Forums » Off-Topic
now this is not implimented in all schools all around the world....
but as for most public schools, religion has no place in the classroom.
with that said; for english class, what kind of grade would you get if you did a book report on the bible?
but as for most public schools, religion has no place in the classroom.
with that said; for english class, what kind of grade would you get if you did a book report on the bible?
Are we basing this grade on the teacher's reaction to my book choice, the grade I would earn based on my level of agreement with what's in the Bible, or something else?
Or is this rhetorical?
I'd probably get into trouble right away with the fiction / non-fiction classification.
Or is this rhetorical?
I'd probably get into trouble right away with the fiction / non-fiction classification.
Well, first off, we're talking at least high-school level education or such. With the sad state of reading all over the world, I'd need video proof to believe that an elementary school kid would undertake such a task; the bible is neither easy on the eyes nor on the mind, unless a kid's circumstances were exceptional he wouldn't stick to it.
So we have the highest level of pre-college public education (at least in theory) and thus (again, in theory) an english teacher accustomed to the weird ways of teenage kids. So there shouldn't be any problem, specially since a book report is highly subjective once you move beyond the book's summary. At most the teacher would raise an eyebrow at a kid trying to dissect a book known for the myriad ways it can be read; I think the reaction would be the same if instead of the Bible it was any other religious book or the Communist Manifesto for that matter. It's not as if the kid is using his report as a form of proselytizing!
Any other result would be due to a teacher unable to keep his work ethic separate from his personal beliefs.
So we have the highest level of pre-college public education (at least in theory) and thus (again, in theory) an english teacher accustomed to the weird ways of teenage kids. So there shouldn't be any problem, specially since a book report is highly subjective once you move beyond the book's summary. At most the teacher would raise an eyebrow at a kid trying to dissect a book known for the myriad ways it can be read; I think the reaction would be the same if instead of the Bible it was any other religious book or the Communist Manifesto for that matter. It's not as if the kid is using his report as a form of proselytizing!
Any other result would be due to a teacher unable to keep his work ethic separate from his personal beliefs.
Yeah, this requires a subtle understanding of your teacher's politics and religious attitudes. And of course, of that teacher's superiors.
However, why not do it on the Qur'An? Or the Veda? I mean, it's somehow accepted in American liberal democratic circles to bash the Bible, but bashing either of these other religious books would draw stark criticism.
Most teachers are of liberal bent but, in the United States, think of themselves as Christians. So it's really a toss-up. I'd ask first. Or, if your aim is to piss them off, sneakily find out how they feel about your topic without telling them, then adopt a position that is sure to get their goat.
Just remember: what you're reporting on is a BOOK. It's NOT written by God/Allah or by Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva. It's a compilation of stories compiled through the ages by mortal men (and women), and the stories have been told and retold, copied and re-copied, through several millennia.
What I would suggest is not that you report on the whole BIBLE, but pick a single book of it. (I suggest Daniel or Revelation, since I can remember being interested in the Apocalyptic stuff when I was in 8th grade) Or pick a specific Sura of the Qur'An, or something. There's plenty of stuff to write about in just PART of a religious text.
Or just do the book report on "Catcher in the Rye" by J.D. Salinger, and then explain how you identify with the protagonist (Holden Caulfield - no not the VO player). Be prepared for increased security at your school, then.
However, why not do it on the Qur'An? Or the Veda? I mean, it's somehow accepted in American liberal democratic circles to bash the Bible, but bashing either of these other religious books would draw stark criticism.
Most teachers are of liberal bent but, in the United States, think of themselves as Christians. So it's really a toss-up. I'd ask first. Or, if your aim is to piss them off, sneakily find out how they feel about your topic without telling them, then adopt a position that is sure to get their goat.
Just remember: what you're reporting on is a BOOK. It's NOT written by God/Allah or by Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva. It's a compilation of stories compiled through the ages by mortal men (and women), and the stories have been told and retold, copied and re-copied, through several millennia.
What I would suggest is not that you report on the whole BIBLE, but pick a single book of it. (I suggest Daniel or Revelation, since I can remember being interested in the Apocalyptic stuff when I was in 8th grade) Or pick a specific Sura of the Qur'An, or something. There's plenty of stuff to write about in just PART of a religious text.
Or just do the book report on "Catcher in the Rye" by J.D. Salinger, and then explain how you identify with the protagonist (Holden Caulfield - no not the VO player). Be prepared for increased security at your school, then.
first off, this would have to be highschool level. university/college have to option FOR religion courses. and this would be too much for the average grade-schooler.
you are correct that the bible was not written by god himself, but it "IS THE WORD OF GOD" none the less, and it is still a book.
having to remove themselves from any religious conversation brought up by students, that would force a dilemma.
so is the instructor to ignore the content of your book report and grade the paper solely on the grammer/construction?
you are correct that the bible was not written by god himself, but it "IS THE WORD OF GOD" none the less, and it is still a book.
having to remove themselves from any religious conversation brought up by students, that would force a dilemma.
so is the instructor to ignore the content of your book report and grade the paper solely on the grammer/construction?
