I was listening on the car radio this morning to Jay Weber (I switched from WPR because I wasn’t interested in that discussion and went searching for something more stimulating) and he was off on a tangent concerning some six year old girl who had written a piece to be read aloud at some school function and she had placed the word G-d twice in her speech. Word got out that her speech had G-d in it and one parent objected. According to Weber, school administrators decided that the speech was inappropriate for mentioning G-d and disallowed its reading. Webber in his outrage began to prattle on about how this six year olds right to free speech was being violated and that the establishment clause was being pushed too far.
As I listened; I began to think about not only this issue but where limits should be set. This situation with the six year old, didn’t amount to much; since as a minor, she doesn’t have the unlimited right of free speech. However, what right does anyone have to bringing religious expression into public government venues?
I began public school in the fall of 1951 and we were drilled to learn to recite the “Pledge of Allegiance” each and every morning in the classroom, facing the flag with our right hand held over our heart. Along with the opening prayer read over the school’s intercom, saying the pledge was part of our routine. In the third grade, 1954, I had to relearn the Pledge all over again. Congress had passed the law requiring the insertion of the phrase “under G-d” that had to be included. The teacher had us practice over and over again the “new Pledge” until we had committed it to memory. No one took exception to this change or to the fact that we opened the day with a school prayer. If the same actions were done today, the nation would explode over the controversy.
There is no clearer indication of values conflict than that of religious expression in public venues. Recently, conflict had arisen over one of the local school districts who had held graduation in a mega church because they didn’t have a venue big enough to hold the graduation. In the sixty years since I first started public school, the political landscape has changed requiring schools and other public entities to become the mediators to assure inclusion of all possible religious understandings and affiliations. This has had the greatest impact on public schools where inclusion means completely avoiding anything that remotely can be tied to religion or religious expression. Looking at the situation, one has to ask why so many are determined to either include or exclude religion into the secular space of public education.
As someone who believes that we need to protect the secular nature of the public schools; it is difficult for me to fathom why this religious expression in schools is so dominant and so important to its proponents. I was taught that religious belief and expression were strictly private matters and that I had the right to believe and practice anything that I want as long as it didn’t harm others or force my belief system onto others. I know why people are so attentive to keeping any and all religion out of the schools; much of it being a “slippery slope” argument. If we allow for even a minor religious expression, that the religionists will continue to push to get more included. So what is the correct position to take?
Let’s keep the two worlds separate in the public schools. Excluding all religious expression is the safest course of action. It maintains the neutrality of our schools and keeps them off the horns of a dilemma of what’s permissible and what’s not. I have often heard religionists talk about that “intelligent design” and/or “creationism” should also be taught along side of scientifically verified evolution. The primary issue there is that evolution does not need the notion of a religious creator being and can explain life and evolution without resulting to non scientific beliefs. Therefore, evolution is proper for the secular classroom and creationism is not.
Living in a diverse world requires reasonable limits that we should all observe. It is not unreasonable to preclude religion and religious expression from the public classrooms.
Do you not think it is appropriate for the government to recognize that a high percentage of the citizenry are believers? If the government cannot do that, then how can they adhere to the 'free exercise' clause?
I know what you are trying to say. I just don't agree with it. I promise you I am not trying to be whinney or snarky here with the following statement. With all the private land. There are so many churches and privately owned businesses in this country that have every right to display what ever thier believe system is. I have never argued or disagreed with this point. Why is it such a big deal that religion and its displays have to also include the statehouses and public buildings. Besides, the amount of private land the number of churches must out number gov. buildings significantly. We have the freedom to believe (or not believe) what ever we chose in this country. It is the best. Just keep the religion out of gov. So many of our laws adhere to religion due to common morality code anyway. Just keep it out and enjoy the religious speech where it belongs. I honestly don't see why this is such a huge issue
Another foolish argument. If I can't use the same for marriage (where does it end, why not let anyone now marry any object he or she wishes) then you can't say that this is a subject that could get out of control with unintended consequences. Simply because of your dislike for deity based religion.
Again, if you wish to make the statement that their is enough private land for these items that they do not public space for showing; then I can make the same argument for marriage. The are plenty of affiliated groups that conduct ceremonies to join a gay couple, why do we need the government involved?
Really, it's much easier to simply remain neutral on all matters of religion than to try to include everybody.
This isn't just about displaying stuff during at city hall during the holidays--it doesn't change my beliefs if the village hall has a religious display out front or not. This has to do with allowing workers to take time off of work for religious reasons without fear of losing their jobs, being free to worship as their beliefs require, and/or being free to express those beliefs without persecution.
Again, my beliefs in the Seperation between Church and State are not foolish. There is plenty of legal precident that supports my arguments. Besides, if you want to call our founding fathers foolish for their beliefs in seperation, that's fine. I personally side with Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et al.
Marriage equality isn't about religion. It's about discrimination. If a Church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, that is their right under the Consitution. That doesn't mean a same sex couple shouldn't have the right to get married. There are plenty of rights given to married couples in this country. From benefits to hospital decision making to tax breaks. To discriminate between one set of consenting adults and another should be un Constitutional. These same arguments were make decades ago when it came to inter racial marrige. They were as wrong then as they are now.
Weddings performed within religious institutions are only valid if the person performing the ceremony is authorized by the state to represent the interests of the state. A marriage is quite literally a civil contract subject to the laws of the state. As far as religions recognizing certain marriage contracts makes no difference to the civil contract. To prohibit competent adults from marrying because of gender, based on Judeo/Christian/Islamic prohibitions is an act of religious establishment. According to what I know about Christianity, you are not to be concerned about the secular world but be concerned about personal actions and behaviors.
* Ignore the fact that productivity approaches zero when half of the staff is absent. Remember Bren, Lyle thunk this one up;not ALEC.
Personally, I believe that religious beliefs should be accommodated by employers when possible, particularly when the employer is the government. Forcing employees to work during their religious holidays can be seen as infringing on their right to free exercise of their religion.
I've worked several jobs where there were no paid holidays. The shop closed on Christmas, New Years, etc. but we weren't paid. I don't believe that a boss is obliged to give an employee those days off either, since many people do have to work on them.
If the Jewish population were the 80% instead of the 2%, the holidays would be according to the Jewish holy days instead of the Christian holy days. As I said earlier, it's more an issue of finding workers than favoring a religion.
Where am I? What is going on?
I happen to be very comforted there are fire fighters who have to work over Christmas : )