Faith based (another political thread)

[Pure]

For Harold--- you are not alone

Harold and Colly, I thought you might be interested in this.

For the rest, in this thread--those with 'febrile nerves'-- it pays to know what the 'other side' thinks, and how it argues.

J.

Full text of dissent in Newdow decision:

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/One-Nation-Under-God.htm

{contains full text of all judges opinions in the case}


FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge, concurring and dissenting:

I concur in parts A, B and C1 of the majority opinion, but dissent as to part D.

1 I admit, however, to serious misgivings about standing to attack 4 U.S.C. § 4 itself. Congress has not compelled anyone to do anything. It surely has not directed that the Pledge be recited in class; only the California authorities have done that. Even if a general lack of standing to directly attack 4 U.S.C. § 4 would deprive federal courts of the opportunity to strike “under God” from that statute, any lament would be no more than a complaint about the limits on federal judges’ constitutional power. Nonetheless, that ultimately makes little difference to the resolution of the First Amendment issue in this case.

We are asked to hold that inclusion of the phrase “under God” in this nation’s Pledge of Allegiance violates the religion clauses of the Constitution of the United States. We should do no such thing. We should, instead, recognize that those clauses were not designed to drive religious expression out of public thought; they were written to avoid discrimination.

We can run through the litany of tests and concepts which have floated to the surface from time to time. Were we to do so, the one that appeals most to me, the one I think to be correct, is the concept that what the religion clauses of the First Amendment require is neutrality; that those clauses are, in effect, an early kind of equal protection provision and assure that government will neither discriminate for nor discriminate against a religion or religions. See Gentala v. City of Tucson, 244 F.3d 1065, 1083-86 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (Fernandez, J., dissenting), cert. granted and judgment vacated by ___ U.S. ___, 122 S. Ct. 340, 151 L. Ed. 2d 256 (2001); Goehring v. Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294, 1306-07 (9th Cir. 1996) (Fernandez, J., concurring).

But, legal world abstractions and ruminations aside, when all is said and done, the danger that “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance will tend to bring about a theocracy or suppress somebody’s beliefs is so minuscule as to be de minimis. The danger that phrase presents to our First Amendment freedoms is picayune at most.

Judges, including Supreme Court Justices, have recognized the lack of danger in that and similar expressions for decades, if not for centuries, as have presidents2 and members of our Congress. See, e.g., County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 602-03, 672-73, 109 S. Ct. 3086, 3106, 3143, 106 L. Ed. 2d 472 (1989); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 78 n.5, 105 S. Ct. 2479, 2501 n.5, 86 L. Ed. 2d 29 (1985); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 676, 693, 716, 104 S. Ct. 1355, 1361, 1369, 1382, 79 L. Ed. 2d 604 (1984); Abington Sch. Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 306-08, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 1615-16, 10 L. Ed. 2d 844 (1963);3 Separation of Church & State Comm. v. City of Eugene, 93 F.3d 617, 622 (9th Cir. 1996) (O’Scannlain, J., concurring); Gaylor v. United States, 74 F.3d 214, 217-18 (10th Cir. 1996); Sherman v. Cmty Consol. Sch. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445-48 (7th Cir. 1992); O’Hair v. Murray, 588 F.2d 1144, 1144 (5th Cir. 1978) (per curiam); Aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242, 243-44 (9th Cir. 1970); cf. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 795, 103 S. Ct. 3330, 3338, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1019 (1983) (legislative prayer).

I think it is worth stating a little more about two of the cases which I have just cited. In County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 602-03, 109 S. Ct. at 3106, the Supreme Court had this to say: “Our previous opinions have considered in dicta the motto and the pledge, characterizing them as consistent with the proposition that government may not communicate an endorsement of religious belief.” The Seventh Circuit, reacting in part to that statement, has wisely expressed the following thought:

[start embedded quote]
2 See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 632-35, 112 S. Ct. 2649, 2679-80, 120 L. Ed. 2d 467 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
3 The citations to the four preceding Supreme Court opinions are to majority opinions, concurring opinions, and dissents. Because my point is that a number of Justices have recognized the lack of danger and because I hope to avoid untoward complication in the setting out of the citations, I have not designated which Justices have joined in which opinion. All in all, however, perusing those opinions indicates that Chief Justice Burger, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Harlan, Brennan, White, Goldberg, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, O’Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy have so recognized.
[end, embedded quote]


Plaintiffs observe that the Court sometimes changes its tune when it confronts a subject directly. True enough, but an inferior court had best respect what the majority says rather than read between the lines. If the Court proclaims that a practice is consistent with the establishment clause, we take its assurances seriously. If the Justices are just pulling our leg, let them say so.
Sherman, 980 F.2d at 448.

Some, who rather choke on the notion of de minimis, have resorted to the euphemism “ceremonial deism.” See, e.g., Lynch, 465 U.S. at 716, 104 S. Ct. at 1382 (Brennan, J., dissenting). But whatever it is called (I care not), it comes to this: such phrases as “In God We Trust,” or “under God” have no tendency to establish a religion in this country or to suppress anyone’s exercise, or non-exercise, of religion, except in the fevered eye of persons who most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity. Those expressions have not caused any real harm of that sort over the years since 1791, and are not likely to do so in the future.4 As I see it, that is not because they are drained of meaning. 5 Rather, as I have already indicated, it is because their tendency to establish religion (or affect its exercise) is exiguous.