No, the instructor would have to ignore your beliefs on the topic, which is really really hard. The instructor would of course need to grade on content, and how well you present your perspective.
Let's say the teacher is a lifelong Catholic, attends more often than just Christmas and Easter, and has very strong views, etc. His student does a report on the Bible, and in the report strongly refutes many Catholic teachings. The teacher has a responsibility to not let his Catholic beliefs stand in the way of objectively analyzing exactly what the student is saying, and how he is saying it. If the arguments are well thought out and thoroughly supported, and the report is well written, then it deserves a good grade whether the position the paper takes turns out to be true in the long run or not. On the other hand, if the student writes a paper that strongly supports Catholic views, the teacher has a similar challenge to not go easy on the student just because the two agree.
If I were the teacher, I'd ask all the students to pre-approve their reports before hand. Because our public schools are plagued with politically-correct attitudes, I would be very nervous if a student said they were writing about any religious text, whether it's the Bible, Qu'ran, Book of Mormon, or whatever. If they do such a report, and give it a bad grade, will they accuse me of bias? If I give it a good grade, will others accuse me of bias? If I allow the report to be written, will I be accused of mixing church and state? If I don't allow it to be written, will I be accused of being anti-religion? That would be a tough situation. In some school districts, there would be no way to win.
Of course, the sad thing is that all this has become a dilemma in the US despite the fact that there's no such thing as a "Constitutional Seperation of Church and State."
Also, I'm curious what brought up this topic, drdoak007?
Let's say the teacher is a lifelong Catholic, attends more often than just Christmas and Easter, and has very strong views, etc. His student does a report on the Bible, and in the report strongly refutes many Catholic teachings. The teacher has a responsibility to not let his Catholic beliefs stand in the way of objectively analyzing exactly what the student is saying, and how he is saying it. If the arguments are well thought out and thoroughly supported, and the report is well written, then it deserves a good grade whether the position the paper takes turns out to be true in the long run or not. On the other hand, if the student writes a paper that strongly supports Catholic views, the teacher has a similar challenge to not go easy on the student just because the two agree.
If I were the teacher, I'd ask all the students to pre-approve their reports before hand. Because our public schools are plagued with politically-correct attitudes, I would be very nervous if a student said they were writing about any religious text, whether it's the Bible, Qu'ran, Book of Mormon, or whatever. If they do such a report, and give it a bad grade, will they accuse me of bias? If I give it a good grade, will others accuse me of bias? If I allow the report to be written, will I be accused of mixing church and state? If I don't allow it to be written, will I be accused of being anti-religion? That would be a tough situation. In some school districts, there would be no way to win.
Of course, the sad thing is that all this has become a dilemma in the US despite the fact that there's no such thing as a "Constitutional Seperation of Church and State."
Also, I'm curious what brought up this topic, drdoak007?
it is an interesting "catch 22"
i like your closing statements of biasing. you make great points of allowing the paper to be written and grading, but the last one about denying it before beginning can fall into the church vs. state protection.
you end up just "following the rules".
as for your last question, there has been a serious lack of intelligent conversation in these forums, and i thought it was about time for some.
where the subject came from is still a mystery to me too. in the eternal words of Ray Stantz, "i couldnt help it... it just popped in there."
i like your closing statements of biasing. you make great points of allowing the paper to be written and grading, but the last one about denying it before beginning can fall into the church vs. state protection.
you end up just "following the rules".
as for your last question, there has been a serious lack of intelligent conversation in these forums, and i thought it was about time for some.
where the subject came from is still a mystery to me too. in the eternal words of Ray Stantz, "i couldnt help it... it just popped in there."
Separation of Church and State is a sticky subject. Down here we went to war over it, and yet while our public schools and curriculae are 100% religion-free and priests can't vote, it's impossible for a woman to get an abortion though it's a constitutional right, and the Catholic Church never fails to "accidentaly" disclose which political candidates it favors, or claim that voting for people that support certain ideas (like evolution or the use of birth control) is a sin.
In my opinion, separation of Church and State is going to be an area of conflict as long as the great majority of a state's population believes that a higher power created the universe.
As for the US' case, I know there's an amendment that prohibits the setting up of a particular religion as official, as well as the persecution of any. In my view, this means that no religion is rejected nor favored by the government, which in effect means "a government without religion", but I've seen enough discussions about deconstructing that particular amendment to know it can be bent to mean whatever people want it to.
To me, what the Taleban did to the buddhist statues in Afghanistan is perfect proof of why joining Church and State is a horrible idea. The statues themselves were harmless, didn't take up valuable space, were a cultural resource and a tourist attraction; in short, there were very good reasons to keep them around. However, in the eyes of these fanatics they were an affront to their religion, and so they had to go.
