserved the phrase "one nation under God" that is recited daily as part of the pledge by millions of schoolchildren across the country. But by basing the decision on a procedural issue, the Supreme Court left open the prospect that a challenge to the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance could come up again.

In a ruling that, coincidentally, was issued on Flag Day -- and on the 50th anniversary of the addition by Congress of the words "under God" to the pledge -- the justices voted 8-0 to overturn a ruling two years ago by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the pledge was unconstitutional in public schools because it violated the separation of church and state. Justice Antonin Scalia did not participate in the case.
=======

To refresh one's memory of the key decisions of the 60s (see url, in earlier posting. Summaries:

1962 - Engel v. Vitale
At issue is the classroom recitation of a prayer written by the New York Board of Regents. In 1951, in an effort to strengthen moral education in the schools, the Board composed what they considered a non-denominational prayer and encouraged local schools to recite the following at the start of each day: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country." The Supreme Court finds the required recitation of the prayer inconsistent with the Establishment Clause and rules that authorities may not compose official prayer to be said in public schools.

1963 - Abington School District v. Schempp
In a combination of the Schempp and Murray v. Curlett cases, the Supreme Court extends the school prayer decision by barring government-sponsored recitation of the Lord’s Prayer or Bible reading in public schools. In Schempp, a Pennsylvania law allowed for the reading of ten Bible verses in the beginning of class each day. In Murray v. Curlett a Maryland law required the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer or the reading of a passage from the Bible during the school’s opening exercises. The Supreme Court holds that neither program has a secular purpose, but both have the primary effect of advancing religion.
======

 

[Weird Harold]

This is pretty far from the truth. It's hard to see how 'under God' implies 'no limit to religious freedom', except in the following peculiar way: IF religious freedom, as the right wing Christians say, means: "Freedom to be Christian or Jewish in any manner you choose." Or perhaps if it means "You're free to be a theist of any stripe."

from:
In 1942, seven months after Pearl Harbor, Congress officially included the Pledge of Allegiance in the United States Flag Code. 4 U.S.C. § 4 (2003). Twelve years later, largely in response to the atheist ideology of international Communism, Congress added the clause "under God" to the Pledge. Congress' approval of those two words -- "under God" -- did not reflect an endorsement of religion, or a preferential treatment of any religion above another. It was simply a patriotic and honorific statement about the underlying religious values of America that was likely drawn from President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in which he said, "This nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom."

Yes, I know that the site I linked is a christian site. It's just one of about 5,000 sites that refer to Eisenower signing the bill, and te first that mentions the "atheist ideaology of international communism" ad th first that cited the arguments in favor of adding "Under God" to the pledge -- the earlier sites in the google search results told me which box to look in in the Eisenhower ibrary and other collections for the arguments and the full text of Eisenhower's remarks that flag day.

What you quoted was just the "sound bite" when he actually signed the bill and not the text of his speech on the subject -- which unfortunately doesn't seem to be on the internet itself although there are numerous reference to where physical copies can be found.

You can cry about the pledge being at best "promoting the right to be theist of some sort" if you wish, but you're the one who claims only 2% to 10% of the population is Atheist.

Cantdog is correct -- the issue of the Pledge is a tempest in teapot over what was in essence a purely political affirmation of our nation's political and religious heritage as it was commonly understood at the time.

Removing the words does not make the nation less religious, but it does remove just one tiny bit of our country's history and one more tiny bit of the right to religious expression from the majority of Americans -- since it's a choice to say the pledge and which version to say if youchoose to participate.

The Pledge in and of itself is a non-issue, but as one more tiny bite out of the right of religion to be seen in public.

 

[cantdog]

But as Colly suggests, there is still a perception of persecution, and a cause like defending the faith always packs 'em in.

As bridgeburner said,

bridgeburner:I understand that many Christians don't like it, but I also understand that many whites didn't like it when they were forced to share the front seats of busses with blacks.

To contend that some minority of athesists hold the US legal system in a forcible headlock is a specious argument.

And I think he is right, given the history of the court cases, which tally with the moments that the prayers stopped in my school experience. We were perhaps neither as ethnically nor as religiously diverse as your town, Weird. Maine, for many many years, was the whitest state in the nation.

That didn't stop the KKK from being strong here, because they do say KKK stands for Kill Kikes and Katholics.

So if there were any muslims, they might have amounted to one family per county. Maine has only sixteen counties. In Belfast, the only non-whites I saw were a few families of Native Americans who lived down by the waterfront in the Puddle Dock area and worked in the chicken processing plant.

Diverse or no, nobody even considered the Jewish kids, and the school administrators were of "the Greatest Generation" who stopped Hitler, and should have known better. No one quit the official prayers until the Supreme Court decided the matter. Pure's reference makes it clear that the case was on behalf of those Jewish kids, too.

The powerfully organized and very highly charged religious right is the child, it seems to me, of the Millennium.

The two thousand year mark has had an effect on Christians, and the thousand-year mark did, too, according to the histories. I had a news filter going through '98, '99 and twenty hundred. Many stories were in the news at that time about panicked Christian sects and congregations.

A carload of naked people in a van in Louisiana who had sold all their worldly goods and were going to the mountaintop to await the rapture were just one of the bizarre incidents. They gave away all the proceeds-- to the church!-- of course, because it is more difficult for a rich man to win the Kingdom than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. They were not the only ones.

Millenial hopes are not being held secret. Some preachers are convinced these are the End Times. The End Times are the winnowing of the sheep from the goats, no time to compromise and make nice!