I recognize that some people may not feel good about hearing the phrases recited in their presence, but, then, others might not feel good if they are omitted. At any rate, the Constitution is a practical and balanced charter for the just governance of a free people in a vast territory. Thus, although we do feel good when we contemplate the effects of its inspiring phrasing and majestic promises, it is not primarily a feel-good prescription.6

In West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 630, 642, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 1181, 1187, 87 L. Ed. 1628 (1943), for example, the Supreme Court did not say that the Pledge could not be recited in the presence of Jehovah’s Witness children; it merely said that they did not have to recite it.7 That fully protected their constitutional rights by precluding the government from trenching upon “the sphere of intellect and spirit.” Id. at 642, 63 S. Ct. at 1187. As the Court pointed out, their religiously based refusal “to participate in the ceremony [would] not interfere with or deny rights of others to do so.” Id. at 630, 63 S. Ct. at 1181. We should not permit Newdow’s feel-good concept to change that balance.


4 They have not led us down the long path to kulturkampf or worse. Those who are somehow beset by residual doubts and fears should find comfort in the reflection that no baleful religious effects have been generated by the existence of similar references to a deity throughout our history. More specifically, it is difficult to detect any signs of incipient theocracy springing up since the Pledge was amended in 1954.
5 See also Sherman, 980 F.2d at 448 (Manion, J., concurring).


My reading of the stelliscript suggests that upon Newdow’s theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, 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, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third.8 And currency beware!

Judges can accept those results if they limit themselves to elements and tests, while failing to look at the good sense and principles that animated those tests in the first place. But they do so at the price of removing a vestige of the awe we all must feel at the immenseness of the universe and our own small place within it, as well as the wonder we must feel at the good fortune of our country. That will cool the febrile nerves of a few at the cost of removing the healthy glow conferred upon many citizens when the forbidden verses, or phrases, are uttered, read, or seen.


6 We, by the way, indicated as much in American Family Ass’n, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 277 F.3d 1114, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2002), which involved governmental conduct that was much more questionable than adoption of the phrase “under God.” See id. at 1126-28 (Noonan, J., dissenting).
7 I recognize that the Pledge did not then contain the phrase “under God.”
8 Nor will we be able to stray into the fourth stanza of “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” for that matter.


In short, I cannot accept the eliding of the simple phrase “under God” from our Pledge of Allegiance, when it is obvious that its tendency to establish religion in this country or to interfere with the free exercise (or non-exercise) of religion is de minimis.9
Thus, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.


9 Lest I be misunderstood, I must emphasize that to decide this case it is not necessary to say, and I do not say, that there is such a thing as a de minimis constitutional violation. What I do say is that the de minimis tendency of the Pledge to establish a religion or to interfere with its free exercise is no constitutional violation at all.

 

[bridgeburner]

Colly,

Thanks for the gratuitous personal scolding, but if we could pull back a little bit from the language of "you this" and "you that" this is a discussion worth continuing.

When you attack someone's religion, you should expect a powerful backlash.

There was powerful backlash when African Americans demanded their rights. It didn't mean they should not have demanded them.

While you may consider it only right and proper, the perception of those who feel their religion is under attack is no less valid.

Feelings are always valid, but having strong emotions about something doesn't make one right.

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.

That's like blaming Martin Luther King for the Alabama Church bombing. If he'd kept his head down like a good nigger those little girls wouldn't have died.

If it were just you, I wouldn't care,

Well, that's a difference between us, then. I'm as determined to ensure your rights as I am my own. I don't consider it enough to just count myself lucky I was born white to an advantaged social class. I feel I have an obligation to ensure that everyone's rights are protected equally under the law. I think every U.S. citizen has that obligation.

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.

The religious right has always been a force in American Politics, but I will agree that the "new" religious right got its start in the 1960's when they decided that it wasn't enough to follow God in their own lives but that they must ensure that God ruled the nation. They were outraged by Equal Rights, Civil Rights and Anti-Censorship cases that prohibited the banning of books. None of these things was specifically about religion except in the eyes of the religious right. To them, the issue of whether or not women should work is a religious issue. Whether or not African Americans should be afforded the same status and rights as whites is a religious issue. And regardless of a student's actual faith or lack thereof the religious right determined that if a student went to school in America at other than a private institution then that student's education should be upholding of White Protestant Christian Values.

The problem isn't atheists. The problem is any person of any faith other than Evangelical Christianity. If you're not Born Again then the religious right has a problem with you. That means devout Jews and Catholics and Episcopalians and Buddhists and Muslims and Hindus are having their religious freedoms and rights infringed upon.

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.

I understand that they think they're right. I understand and empathize with them that they find the world does not always reflect their values, but I will no more turn a blind eye from their actions than I would to the actions of the Ku Klux Klan.