Another good example is the Catholic Church's rejection of contraceptives. No one can argue with the fact that taking care of two children is far easier than taking care of five, or six, or ten (my parents, for example, had four children. However, my mother had nine siblings and my father had seven! I cannot begin to tell you how much easier I had it growing up than any of my multiple aunts and uncles, none of which ever had more than four children, by the way); you can't also deny the fact that if there's no unwanted child in the womb there's no need for an abortion. And yes, we all agree people need to assume responsability for their sexuality not just because of pregnancies but also because of STDs (against which contraceptives like the condom work very, very well). However, the Church prefers to stay with its "God-given" command to "spread and multiply" and so fights contraceptives and sexual education, claiming both will lead youngsters to promiscuity and sin (that makes as much sense as claiming that teaching someone to use a gun will make him into a mass murderer, or teaching someone to drive will make him run over people in the streets). And this assault on common sense occurs everwhere where the Church has a presence.
So that is why I think Church and State should stay separate: even if its intentions are good, many religious ideas are bad, quite obsolete, make no sense or are right down harmful (sexual mutilation of women, anyone?), and yet if you are to be a proper member of said religion you must stick to and follow these ideas, no matter what. State, on the other hand, is (or, at least, SHOULD BE) all about common sense and what's best for everyone.
/gets off soap box, trips and lands on his nose
In my opinion, separation of Church and State is going to be an area of conflict as long as the great majority of a state's population believes that a higher power created the universe.
As for the US' case, I know there's an amendment that prohibits the setting up of a particular religion as official, as well as the persecution of any. In my view, this means that no religion is rejected nor favored by the government, which in effect means "a government without religion", but I've seen enough discussions about deconstructing that particular amendment to know it can be bent to mean whatever people want it to.
To me, what the Taleban did to the buddhist statues in Afghanistan is perfect proof of why joining Church and State is a horrible idea. The statues themselves were harmless, didn't take up valuable space, were a cultural resource and a tourist attraction; in short, there were very good reasons to keep them around. However, in the eyes of these fanatics they were an affront to their religion, and so they had to go.
Another good example is the Catholic Church's rejection of contraceptives. No one can argue with the fact that taking care of two children is far easier than taking care of five, or six, or ten (my parents, for example, had four children. However, my mother had nine siblings and my father had seven! I cannot begin to tell you how much easier I had it growing up than any of my multiple aunts and uncles, none of which ever had more than four children, by the way); you can't also deny the fact that if there's no unwanted child in the womb there's no need for an abortion. And yes, we all agree people need to assume responsability for their sexuality not just because of pregnancies but also because of STDs (against which contraceptives like the condom work very, very well). However, the Church prefers to stay with its "God-given" command to "spread and multiply" and so fights contraceptives and sexual education, claiming both will lead youngsters to promiscuity and sin (that makes as much sense as claiming that teaching someone to use a gun will make him into a mass murderer, or teaching someone to drive will make him run over people in the streets). And this assault on common sense occurs everwhere where the Church has a presence.
So that is why I think Church and State should stay separate: even if its intentions are good, many religious ideas are bad, quite obsolete, make no sense or are right down harmful (sexual mutilation of women, anyone?), and yet if you are to be a proper member of said religion you must stick to and follow these ideas, no matter what. State, on the other hand, is (or, at least, SHOULD BE) all about common sense and what's best for everyone.
/gets off soap box, trips and lands on his nose
i would probably get a C. because i wouldnt read the whole thing, its like 800 pages and a lot of it is really, really boring. so what would happen is id read a few pages, fall asleep, then forget about it until the night before the report was due. then id try to do it, but id fall asleep at the computer (reading fark.com instead of writing, obviously). so that day i wouldnt have the report. i would go 'ok can i turn it in late' and they would be all 'yes, but for 5% off your grade'.
so i would read the cliff notes... or better yet i would rent the movie. then i would like describe stuff in the movie that didnt actually happen in the book, and the teacher might catch on to that and say 'you just watched the movie didnt you' and id say 'no! .. well.. i mean. maybe, a little bit. kind of . sort of. i mean, yeah'
and theyd be all 'ok, do it over. and thats 10% off for this little stunt', so id like you know, read the cliff notes again, take out the part of the report that was about the movie stuff, skim a few chapters of the book, get my dad/brother to help me write some of it, and turn that in.
now, of course, if my teacher is a fool, who doesnt really know anything about the bible or bother to read books very much, they wont catch me. in that case i might get a B.
but really, I think a C is more realistic.
unless i were in college. in college i managed to finally learn how to do stuff ahead of time. basically plop down in a public computer lab for 8 hours, whether i was working or not. just sit there. go to the bathroom 20 times. whatever. stare at the page. stare at the screen. even if it was blank for 30 minutes. just make myself sit there.
eventually the paper would get written whether i wanted it to or not. as far as reading, yeah. i could do it because i learned how to plow through boring crap, taking notes, summarizing, remembering which parts i actually needed to pay attention to for my paper.