Colly describes a pendulum-like swing, triggered initially by the losses sustained when the smug Christians had to leave the "front seat in the bus." But I don't think the hue and cry would be so strident without the effect of this undercurrent of religious excitement brought on by the millenium. They found roomfuls of people who had committed suicide together in a mini Jonestown in Quebec. They left no note to explain, because the rest of us were damned and about to have our Tribulations, I imagine.

There's a series of incredibly popular novels about the Rapture, the Tribulations, and all the accompanying events, set in the very near future and featuring a supernatural war in the middle east, especially in Jerusalem. Satan's Antichrist has sway over all the armament of the earth, and a bubble of force protects the holy city even from the worst of them. And so on.

I can indeed, as Colly recommends, see the other side, and there is a lot of rational disconnect over there.


I do not think giving them back their creche scenes on the City Hall lawn or the Mosaic tablets in the county courthouse will turn the trick.

Fundamentalists always begin by perceiving that the True Believers are somehow losing. Why is God against us? We must have done something wrong, it's like the OT! Daniel, Jeremiah, Moses and Jacob and the dratted Golden Calf! How can we make it right with God? What do we have to do, or not do? There isn't much time left!

You know what I mean, too, Weird. It makes me very uneasy. And I don't think O'Hair can take the blame for all this, or Earl Warren either.

 

[Weird Harold]

We were perhaps neither as ethnically nor as religiously diverse as your town, Weird. Maine, for many many years, was the whitest state in the nation.

That didn't stop the KKK from being strong here, because they do say KKK stands for Kill Kikes and Katholics.

My home town was not particularly ethnicaly diverse.

As for the KKK, it virtually ruled Oregon politics from about 1910 until WWII. When my great-uncle died when I was about 15, My great aunt found his robes in a chest in the attic -- the gold-trimed purple robes of a Grand-Dragon.

My home town was unusual in many ways and it was far from perfect -- about the only thing it got right was the sense of community overriding most intolerance.

From Pure's recitation of court rulings:
...
According to the dissent, the conclusions reached above would end up being problematic because: ...we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings. “God Bless America” and “America The Beautiful” will be gone for sure, ....
...
-----
Supreme Ct and Newdow:
------

Supreme Court Dismisses Pledge Case on Technicality

Justices Do Not Decide Constitutionality of Reference to God in Pledge of Allegiance
By William Branigin and Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 14, 2004; 1:30 PM

The Supreme Court ruled today that a California atheist did not have the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, ...

I'm neither a Christian nor Fudamentalist of any kind. Nor am I the only one who is neither Christian nor Findamentlist who sees the implications of a successful challenge of the Pledge.

Nor am I seeing things when I acuse atheists of challenging references to "God." At least not in THIS case.

First the dissenting opinion of the Circuit Court expresed exactly the the same concerns I've been arguing.

Second the suit that made it to the Supreme Court was filed by an Atheist.

I don't know who the dissenting justice in the Circuit Court is or his religious beliefs. I suspect he's a christian or agnostic -- as are the other two justices who decided in favor of the plaintiff. Would it require an avowed atheist judge to reach the same conclusion to convince you?

This suit is just one of many. That this suit was definitely filed by an atheist says nothing about the beliefs of anyone else filing anti-religion lawsuits.

However, this IS an example of ONE Atheist seeking to change what is or is not permitted to reference "God."

The "Christian Fundamentalists" and/or "Neocons" did not bring this suit. No Pagan, or Wiccan, or Seventh Day Adventist, or Jew brought this suit -- An Atheist brought this suit against two words in the Pledge of Allegiance that were arguably placed there in large part as a counter to the communist creed of official Atheism; a phrase which one of the articles Pure linked cites as "a vast majority of americans support levin gin the pledge."

Of course the "vast majority of Americans" referenced are probably at least nominally "Christians" of one flavor or another but it's pretty hard to take a poll in this country without getting a majority of christians, isn't it.

Considering that same "vast majority" has in the past been in favor of eliminating coerced prayer and other "protections" of minority relligions -- or lack of religion, I don't believe "christianity" is behind their objection to this particular issue. I think the objection to this particular issue is driven by the pettiness of the "offense" being sued over.

I'm pretty much done with this issue; I've made the point as best I can.

Whether you believe it or not there is a "campaign" that is slowly but surely erasing all public evidence of all religion. There are many legitmate issues mixed in with the "campaign" but the net result is an ever increasing repression of religious freedom.

The presidential candidates talk about their faith with impunity -- so far at least -- and in some ways are freer to talk about faith than JFK was; but then "Faith" is a campaign issue this election and candidates are supposed to talk about the issues.

But that's presidential candidates and this election: the same freedom to speak of personal faith isn't alway true of all elections. There's no official bar to discussing religion in local elections and blatant anti-religious campaigning is illegal. That doesn't stop some people entitled to Rev. or Fr. in front of their name from enduring subtle implications of "unsuitablity for public office because of their religious calling."

I'm not as fanatical about this issue as it may sound from this thread,but I don't have to be fanatical, just observant and open-minded

I do not believe that Freedom OF Religion is the same as the "Freedom FROM Religon" I've seenespoused as the ideal for this country. "Freedom From Religion" is what the USSR had whenit declared that "Atheism is our State Religion."

If "Atheism" were recognised as a "religion" in the US I believe many of the court decisions dealing with "religion" would be different.