-B

 

[Colleen Thomas]

No scolding was intended. You have a right to your opinion as do I. You, is simply easier to type, if you are offended we can go with the disgustingly PC language, It dosen't matter to me.

Speaking of gratuitous:

There was powerful backlash when African Americans demanded their rights. It didn't mean they should not have demanded them.

That's about as gratuitious as it comes. Could you have dreamed up anything more controversial and less applicable to use as an analogy? this is not a case of an oppressed minority fighting for their rights, it is a case of a minority fighting to force their views on the majority through legal action.

Strong emotions don't make you right. This applies equally to those who see it as attacks and those who are convinced it isn't an attack. The point of the statement is not that strong emotions make one side or another right, the point is that strong emotions have been roused and expecting those emotions to not dictate a response is rather naive.

Why do you keep returning to the civil rights strugle? What's the point of clouding one charged issue with another? You have already voiced the opinion that strong emotion dosen't make you right, yet you come back and try to rouse said emotions at every opportunity. In debate or discussion, it is generally accepted that you stick to the point at hand. Continued emotional appeals or attempts to tie this issue to that only show me that you aren't prepared to argue the issue at hand.

There are several diferences between us. Even without knowing you I can see that. Let's get this back to black & white again why don't we? Yes, I am white. So? In this particular debate that makes a difference how?

After answering you point by point here, it seems I misunderstood the issue entierly. I thought we were discussing Faith in politics. Apprently I have stumbled into a discussion of the civil rights movement of the late sixties.

If you think to tie the current attempt of some on the left trying to remove religion from private life to the civil right's struggle to give minorities equal protection under the law, You have a long row to hoe. I don't see any parallel in the issues. One involves an opressed minority trying to gain equal protection under the law, the other is a liberated minority trying to force their view on the majority through the courts.

Since you seem wedded to this analogy, it would help if you could draw some similarities that are meaningful for me. If not, we might as well be arguing apples and oranges, as there is no common reference.

-Colly

 

[bridgeburner]

Harold,

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.

The beginning of the monumental increase in governmental support for Christianity can be directly traced to the Reagan Administration.

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

No one has said you were a lone lunatic. There are a lot of people who think that there's a movement to outlaw Christianity. It doesn't mean they're right.

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.

What is a bogus interpretation of the no establishment clause? Do you believe that it only covers a mandated State religion?

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.

This is demonstrably untrue. No one is closing churches or jailing Hassidic Jews for walking to Temple in earlocks and orthodox garments. No one is barred from leaving their house wearing a crucifix or from sitting around at Starbucks conducting a Bible study or standing on a street corner preaching the Gospel. People are arguing that in state-funded institutions they should not be subjected to any religious message not of their own faith. You should be able to go to school without being made to feel like a pariah. School is not for religious instruction unless it is a church-run school.

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.

Pure covered this pretty well already, but I think it's important to point out that the USSR no longer exists. Assuming that it did, however, how is it less repressive to officially proclaim godliness than it is to officially proclaim atheism? Do you not see the problem here? Freedom is not offering one palatable choice over an unpalatable choice, but offering as many choices as possible. Not "christianity" vs "atheism" but the right to decide one's religious affiliation or non-affiliation without governemnt interference or endorsement.

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.

But it doesn't say "under a god"--- which would only disenfranchise atheists, Native Americans and various pagan groups --- it says "under God" as in "the only God". To argue that "under God" means "under Allah" as well as "under Legba" and "under Gaia" and "under Bob" and "under no god" is disengenuous.

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.

You certainly wouldn't now, but I seriously doubt you would have even before the faith based initiative program. Do you have any evidence for this or is it hyperbole?

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.

If it were to happen just as you say ---- a secular aid program that would not be promoting any religious message denied government funding simply because the proponents felt it was their religious duty to provide aid --- then I would likely agree that it's discriminatory. I haven't heard of this happening nor have you given any evidence of it being so.

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 have several friends who work in both state and federal government positions none of whom have ever reported any of the problems you insist are ubiquitous. Many of them wear religious jewelry or yarmulkes, retain their blessings on Ash Wednesday, and even keep small personal reflections of their faith on their desks. What they're not allowed to do is conspicuously pray over their co-workers or advertise for religious events. But they're not allowed to sell their kids school-fund raiser candy, either.

btw, Kennedy couldn't talk about his faith is because he was Catholic. The main opposition to his presidency on the basis of his faith came not from Atheists but from Southern Protestants. This was the seed of religious activists that gave birth to today's Religious Right many of whom don't even consider Catholics to be Christian.


-B

 

[BikeWriter]

I want to see religion out of politics and politics out of religion. We've got to take our country back!

 

[rgraham666]

My two cents.

No public institution should be used to support any religion in a secular society.

Any reference to God is an act of faith and a personal matter. If a public institution or a member or representative of a public institution makes any mention of God they are foisting their personal opinion on the rest of society.

And it doesn't matter if it's supporting or denying God, it has no place in a public institution.

No more from me.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

My two cents.

No public institution should be used to support any religion in a secular society.