So in college, I am thinking, at least a B. Maybe B+.
so i would read the cliff notes... or better yet i would rent the movie. then i would like describe stuff in the movie that didnt actually happen in the book, and the teacher might catch on to that and say 'you just watched the movie didnt you' and id say 'no! .. well.. i mean. maybe, a little bit. kind of . sort of. i mean, yeah'
and theyd be all 'ok, do it over. and thats 10% off for this little stunt', so id like you know, read the cliff notes again, take out the part of the report that was about the movie stuff, skim a few chapters of the book, get my dad/brother to help me write some of it, and turn that in.
now, of course, if my teacher is a fool, who doesnt really know anything about the bible or bother to read books very much, they wont catch me. in that case i might get a B.
but really, I think a C is more realistic.
unless i were in college. in college i managed to finally learn how to do stuff ahead of time. basically plop down in a public computer lab for 8 hours, whether i was working or not. just sit there. go to the bathroom 20 times. whatever. stare at the page. stare at the screen. even if it was blank for 30 minutes. just make myself sit there.
eventually the paper would get written whether i wanted it to or not. as far as reading, yeah. i could do it because i learned how to plow through boring crap, taking notes, summarizing, remembering which parts i actually needed to pay attention to for my paper.
So in college, I am thinking, at least a B. Maybe B+.
Hmmmm.... what was that you were saying, drdoak007, about a lack of intelligent conversation on these forums?
jex: I think you misunderstand what the purpose of the amendment was. One of the reasons people originally settled here in America is for religious freedom (while the rebellion against England was mostly over taxes). It is true that some really bad religious persecution still existed for a long time, but they were still free of a state sponsored religion.
The reason for a specific constitutional amendment in the Bill of Rights was to prevent the government from ever interfering with religion:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Nothing about keeping religious beliefs out of government, or keeping churches from being able to express political views. In fact, it is very important that any church be allowed to discuss their politics, and express their views. For example, if a church is strongly against abortion, and there is a tight local or national race between two candidates, one of whom is strongly for abortion and one against, then in my opinion the church has a strong responsibility to stand up for its position and urge its congregation to stand on the side they believe is right. They can't, of course, force the members to vote a certain way or divulge information on how they voted.
I would argue that the concept of "Seperation of Church and State," as it is used today, is unconstitutional. It is used to remove the Ten Commandments (none of which should be offensive to any member of any religion, and all of which advocate moral values and obeying laws) from courtrooms, and prevent praying in public schools, just to name a couple of things. A generic prayer in a classroom is not a bad thing and not discriminatory (if a teacher is discriminatory, it is an individual problem), and people choose what offends them. If I were Jewish (I'm not) and in class someone offered a Christian prayer, I would appreciate it (or vice versa). I would, however, ask the teacher that next time I get the chance to perform the prayer, according to my own beliefs. Then of course I would pray for God to destroy the infidels (just kidding).
Another example is the attack on Christmas. I've had a couple Jewish friends, and they're not at all offended by Christmas trees, or anything Christmas. It's just a great chance to educate people about Hanukkah, since many people are curious about the traditions of other cultures (in elementary school, my family celebrated Hanukkah with our Jewish neighbors, and they came over for Christmas). Other Christian holidays are also attacked pointlessly. I remember my high school choir performing a concert on Palm Sunday. We performed in the church across the street from the school (we always did because they had a good organ and a good place to perform with plenty of seating), and it was on Palm Sunday, and we had several Christian themed classical pieces to perform. Fortunately it was the Midwest, so not near as badly politically correct as, say, Boulder CO, where I lived before that. So we didn't have to change where/what we sang, we just couldn't call it the Palm Sunday Concert, since that might offend some of the people who came to the church to hear us perform. That's a mild example, as is the fact that hardly a school these days has a "Christmas Vacation," but a "Winter Vacation."
These things prohibit the free exercise of religion, and abride the freedom of speech and the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
Freedom of religion can go too far, though, and too far is when the practice of a religion infringes on another person's rights; such as, say, if a fanatic thinks it's ok to bomb an abortion clinic because he's "doing the Lord's work."
A final note, remember that we almost didn't have a Bill of Rights, and it's because some Founding Fathers were worried they'd be abused in this way. They didn't want specific rights spelled out, because then it seems like the government is granting rights, and doesn't have to grant other rights not in the Bill. The entire purpose of the constitution is to limit the scope and power of the government, to say what the government has a right to do, not what the people have a right to do. It is to protect us from the government, not the government from us. That's also why we have a right to bear arms.
jex: I think you misunderstand what the purpose of the amendment was. One of the reasons people originally settled here in America is for religious freedom (while the rebellion against England was mostly over taxes). It is true that some really bad religious persecution still existed for a long time, but they were still free of a state sponsored religion.
