Religion in the Public Square

[HashiriyaS14]

Yet, they are the ones that have strong support with lobby groups, mass media and higher education and want to wipe Religion out of the public square.

I find this an interesting choice of words, and so I'll ask a question. This is JUST a question, an honest one, one that comes from the way I personally interpret my own faith. This is NOT meant to be inflammatory, so don't blow it up as such (this isn't just directed at Bud).

Why does it need to be in the "public square" at all? What is the point or value of it being there for you? (everyone answer for themselves)

My faith is an issue between myself and God, it has nothing whatsoever to do with society. Whether or not my neighbor can have a frivolous abortion, gamble their savings away, or engage in gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with me. I'm inclined to let them do all those things if they're so inclined, because their life is ultimately up to them and if I'm not going to "save them from themselves" financially with welfare I don't much see the point in "saving them from themselves" in regards to their relationship with God. I'm not going to do those things, and that's all that matters to me.

Religion, to ME, is the most very private of matters. It is a matter betwixt only myself and whomever I acknowledge as my Creator, and so long as I am not barred from believing what I believe, I don't see what it has to do with anyone else.

I'm not sure why it belongs in the public square. We can choose to publicly declare our religion or worship publicly if we see the need (I don't personally, but others might), but I think it should end there.

Any law that requires others to acknowledge any part of my religion is every bit as bad as a law that prevents me from freely exercising my own.

In considering every argument life has to offer, one must always, without exception, attempt to flip it around and think what it would be like if roles were reversed. If we lived in, say, an Islamic majority society, would you want references to Allah (leaving aside the fact that it happens to be the same deity) in official United States documents, creeds, and laws? Likely not.

There is absolutely positively nothing that would stand in the way of us BEING an Islamic-majority (or Buddhist, or Hindu, etc) society other than the makeup of our population, something that is subject to very rapid change. One must consider the ramifications of wanting to protect the "right" to incorporate religion into government when one is in the majority, as one might someday not be.

Why do so many people want to "go there"? Why can't they just leave faith as something that exists between themselves and their own religion?

EDIT:

Do you simply have disdain for any societal values or just those that can be attributed from having a religious origin?

No.

There is no such thing as "societal values". The idea of grouping Americans together as a body that somehow holds any common values simply because we pay taxes to the same government and are protected by the same military is folly.

There are no societal values, there are only individual values. These may, at some times, be similar from person to person, but there are no "American values". There is in fact no American cohesion, nor should there be. Individuality and discord are not to be feared, they are what defines this country. The "values" of this nation are made up solely by the individual values of the people that inhabit it at any given instant, and these are subject to enormous change over time. The idea that we can somehow hang on to some said instant and freeze the values as being consistent "American values" is ridiculous. The makeup of the population will change and values will change with it.

[Cold_Zero]

Hash, I hope you don't mind that I split this question into it's own thread. The original thread was about California Proposition 8 and its constitutionality.

I would like to warn people that while this is a great question that Hash brought up, we will stay focused on the subject at hand.

[Cold_Zero]

I find this an interesting choice of words, and so I'll ask a question. This is JUST a question, an honest one, one that comes from the way I personally interpret my own faith. This is NOT meant to be inflammatory, so don't blow it up as such (this isn't just directed at Bud).

Why does it need to be in the "public square" at all? What is the point or value of it being there for you? (everyone answer for themselves)

It's a very good question Hash. To be honest, the issue (at least to me) is not about putting it in the public square, as if it was either never there or had left. The issue centers around what do certain people and certain groups gain by taking religion (and not just Christianity or Judeo-Christian religions) out of the public square? There are lobbies and people in the new media that work to remove or even expunge religion from the public square. We have a rich tradition and heritage in this country of religion being a very important part of life, society and culture. Heck the First Amendment to our Constitution deals with the Freedom of Religion, both in the Establishment and the Free Exercise. And it is the latter part that I worry about. There have been movements a foot to try and mitigate its importance or to remove it all together for a whole host of reasons. I fail to see why the United States, being a religious nation, being proud of our heritage, yet our religious freedom is a bad thing. Why should something so important to our society be thrust into hiding as if it were something bad or to be ashamed of?