Any reference to God is an act of faith and a personal matter. If a public institution or a member or representative of a public institution makes any mention of God they are foisting their personal opinion on the rest of society.

And it doesn't matter if it's supporting or denying God, it has no place in a public institution.

No more from me.

I don't want to see state sponsored atheism any more than I want to see a state sponsored church. I would rather see tolerance for all reigions, than tolerance for none.

Atheism is as much a statement of faith as being Roman Catholic, Angelican, Buddist, Muslim or good ole Southern Baptist is. Why should that belief be sponsored by the state rather than another? That dosen't make a lick of sense.

If my Jewish case worker chooses to wear his yalmakah when I go to see him, why should that bother me? If my Catholic state appointed doctor has a madonna on her desk, why should that bother me? They wouldn't. This country has a strong foundation of religious toleration, from Lord Baltimore's Maryland colony to multiple chaplins in our armies. Toleration of all, from the most main stream to the most extreme.

Supression of all, is not toleration. Promotiong one (atheism) to the exclusion of all others is no where close to toleration.

-Colly

 

[Weird Harold]

There was powerful backlash when African Americans demanded their rights. It didn't mean they should not have demanded them.

Since you insist on comparing this to the Civil Rights movement, wht I see and object to is the equivalent of "quota" based affirmative action.

African Americans have right to be treated equal -- as does every other citizen of America. They do NO have a right to preferential treatment that infringes on the the rights of others to equal treatment.

It's called "reverse discrimination" and has been ruled unconsitutional in respect to racial discrimination. It is however being prpetuated with regard to religious "discrimination, IMHO.

In the current state of the issue of what is allowed in the way of religious expression the rule seems to be "do what you will unless someone objects."

Millions of people go about their daily lives without really thinking about the religious signifigance of their display of theri faith or the (possible) "religious" imagery they expose their co-workers to.

However, all it takes is one complaint who is offended by something like the very popular "Little Angels" earrings and pins to get them put on the banned items in the school or business dress codes.

Read justice Fernadez' dissent again and look at his point about de minimis

Nobody is arresting anyone or oppressing anyone for walking down the street in a yamulka or dreadlocks or carrying a rosary-- at least not yet. They are objecting and suing over government employed case-workers and teachers doing those things or displaying those items at work.

A case worker might interview several thousand people who ignore a rosary hanging on a desk lamp or a picture of their children in an inspirational frame or some other minor "religious" symbol.

Then one day an intolerant client is interviewed and claims the mere presence of the case-workers religious symbolism in a place the government required him to go is offensive to his beliefs and/or indicates a bias against him on the part of the case-worker.

At minimum, whatever "offensive" religious symbolism offended that single client is going in the drawer or home. At worst, the case-worker could lose their job.

Such cases seldom generate any public notice unless the courts get involved, but they do happen and happen more often than people want to admit. They're possible because the courts all the way up to the Supreme Court will seriously consider any lawsuit touching on "government" and "religion."

Just exactly how repressive any particular work environment is dpnds a lot on the personalities involved and the paranoia level of the supervisors, but in the current legal climate individuals have more influence than the majority.

"Seperation of Church and State" is IMHO a bogus interpretation because the "no establishment" and "freedom of religious expression" causes were never intended to separate church and state -- they were intended to prevent the goverment from from enacting LAWS that required a specific religion or inhibited free expression of religion.

Any law or court ruling that inhibits a display of religion anywhere is IMHO unconsitutional unless that display is a) required by law and b) is the result of a law that infringes on anyone's right to express their religion.

The same people who wrote the no establishment clause also created the office of Congressional Chaplain.

The House Chaplain has been challenged as recently as 1986.

From: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=463&invol=783

U.S. Supreme Court
MARSH v. CHAMBERS, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)
463 U.S. 783
MARSH, NEBRASKA STATE TREASURER, ET AL. v. CHAMBERS
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 82-23.

Argued April 20, 1983
Decided July 5, 1983
...

Held:

The Nebraska Legislature's chaplaincy practice does not violate the Establishment Clause. Pp. 786-795.


(a) The practice of opening sessions of Congress with prayer has continued without interruption for almost 200 years ever since the First Congress drafted the First Amendment, and a similar practice has been followed for more than a century in Nebraska and many other states. While historical patterns, standing alone, cannot justify contemporary violations of constitutional guarantees, historical evidence in the context of this case sheds light not only on what the drafters of the First Amendment intended the Establishment Clause to mean but also on how they thought that Clause applied to the chaplaincy practice authorized by the First Congress. In applying the First Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be incongruous to interpret the Clause as imposing more stringent First Amendment limits on the states than the draftsmen imposed on the Federal Government. In light of the history, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, a violation of the Establishment Clause; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country. Pp. 786-792.

(b) Weighed against the historical background, the facts that a clergyman of only one denomination has been selected by the Nebraska Legislature [463 U.S. 783, 784] for 16 years, that the chaplain is paid at public expense, and that the prayers are in the Judeo-Christian tradition do not serve to invalidate Nebraska's practice. Pp. 792-795.
...