The reason for a specific constitutional amendment in the Bill of Rights was to prevent the government from ever interfering with religion:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Nothing about keeping religious beliefs out of government, or keeping churches from being able to express political views. In fact, it is very important that any church be allowed to discuss their politics, and express their views. For example, if a church is strongly against abortion, and there is a tight local or national race between two candidates, one of whom is strongly for abortion and one against, then in my opinion the church has a strong responsibility to stand up for its position and urge its congregation to stand on the side they believe is right. They can't, of course, force the members to vote a certain way or divulge information on how they voted.
I would argue that the concept of "Seperation of Church and State," as it is used today, is unconstitutional. It is used to remove the Ten Commandments (none of which should be offensive to any member of any religion, and all of which advocate moral values and obeying laws) from courtrooms, and prevent praying in public schools, just to name a couple of things. A generic prayer in a classroom is not a bad thing and not discriminatory (if a teacher is discriminatory, it is an individual problem), and people choose what offends them. If I were Jewish (I'm not) and in class someone offered a Christian prayer, I would appreciate it (or vice versa). I would, however, ask the teacher that next time I get the chance to perform the prayer, according to my own beliefs. Then of course I would pray for God to destroy the infidels (just kidding).
Another example is the attack on Christmas. I've had a couple Jewish friends, and they're not at all offended by Christmas trees, or anything Christmas. It's just a great chance to educate people about Hanukkah, since many people are curious about the traditions of other cultures (in elementary school, my family celebrated Hanukkah with our Jewish neighbors, and they came over for Christmas). Other Christian holidays are also attacked pointlessly. I remember my high school choir performing a concert on Palm Sunday. We performed in the church across the street from the school (we always did because they had a good organ and a good place to perform with plenty of seating), and it was on Palm Sunday, and we had several Christian themed classical pieces to perform. Fortunately it was the Midwest, so not near as badly politically correct as, say, Boulder CO, where I lived before that. So we didn't have to change where/what we sang, we just couldn't call it the Palm Sunday Concert, since that might offend some of the people who came to the church to hear us perform. That's a mild example, as is the fact that hardly a school these days has a "Christmas Vacation," but a "Winter Vacation."
These things prohibit the free exercise of religion, and abride the freedom of speech and the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
Freedom of religion can go too far, though, and too far is when the practice of a religion infringes on another person's rights; such as, say, if a fanatic thinks it's ok to bomb an abortion clinic because he's "doing the Lord's work."
A final note, remember that we almost didn't have a Bill of Rights, and it's because some Founding Fathers were worried they'd be abused in this way. They didn't want specific rights spelled out, because then it seems like the government is granting rights, and doesn't have to grant other rights not in the Bill. The entire purpose of the constitution is to limit the scope and power of the government, to say what the government has a right to do, not what the people have a right to do. It is to protect us from the government, not the government from us. That's also why we have a right to bear arms.
"I would argue that the concept of "Seperation of Church and State," as it is used today, is unconstitutional. It is used to remove the Ten Commandments (none of which should be offensive to any member of any religion, and all of which advocate moral values and obeying laws) from courtrooms, and prevent praying in public schools, just to name a couple of things."
I take issue with you here.
One popular interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment is that it forbids Congress from aiding any religion in any way at all. The other popular interpretation is that it forbids Congress from preferring one religion over another. While each of the Ten Commandments might not individually be offensive to anyone (* see below), collectively they are fundamental to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. The Qur'an used by Musims has a similar set of rules - why are we not using those instead? Could it be because Christianity reigns in the USA? That seems preferrential to me.
So what's the big deal? For example: Why would anyone complain about Christmas being a national holiday? Everyone gets the day off while the Christians do their thing, right? But what about Yom Kippur? 25 hours of fasting and prayer for Jews...seems like they could use a day off for that (arguably more than those who maybe went to mass on Christmas Day, then opened presents and gorged on treats). Why not? How can anyone object to a nice little prayer in a school or a courthouse? If the prayer is led and is oriented to the Christian faith (as it invariably is) then the non-Christian audience is immediately marginalized. The big deal is that oppression does not have to be overt or forceful to be felt.
*Even different flavors of Christianity don't entirely agree on the Commandments (regarding the Sabbath, for instance, or Oooo how about that whole graven image thing!?!?)
I take issue with you here.
One popular interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment is that it forbids Congress from aiding any religion in any way at all. The other popular interpretation is that it forbids Congress from preferring one religion over another. While each of the Ten Commandments might not individually be offensive to anyone (* see below), collectively they are fundamental to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. The Qur'an used by Musims has a similar set of rules - why are we not using those instead? Could it be because Christianity reigns in the USA? That seems preferrential to me.