Quote »My faith is an issue between myself and God, it has nothing whatsoever to do with society. Whether or not my neighbor can have a frivolous abortion, gamble their savings away, or engage in gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with me. I'm inclined to let them do all those things if they're so inclined, because their life is ultimately up to them and if I'm not going to "save them from themselves" financially with welfare I don't much see the point in "saving them from themselves" in regards to their relationship with God. I'm not going to do those things, and that's all that matters to me.

Religion, to ME, is the most very private of matters. It is a matter betwixt only myself and whomever I acknowledge as my Creator, and so long as I am not barred from believing what I believe, I don't see what it has to do with anyone else.

I'm not sure why it belongs in the public square. We can choose to publicly declare our religion or worship publicly if we see the need (I don't personally, but others might), but I think it should end there.[/quote]Well coming from a Proselytizing Religion, I guess I don't view that Faith Matters are something to be kept hidden or secret from other people. And to be honest, this whole 'Faith is a personal matter between God and I' is a pretty new concept in American Culture. I suspect it has been an attempt to make Christianity more palatable to the American Public by stripping the religion from anything that can be construed as uncomfortable, offensive or edgy. And to be honest, we have inherited Christianity in Modern American Society that is a Therapeutic, Narcissistic Deism that is the epitome of this rationale.

Quote »Any law that requires others to acknowledge any part of my religion is every bit as bad as a law that prevents me from freely exercising my own.[/quote]I do not advocate legislating Religion that violates the First Amendment with the Establishment Clause. I know that there are some Christians that feel that a Theonomy would be the most preferable form of Government for this Country, but I disagree. We have the system of Government that we inherited and I am very reluctant to change its form based on a regressive perception that we need to turn the United States into the Modern version of Ancient Israel.

Quote »In considering every argument life has to offer, one must always, without exception, attempt to flip it around and think what it would be like if roles were reversed. If we lived in, say, an Islamic majority society, would you want references to Allah (leaving aside the fact that it happens to be the same deity) in official United States documents, creeds, and laws? Likely not.

There is absolutely positively nothing that would stand in the way of us BEING an Islamic-majority (or Buddhist, or Hindu, etc) society other than the makeup of our population, something that is subject to very rapid change. One must consider the ramifications of wanting to protect the "right" to incorporate religion into government when one is in the majority, as one might someday not be. [/quote]Well Hash, I am sorry that this country (for the most part) was founded on Religious Principals that went into formulating our laws and our society. We do have a rich tradition of having a Judeo-Christian Heritage in the United States. But you said something that is very interesting... If the United States had been founded by Arabs Founding Fathers that ascribed to the religion of Islam, we would effectively be under Islamic Laws and the Sharia Court system. To be honest, Christians would be compelled by the Bible to follow all of the Laws set out in the Laws of the Land and follow the rulers. It would be sinful not to do so, unless it clearly violated God's Law.

[ishkabibble]

I agree with Hash 100% on the first part. It simply does not belong in the public square.

There is no "attack" on religion. There is a resistance to those who are pushing their religious agenda on others.

[Cold_Zero]

There is a resistance to those who are pushing their religious agenda on others.

And vice a versa.

[ishkabibble]

Edit since I misinterpreted what you were saying.

Nobody is forcing you to marry gays or do anything you are against. You will incur zero harm when Greg and Matt get married.

[HashiriyaS14]

But you said something that is very interesting... If the United States had been founded by Arabs Founding Fathers that ascribed to the religion of Islam, we would effectively be under Islamic Laws and the Sharia Court system. To be honest, Christians would be compelled by the Bible to follow all of the Laws set out in the Laws of the Land and follow the rulers. It would be sinful not to do so, unless it clearly violated God's Law.

That's actually not what I said.

I wasn't "what iffing" about a hypothetical scenario wherein the United States was "founded on Muslim principles".