Also, of interest; from:
Text: Muslim Chaplain Marks Ramadan with Prayer in Congress
(Imam Yahya Hendi opens session for House of Representatives)

15 November 2001

The U.S. House of Representatives opened its session on November 15 with readings from the Koran and a Muslim prayer, led by Imam Yahya Hendi.

Standing before the American flag and the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, in the House chamber, Imam Hendi first read verses from the Koran, and then offered a prayer.

The occasion marked the beginning of Ramadan, and underlined the fact that Islam is part of the mainstream religious landscape of the U.S. Although this is the third time Muslim prayers have been offered in the House of Representatives, it is the first time the House of Representatives has invited a Muslim chaplain to mark the beginning of Ramadan.
...

another guest chaplain appearance: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hinduism1.htm

On 2000-SEP-14, A Hindu priest, Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala of the Shiva Vishnu Hindu Temple in Parma, OH, opened a session of the U.S. House of Representatives with a prayer. He was the first Hindu to do so. Representative Sherrod Brown, (D- OH) had invited Mr. Samuldrala as a guest chaplain, said: "Today is a great day for Indian-American relations. India and the United States share the bonds of history and culture. I requested the House Chaplain invite Mr. Samuldrala to give today's prayer as a testimony to the religious diversity that is the hallmark of our nation. Mr. Salmuldrala's prayer reminds us that while we may differ in culture and traditions, we are alike in the basic aspiration for peace and righteousness."

(The last quote is from a site discussing a "controversy" over a Hindu get chaplain that includes a link to a page on "anti-christian persecution around the world"

I do NOT agree with the extreme positons taken by the FRC nor with all of religioustolerance.org' chastisment of the FRC's commentary.)

 

[Pure]

Fundies 'choke' on Hindu prayer in Congress

Harold, while I appreciate that your position is not so 'supremacist' as the so called "Family Research Council" I think that the fuller story of the Hindu prayer, *from their own website* precisely illustrates the issues.

{Moral: You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas?}

The House--perhaps to support its 'faith-based] legal position-- was attempting to honor diversity, but the Religious Right, at FRC, were unhappy about that as detracting from the supremacy of Christian truth as historically supported by the US government (in their view). Then, upon the publicity, they became embarrassed by the implications of what they said: the obvious 'we're better' approach as it was recommmended to be implemented by an official US gov group (i.e., Christian prayers only). Further their lawyers might have 'gone through the roof' at the undermining of the 'faith based' approach, opening it to court challenge.

I love the last mentioned statement of Donovan of the FRC:
He[Donovan] deplored anti-Christian persecution around the world.

IOW, having not gotten away with a discriminatory plan of action against Hindus, he wants to re-direct attention to the descrimination, elsewhere, against Christians {Sounds like the behavior of some in this thread.}


http://www.religioustolerance.org/hinduism1.htm


The Hindu prayer:

On 2000-SEP-14, A Hindu priest, Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala of the Shiva Vishnu Hindu Temple in Parma, OH, opened a session of the U.S. House of Representatives with a prayer. He was the first Hindu to do so. Representative Sherrod Brown, (D- OH) had invited Mr. Samuldrala as a guest chaplain, said: "Today is a great day for Indian-American relations. India and the United States share the bonds of history and culture. I requested the House Chaplain invite Mr. Samuldrala to give today's prayer as a testimony to the religious diversity that is the hallmark of our nation. Mr. Salmuldrala's prayer reminds us that while we may differ in culture and traditions, we are alike in the basic aspiration for peace and righteousness." 1

=========



Initial response by the Family Research Council:

Robert E. Regier and Timothy J. Dailey wrote an essay about the prayer. It appeared on SEP-21 in the Culture Facts section of the Family Research Council's web site. It was also Emailed or mailed to the subscribers of Culture Facts, a weekly newsletter. The FRC is a Washington DC-based, Fundamentalist Christian agency. It was spun-off from the Colorado Springs CO-based Focus on the Family many years ago. According to a Fax received from the FRC Legal Studies section, this essay "failed to go though [sic] our full editing process, which would have removed any statements inconsistant [sic] with FRC's [official] position." 2

The essay was part of a "Q&A" section labeled "Religious Pluralism or Tolerance?" It included a question from a member of the public:


"A Hindu priest was recently invited to give the opening invocation it the House of Representative. What's wrong with this?"



Regier and Dailey's answer was, in part:


[start embedded quote]

"What's wrong is that it is one more indication that our nation is drifting from its Judeo-Christian roots...Alas, in our day, when 'tolerance' and 'diversity' have replaced the 10 Commandments as the only remaining absolute dictums, it has become necessary to 'celebrate' non-Christian religions - even in the halls of Congress...Our founders expected that Christianity -- and no other religion -- would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate people's consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference.