So what's the big deal? For example: Why would anyone complain about Christmas being a national holiday? Everyone gets the day off while the Christians do their thing, right? But what about Yom Kippur? 25 hours of fasting and prayer for Jews...seems like they could use a day off for that (arguably more than those who maybe went to mass on Christmas Day, then opened presents and gorged on treats). Why not? How can anyone object to a nice little prayer in a school or a courthouse? If the prayer is led and is oriented to the Christian faith (as it invariably is) then the non-Christian audience is immediately marginalized. The big deal is that oppression does not have to be overt or forceful to be felt.
*Even different flavors of Christianity don't entirely agree on the Commandments (regarding the Sabbath, for instance, or Oooo how about that whole graven image thing!?!?)
Whistler said: If the prayer is led and is oriented to the Christian faith (as it invariably is) then the non-Christian audience is immediately marginalized.
So? Does the Constitution exist to prevent marginalization? We're back to the "Tyranny of the Majority" concept again. If tides were turned, and I was a Christian and most of the United States was Hindu, would I have to feel "marginalized" because lots of other people were Hindu? I think I'd feel more "special" because I was a Christian at that point. It is OK to be different. If you are of a different religion than the majority of others in your area, does your single dissenting belief system require that the government eliminate all religious references that might "marginalize" you? That's ridiculous.
As long as there's no overt discrimination, and no obvious stereotyping, I think it's fine to have a "Christmas tree" and not a "Holiday tree." The government doesn't make the Jews call the Minorah their "Nine-Candled Holiday Candleabra". It's gotten to the point where it's become bad to be different, and heaven forbid if you hurt someone's "feelings."
I have a working theory about the "Balkanization" of the United States, and this kind of thinking plays right into it. Instead of sharing our cultures and celebrations, groups/religions/organizations are attempting to put forth their own dogma to supercede everyone else's. You used to have "big-tent" organizations with many members that celebrated their similarities, now, it's more common to see many separate groups which celebrate their differences from other groups.
Separation of church and state was originally a hedge against centralized power, not to mention that most of the founding fathers clung to the anticlerical ideas of THEIR fathers, which was a general movement in Europe as a backlash against the rising (continuing?) power of the Catholic Church.
So, it's good to separate religious dogma from secular government. However, these things can't be taken too far - by overly restricting only ONE religion, even if it is the dominant one, the government is meddling where it doesn't belong. You can't have an "affirmative action" for religion.
So? Does the Constitution exist to prevent marginalization? We're back to the "Tyranny of the Majority" concept again. If tides were turned, and I was a Christian and most of the United States was Hindu, would I have to feel "marginalized" because lots of other people were Hindu? I think I'd feel more "special" because I was a Christian at that point. It is OK to be different. If you are of a different religion than the majority of others in your area, does your single dissenting belief system require that the government eliminate all religious references that might "marginalize" you? That's ridiculous.
As long as there's no overt discrimination, and no obvious stereotyping, I think it's fine to have a "Christmas tree" and not a "Holiday tree." The government doesn't make the Jews call the Minorah their "Nine-Candled Holiday Candleabra". It's gotten to the point where it's become bad to be different, and heaven forbid if you hurt someone's "feelings."
I have a working theory about the "Balkanization" of the United States, and this kind of thinking plays right into it. Instead of sharing our cultures and celebrations, groups/religions/organizations are attempting to put forth their own dogma to supercede everyone else's. You used to have "big-tent" organizations with many members that celebrated their similarities, now, it's more common to see many separate groups which celebrate their differences from other groups.
Separation of church and state was originally a hedge against centralized power, not to mention that most of the founding fathers clung to the anticlerical ideas of THEIR fathers, which was a general movement in Europe as a backlash against the rising (continuing?) power of the Catholic Church.
So, it's good to separate religious dogma from secular government. However, these things can't be taken too far - by overly restricting only ONE religion, even if it is the dominant one, the government is meddling where it doesn't belong. You can't have an "affirmative action" for religion.
Whistler said Could it be because Christianity reigns in the USA?
Yes, it does. About 80% of Americans in 2001 describe themselves as some sort of Christian. So it makes sense to accomodate that 80%. That being said, if anyone needs different time off for their specific religious activities, they have every right to that time off from school. But, since 4 out of 5 people are Christian (whether they practice or not), it makes perfect sense to have the standard breaks centered around Christian holidays. If there wasn't official time off for Christmas, I would take it anyway, as would most people I know, so there would be the same effect. Almost no one would be at school on or around Christmas.
What about religions that don't meet on the weekend? I don't know of one, but what if there were a major religion who believed Wednesday was the Sabbath, and had specific rules about keeping that day holy, including not going to school or work? Also, assume that 2% of the US was this religion. Should we change the weekend to center around Wednesday, to accomodate 2% of the population, and disregard the 80% of Christians because they're the majority and don't deserve special treatment becaue it's discrimination? Doesn't make sense.
LeberMac said: would I have to feel "marginalized" because lots of other people were Hindu? I think I'd feel more "special" because I was a Christian at that point.