Many people today confuse traditional Western religious tolerance with religious pluralism. The former embraces biblical truth while allowing for freedom of conscience, while the latter assumes all religions are equally valid, resulting in moral relativism and ethical chaos..." 3 [end embedded quote]

========


Meaning of terms:


At least two words in the above essay have multiple meanings. This is not an unusual situation. The field of religion probably has more multiply-defined terms than any other area of human interest. The term "cult," for example, has at least nine meanings, ranging from positive to very negative. "Witch" has at least 17, of which two pairs are mutually exclusive. This is a profoundly confusing situation. Any lecturer, teleminister or writer who uses one of these ambiguous words can be certain that many in their audience will interpret the word in a very different sense than it was intended. Often, conservative Christians will assign one definition to a term, whereas most others will use a different meaning. This is particularly common with terms used in controversial topics, like abortion and homosexuality. If this trend continues, it will make dialog among representatives of different wings of Christianity very difficult.

In the essay above two ambiguous words were used:
Paganism: The most common definition on the Internet is: Wicca or other Neopagan religion. The first 14 hits on the Google search engine all returned this meaning: Wicca is a recently created religion based, in part, on the religious deities, symbols, seasonal days of celebration, etc. of the ancient Celts. A Wiccan is a follower of Wicca. Neopaganism is a family of modern faith traditions, each of which has been recently reconstructed from beliefs, deities, symbols, practices and other elements of an ancient religion. Followers of a Neopagan religion often refer to themselves as Pagans or Neopagans.

The most common definition used by conservative Christian is: an ancient, defunct polytheistic religion, such as faiths once followed by the ancient Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, etc. Five of the first six hits on the Goshen search engine returned this meaning.

The meaning that is presumably used in the FRC essay is: a non-Abramic religion. That is, one that does not recognize Abraham as a patriarch. It is other than Christianity, Islam and Judaism. This definition of "Paganism" includes Agnosticism, Atheism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Humanism, Taoism, etc. About 45% of the people of the world are Pagans, by this definition.

The term is sometimes used in other contexts, such as:

a religion which is other than Christianity and Judaism.

a general-purpose religious snarl word used to refer to any religion which is to be ridiculed or hated.

a religion followed by modern-day primitive societies.


Religious pluralism has two main meanings:

The concept that all religions are equally right and valid. [This belief is probably held by a minority of North Americans. Although we have never seen confirming data, it is probable that many, if not most, adults feel that their own personal spiritual or religious path is true whereas other belief systems are at least partly in error.


A synonym of "religious diversity" -- the fact of "the existence within a country or society of religiously distinct groups." 4 It is a fact that both the U.S. and Canada are religiously pluralistic nations. North Americans do follow a variety of religions: Christianity, Humanism, Islam, Judaism, Wicca and hundreds of other faith traditions.


We recommend that neither Paganism nor religious pluralism term be used, because of the probability of confusion among readers or listeners. If such a term must be used, then we recommend that it be carefully pre-defined.

Reaction to the Q&A essay:


Bridget Fisher, spokesperson for Rep. Sherrod Brown said that it is "unfortunate that the Family Research Council interprets the Constitution to say that religious freedom means Christian supremacy."

According to Maranatha Christian Journal, "media criticism" triggered a FRC clairification. 5 According to a private Fax from the FRC, they "were aware of only one small Associate [sic] Press article, which was not particularly critical. The 'Q&A' article was removed and the correction issued because it incorrectly stated one of our fundamental policy positions."

FRC's Executive Vice President, Chuck Donovan, responded on SEP-22 with a press release containing a clarification. He said:
[start embedded quote]
"It is the position of the Family Research Council that governments must respect freedom of conscience for all people in religious matters ... We affirm the truth of Christianity, but it is not our position that American's Constitution forbids representatives of religions other than Christianity from praying before Congress....[end embedded quote]

He concluded with a concern about attempts to remove religion from public life. He pointed out FRC's support for U.S. religious freedom legislation. He deplored anti-Christian persecution around the world. 6

References


"Brown welcomes Northeast Ohio Hindu priest as guest chaplain in House," http://www.house.gov/sherrodbrown/india914.html
Personal FAX from FRC Legal Studies department, 2000-SEP-26.
"Religious 'Pluralism' or Tolerance?", Q&A section, Culture Facts, Family Research Council web site. It was accessible to subscribers at http://www.frc.org/papers/culturefacts/index.cfm, but has since been deleted from the FRC web site.
Derived from: Webster's New World Dictionary: Third college edition. Page 1040, definition 3-a.
"Family issues group clarifies stance on Hindu prayer," Maranatha Christian News Service, at: http://www.mcjonline.com/news/00b/20000925d.htm
Chuck Donovan, "Family Research Council issues clarification of article on prayer before Congress," News release, 2000-SEP-22. Temporarily available at: http://www.frc.org/press/index.cfm?

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Fundies 'choke' on Hindu prayer in Congress

Harold, while I appreciate that your position is not so 'supremacist' as the so called "Family Research Council" I think that the fuller story of the Hindu prayer, *from their own website* precisely illustrates the issues.

I could have eaily C&P'd the entire page as you did, but the discussions of a radical christian groups response wasn't relevant to the point I was making that the existance of house and senate chaplains -- and the non-christian "guest chaplins" arranged by the permanent chaplains -- is indicative that the men who wrote the First Amendment also recognised that providing a way to meet the religious needs of of the human beings elected to public office (or the military of the US) is not inconsistent with the no establishment clause.

I went looking for a list of the congressional chaplains because I thought I rmembered reading that one of them was jewish during Truman's term of office. I didn't dig far enough through the thousands of hits for "Congress Chaplains" to find a list of the House Chaplains. I did discover that the current senate chaplain is a Seventh Day Adventist and all other senate chaplains have been protestant or catholic (Most of them Presbyterian for same reason.)

I never did turn up a list of House Chaplains or a list of all of the "Guest Chaplains" for either the House or Senate. opthing supports my dim recollection of a jewish chaplain in congress -- either permanent or guest chaplain. Although I do know that there have been Jewish guest chaplains in recent decades I can't find any reference to them or the first jewish chaplain to lead the morning prayer.

I did find reference to the the only two Muslim guest chaplains and the Hindu Chaplain that so upset FRC.

The point being that, IMHO, the framers of the constituion never intended goverment official from observing religious practices or acknowledging the religion preferences of the majority. They only intended that the government pass no laws "respecting the establishment" of religion or forbidding the free expression of religion.

It could be argued that the rules for defining what IS a religion for tax purposes are unconstituional but nobody is challenging those rules because doing away with them would actually PROMOTE the proliferation of "religions."

Interestingly, the search turned up mostly atheist sites arguing against the existance of paid chaplains in congress and arguing just how faulty the 1984 SCOTUS opinion is for not eliminating them.

It seems everywhere I look for information on this subjects that happens -- Atheist may be a very small minority of the population but a majority of the webites concerned with SCOTUS decisions on "seperation of church and state" issues seem to be atheist.

I wonder why that is?

Like the FRC site, most of the christian sites seemed to be more concerned with worldwide anti-christian persecution.

 

[bridgeburner]

Colleen,

Sorry, got extremely busy and distracted but I didn't mean to leave the table for so long.

No scolding was intended. You have a right to your opinion as do I. You, is simply easier to type, if you are offended we can go with the disgustingly PC language, It dosen't matter to me.

I'm not particularly worked up over PC I just found the tone unnecessarily accusatory. If that's not how you meant it then I'm fine with that.

Could you have dreamed up anything more controversial and less applicable to use as an analogy? this is not a case of an oppressed minority fighting for their rights, it is a case of a minority fighting to force their views on the majority through legal action.

I wasn't equating the plight of those seeking freedom of religion with the abuses suffered by African Americans. I was pointing out that counseling people to accept their disenfranchised status out of fear that things might get worse is not the answer when civil liberties are in question. It is not about the specific abuses suffered by any one group but about the way in which those abuses are fought, ignored or condoned by the populace at large.

This applies equally to those who see it as attacks and those who are convinced it isn't an attack. The point of the statement is not that strong emotions make one side or another right, the point is that strong emotions have been roused and expecting those emotions to not dictate a response is rather naive.

I never expected that they wouldn't. It seemed to me that you were giving a pass to the religious right because they're so upset. Somehow it's the fault of those they opress for upsetting them. It's like the blame the victim game. "If you hadn't got them all riled up you wouldn't be in this mess now." That's debatable, but the point isn't whether things are bad or worse, but the fact that nobody has the right to force you to a religious observance not of your choosing however nicely they might go about it.

Why do you keep returning to the civil rights strugle? What's the point of clouding one charged issue with another?

I'm not intending to cloud the issue. Civil rights are civil rights. Denying someone his rights based on race color or creed is wrong. This is about the "creed" part of that guarantee. I'm well aware that no one is currently lynching atheists because they fight against prayer in school and that nobody is trying to pass laws preventing intermarriage between religious faiths, but they are trying to pass laws imposing specific religious tennets. As I said before, this isn't about equating suffering, it is about equating rights.

You have already voiced the opinion that strong emotion dosen't make you right, yet you come back and try to rouse said emotions at every opportunity. In debate or discussion, it is generally accepted that you stick to the point at hand. Continued emotional appeals or attempts to tie this issue to that only show me that you aren't prepared to argue the issue at hand.

If you think I'm not sticking to the point then it's because I've failed to convey it in such a way that you understand it. The issue as I see it is that there are people out there who feel their rights are being infringed and you are of the opinion that it wasn't that big a deal until they spoke up about it causing a backlash against them that now affects you personally.

I'm not sure how to be any plainer about it. The correllation is that lots of people said the same thing to the civil rights activists of the 60's (and every age before). Don't rock the boat. Keep your head down and be happy things aren't worse. The implication is that those rights aren't important.

There are several diferences between us. Even without knowing you I can see that. Let's get this back to black & white again why don't we? Yes, I am white. So? In this particular debate that makes a difference how?

It's not about whether you're black or white it's about the fact that regardless of whether you belong to a disenfranchised group you have an obligation as a U.S. citizen to fight against others' disenfranchisement. It's not enough to say "Whew! Lucky for me I'm not you."

If you think to tie the current attempt of some on the left trying to remove religion from private life to the civil right's struggle to give minorities equal protection under the law, You have a long row to hoe.