I can identify with this. I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I have been a minority almost everywhere I've lived. I have been ridiculed, called a non-Christian, told I'm going to hell, told I'm leading others to hell; my leaders have been called fakes, liars, plagiarizers and worse. My ancestors were beaten, shot, kicked out of many places they settled, and suffered long journeys on foot across the US. I choose not to be offended by anyone who chooses to display their bigotry and ignorance in ridiculing my religion. I even deliberately subjected myself to such ridicule for two years, because my beliefs are so strong. Here's the key to any of these "sensitivity" issues:
EVERYONE IS CAPABLE OF CHOOSING WHAT OFFENDS THEM AND WHAT DOES NOT.
I actually prefer to be where I am a minority, because that's where there are opportunities. I liked working at Barnes & Noble with a bunch of crazy liberals, because it keeps my mind sharp to talk politics with people who disagree with me (besides exposing myself to other opinions and keeping my mind open to new ways of thinking and the possibility of changing my opinion). On the other hand, discussions with other conservatives often amount to "I know, aren't Democrats stupid? I mean, come on."
PC rules prevent the free exercise of religion.
Yes, it does. About 80% of Americans in 2001 describe themselves as some sort of Christian. So it makes sense to accomodate that 80%. That being said, if anyone needs different time off for their specific religious activities, they have every right to that time off from school. But, since 4 out of 5 people are Christian (whether they practice or not), it makes perfect sense to have the standard breaks centered around Christian holidays. If there wasn't official time off for Christmas, I would take it anyway, as would most people I know, so there would be the same effect. Almost no one would be at school on or around Christmas.
What about religions that don't meet on the weekend? I don't know of one, but what if there were a major religion who believed Wednesday was the Sabbath, and had specific rules about keeping that day holy, including not going to school or work? Also, assume that 2% of the US was this religion. Should we change the weekend to center around Wednesday, to accomodate 2% of the population, and disregard the 80% of Christians because they're the majority and don't deserve special treatment becaue it's discrimination? Doesn't make sense.
LeberMac said: would I have to feel "marginalized" because lots of other people were Hindu? I think I'd feel more "special" because I was a Christian at that point.
I can identify with this. I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I have been a minority almost everywhere I've lived. I have been ridiculed, called a non-Christian, told I'm going to hell, told I'm leading others to hell; my leaders have been called fakes, liars, plagiarizers and worse. My ancestors were beaten, shot, kicked out of many places they settled, and suffered long journeys on foot across the US. I choose not to be offended by anyone who chooses to display their bigotry and ignorance in ridiculing my religion. I even deliberately subjected myself to such ridicule for two years, because my beliefs are so strong. Here's the key to any of these "sensitivity" issues:
EVERYONE IS CAPABLE OF CHOOSING WHAT OFFENDS THEM AND WHAT DOES NOT.
I actually prefer to be where I am a minority, because that's where there are opportunities. I liked working at Barnes & Noble with a bunch of crazy liberals, because it keeps my mind sharp to talk politics with people who disagree with me (besides exposing myself to other opinions and keeping my mind open to new ways of thinking and the possibility of changing my opinion). On the other hand, discussions with other conservatives often amount to "I know, aren't Democrats stupid? I mean, come on."
PC rules prevent the free exercise of religion.
Professor: That was a rhetorical question. I do concede the point about 80% of people (Post Office employees, for instance) being out for a given holiday. There's just not enough non-Christians to pick up the slack in many areas.
Lebermac: You have blurred my point with your comments about the "PC" movement. I was specifically pointing to a prayer led in a courthouse or school as an example. I said nothing of sanitizing or political correctness. Could we not simply have a moment of silence for prayer or contemplative nose-picking? People could have their moment to worship whatever they like without being distracted by somebody else droning on to their own deities.
If you WERE a Hindu, and standing trial for murder in that courtroom, would you still feel "special" when everyone else in the room (judge, jury, lawyers, officers, spectators) was led in a spoken prayer for guidance from a deity you don't share a belief in? I think I'd feel a little nervous.
Lebermac: You have blurred my point with your comments about the "PC" movement. I was specifically pointing to a prayer led in a courthouse or school as an example. I said nothing of sanitizing or political correctness. Could we not simply have a moment of silence for prayer or contemplative nose-picking? People could have their moment to worship whatever they like without being distracted by somebody else droning on to their own deities.
If you WERE a Hindu, and standing trial for murder in that courtroom, would you still feel "special" when everyone else in the room (judge, jury, lawyers, officers, spectators) was led in a spoken prayer for guidance from a deity you don't share a belief in? I think I'd feel a little nervous.
Whistler: Sure! Moment of silence for each and every child to say a prayer or whatnot! Maybe ask for a few blessings from the FSM?