I wasn't aware that anyone was trying to enforce atheism on anyone. People are fighting not to have particular religious beliefs forced on them and to not see their federal tax dollars spent to shore up religious beliefs they don't hold.

I don't see any parallel in the issues. One involves an opressed minority trying to gain equal protection under the law, the other is a liberated minority trying to force their view on the majority through the courts.

The parallel is exactly in the issue rather than in the nature of the paricular people. I think you're weighing the suffering of one group against the suffering of another and that isn't to the point. I agree that there is no equating the abuses heaped on blacks in this country with the abuses of those who are demanding a clear separation of Church and State. The point is that citizens' rights should not be infringed and to start arguing that only some rights are important and only for some people is to totally undermine the Constitution.

"Liberal" cannot be equated with "liberated" and it isn't just liberals and atheists who object. The vast majority of the population is not Evangelical Christians and I know plenty of conservative people of faith who are equally disgusted by the lack of separation between Church and State. The more people of faith find themselves hemmed in by the faith of other citizens the more they'll start to believe that perhaps it IS an important right. Most people just don't give a shit until they are themselves feeling the pinch.

-B

 

[cantdog]

I don't want to see state sponsored atheism any more than I want to see a state sponsored church. I would rather see tolerance for all reigions, than tolerance for none.

Atheism is as much a statement of faith as being Roman Catholic, Angelican, Buddist, Muslim or good ole Southern Baptist is. Why should that belief be sponsored by the state rather than another? That dosen't make a lick of sense.

<snip>
Supression of all, is not toleration. Promotiong one (atheism) to the exclusion of all others is no where close to toleration.

-Colly

So let's get specific, Colleen, since I don't agree. Promoting one to the exclusion of others is of course not tolerance.

Suppressing all, on the other hand, may be every bit as close as it is reasonable to get. "Under God," if it had been required to say, which in my day it was not, would have been Promotion of one or more above others.

It was not required. But it still doesn't work as non-promotion, unless you can also say, at the same point in the stupid pledge, "Bismillah," or "without reference to God," or any number of other such phrases. The choices could run into the hundreds, given all the varieties of religious experience. "under God" is not a neutral thing.

(Why are we pledging to a hunk of cloth anyway when we could just as easily be pledging allegiance to something meaningful? The constitution, say?)

According to you, just plain shutting up about it is no less neutral than explicitly saying "without reference to God" or "without any corny fucking God." I dispute that. I think just shutting up is no more nor less than just shutting up.

And I disagree about your "suppressing all" idea. In context. If it is a government thing, especially a school where you MUST attend unless you have enough money to do something else, then yes, suppressing all is as close to fair as you can get. No one ought to teach in that classroom that there is no ridiculous old God, and no one ought to teach that Christ in His mercy chose to cause Lewis and Clark to be appointed to head an expedition.
All that shit has to go.

Meanwhile, headscarves, Sikh knives and turbans, ashes on the forehead, cornpollen, all that sort of thing, if attached to an individual, and NOT to the school or other government institution, ought to remain.

To suppress an individual for these things is wrong, just as it is wrong to suspend someone for NOT saying the pledge because he is a Witness or a Quaker and religiously prohibited from taking oaths.

cantdog

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Quoted in Pure's Post
The House--perhaps to support its 'faith-based’ legal position-- was attempting to honor diversity, but the Religious Right, at FRC, were unhappy about that as detracting from the supremacy of Christian truth as historically supported by the US government (in their view).

ONE COULD GO BACK TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS FOR WHAT THEY SAID AND DID.



George Washington - the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washington uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.From: George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller

John Adams - It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

Thomas Paine - I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."From: The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY

Thomas Jefferson - "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to J. Adams April 11,1823)

James Madison - "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

Ethan Allen - "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised "to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God." Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those "written in the great book of nature."

Benjamin Franklin - As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian. From: Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Thomas Fleming





Excepted from The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians

 

[cantdog]

I'm not sure the actual faiths of the Founders or theirmodes of expression of them is relevant except insofar as it may bear on the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights.

I don't care if the result of the national squabble about faith and its place down my throat would in the end be one which might be acceptable to the Framers of it. I want a solution which is going to stop the massive subsidies given to religions in the country, and I want one which is going to stop framing the laws in order to bring about behaviors consonant with one belief pattern or another for that reason.

Faith-based laws have always been passed in every legislative body great and small in this priest-ridden country. It is intolerant, bigoted, and smacks of proselytizing through the agency of government. Moreover, it is unconstituitional, in my view, but that's the issue, isn't it?

If the churches in this place get a tax exemption, and if, as you all seem so bent on saying, atheism is a faith, then by Jesus gimme the exemption, because I never for one minute have believed in any such thing as a god. If you get some kind of moral ascendancy because, you say, your faith is being displaced by mine, then where's my fuckin money? If my faith is doing so cock sucking swell out of all this, where's the money? I start getting the subsidies you religious jibroneys take for granted, then I'll start figuring maybe you have a legitimate beef.