And - I don't know how I got accused of Murder, but I'm innocent, I tells ya! In fact, I think that in these times in the United States, I'd be MORE apt to get off because I was "special." And of course I'd realize that swearing on a Bible in a governmental court is equivalent to saying "Yeah, Yeah, I'm not gonna lie."
There DOES have to be recognition that the United States was founded by Christians and that will result in cultural and religious undertones throughout the country. That's not a BAD thing. The religion does not influence the government in anywhere NEAR the capacity of, say, Iran. However, instead of mandating NO religion, the United States says that it's OK to have religion or to be religions and hold public office. However, religious institutions are barred from interfering in governmental affairs, and vice versa.
Only when the definition between what is obviously governmental and what is obviously religious are blurred does any conflict take place.
Oh BTW LeberMac's "dead." Lexicon is his replacement.
And - I don't know how I got accused of Murder, but I'm innocent, I tells ya! In fact, I think that in these times in the United States, I'd be MORE apt to get off because I was "special." And of course I'd realize that swearing on a Bible in a governmental court is equivalent to saying "Yeah, Yeah, I'm not gonna lie."
There DOES have to be recognition that the United States was founded by Christians and that will result in cultural and religious undertones throughout the country. That's not a BAD thing. The religion does not influence the government in anywhere NEAR the capacity of, say, Iran. However, instead of mandating NO religion, the United States says that it's OK to have religion or to be religions and hold public office. However, religious institutions are barred from interfering in governmental affairs, and vice versa.
Only when the definition between what is obviously governmental and what is obviously religious are blurred does any conflict take place.
Oh BTW LeberMac's "dead." Lexicon is his replacement.
Another good example of Church-State conflict is the stem cell issue. No amount of common sense is behind the ban imposed by the US Government, only the misguided religious belief of its president. His claim of being unwilling of sacrificing innocent lives to save others is hypocritical when that is precisely what he (says he) is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unless, of course, every Coalition soldier killed or maimed so far wasn't innocent to begin with. Add to that the fact these embryos he won't allow to be tampered with will eventually be destroyed ayway, and you have a lose-lose situation. The embryos aren't being "saved", and the research is now seriously hampered (in the US, at least); these narrow-minded views are precisely what is wrong with all organized religions, and why they shouldn't be allowed to interfere with, well, anything, really, much less made law by government. This is exactly like the old catholic prohibition against opening dead bodies for research, which maintained medicine as a field of quacks and preposterous theories until people finally dug into the bodies, found how they worked, and began to understand the causes of many illnesses.
Good point. And what about "gay marriage"? Let's just have "civic unions" and be done with the matter. It's not like there aren't sham/sexless/godless/loveless/abusive marriages going on all over the place just so folks can stay in the country or save on taxes.
Don't like it? Go join a church that won't do religious marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, and don't marry anyone who has genitals that look like yours.
People need to spend less time focusing on what others are doing in the bedroom. The idea of most people having sex is pretty gross, but just imagine Congress members getting all sweaty. Eeeew! (We'll avoid the obvious joke that they're actually screwing us).
Don't like it? Go join a church that won't do religious marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, and don't marry anyone who has genitals that look like yours.
People need to spend less time focusing on what others are doing in the bedroom. The idea of most people having sex is pretty gross, but just imagine Congress members getting all sweaty. Eeeew! (We'll avoid the obvious joke that they're actually screwing us).
In fact, I think that in these times in the United States, I'd be MORE apt to get off because I was "special."
Overall I'm trying to stay out of this issue, as most people seem to be arguing nicely (especially Whistler :D), however this line bugs me. While it fits nicely with the patriotic "land of the free" image to think this is true, there are PLENTY of places in America where racism/intolerance are still widespread. Not to add another dimension into this, and not to generalize areas or anything, but a very close friend of mine is Indian. Her family used to live in Georgia, and they were completely ostracized from society. ONE person was her friend, and everyone else at school constantly shunned or insulted her, and she received no support from any "trusting teachers" as we all are taught to expect. I'm sure if she or one of her family members had faced the slightest connection to a crime, they'd be convicted within five minutes.
Overall I'm trying to stay out of this issue, as most people seem to be arguing nicely (especially Whistler :D), however this line bugs me. While it fits nicely with the patriotic "land of the free" image to think this is true, there are PLENTY of places in America where racism/intolerance are still widespread. Not to add another dimension into this, and not to generalize areas or anything, but a very close friend of mine is Indian. Her family used to live in Georgia, and they were completely ostracized from society. ONE person was her friend, and everyone else at school constantly shunned or insulted her, and she received no support from any "trusting teachers" as we all are taught to expect. I'm sure if she or one of her family members had faced the slightest connection to a crime, they'd be convicted within five minutes.
Well if I knew she had known YOU, smitty, I'd suspect her as well.
OT
re: Leber; does this mean no more tequila jokes??
I weep. .
re: Leber; does this mean no more tequila jokes??
I weep. .