I was noting that, in the future, the United States could just as easily BECOME an Islamic (or whatever) majority nation, as unlike nations with theologically-based governments, we are whatever our population is, and it is fluid over time.

I don't think we have a "rich history of Judeo Christian Traditions", I think we have a rich history of American traditions. In the past, the vast majority of Americans were Christians. At present, this is still true, but less so than in the past. If trends in other parts of the world are any indication (i.e. Europe), it will become even less so in the future. America is a reflection of it's population in any one instant, what has defined the past has no bearing on the future.

[Cold_Zero]

Calm down Hash. I was just going off on a brief tangent.

I wasn't disagreeing with your original comments about the people changing the form of government.

Although, I disagree with you on the part about our Heritage. It is not as if the United States' Heritage exists in a vacuum.

[audtatious]

Edit since I misinterpreted what you were saying.

Nobody is forcing you to marry gays or do anything you are against. You will incur zero harm when Greg and Matt get married.

Gays march all over and constantly block streets. During their marches some like to walk around mostly undressed. If anyone complains about the nudity and exhibitionism then those complaining should go hide themselves in their homes or not come to work that day in order to not view the nudity (which is against the law) and labeled religious homophobes. Nudity and vulgarity on TV receives the same, turn the channel or constantly sit with your child watching TV shows so they don't accidentally run across some infomercial about dildos or teenagers exposing themselves at 6am on a Saturday morning. People seem to have more rights to watch that on basic cable and after hours/early hours TV than those who do not approve and content is being adjusted towards the "disapproving" content constantly. Those not approving are labeled religious idiots and are dismissed.

Everything that does not meet yours and others viewpoints are immediately labeled and put away in a nice little box. I wonder what would happen via the liberals who claim to embrace tolerance should a group of Mormons march in San Francisco in support of their religious viewpoints? Tolerance will go immediately out the door as these people have escaped their little box and need to be whipped back in quickly as their message is counter to their viewpoint thus it must be destroyed.

[OriginalWheelman]

Hash, I hope you don't mind that I split this question into it's own thread. The original thread was about California Proposition 8 and its constitutionality.

The original thread was about a court being able to overturn a referendum, but sure.

[Cold_Zero]

Thank you for the clarification... Sorry about that.

[AZhitman]

I'm not sure why it belongs in the public square. We can choose to publicly declare our religion or worship publicly if we see the need (I don't personally, but others might), but I think it should end there.

In general, I don't disagree with anything Hash posted. I concur that one's faith is one's own, and they should be allowed to exercise it as they see fit.

With that said:

If the Christmas tree in front of Town Hall is "offensive" to you, don't look at it.

I'm offended by things I see on TV, and I'd like to avoid having my kids see certain things, and I'm told: "Don't look at it." "Change the channel." "Turn off the TV."

My entire IT Department here at work wears headgear as a function of their faith. Personally, I think it has the capacity of detracting from their credibility with people who don't know that they're really, really good at what they do.

I'd feel the same way if one of my auditors had "666" tattoooed on his forehead. Hey, it's your head, but don't expect me to keep my mouth shut: It makes you look stupid. I have every right to convey my opinion.

So, if the Nativity scene in the Town Square causes someone to be uncomfortable, just remember: The 14-year-old girl at the mall wearing a shirt that says, "I LIKE TO F***" offends me. The assemblage of assless-chaps-wearing gay men strolling down Central Avenue offends me. The "God is Dead" billboard near the freeway offends me.

Just deal with it.

[audtatious]

They won't and you know it. Their way or the highway....

[HashiriyaS14]

So, if the Nativity scene in the Town Square causes someone to be uncomfortable, just remember: The 14-year-old girl at the mall wearing a shirt that says, "I LIKE TO F***" offends me. The assemblage of assless-chaps-wearing gay men strolling down Central Avenue offends me. The "God is Dead" billboard near the freeway offends me.

Just deal with it.

I can say that I completely agree with the sentiment expressed in your post with one exception.

In the quote above, one example is state-sponsored (the nativity), and the rest are not.

Now, with, say, the Christmas tree example, I have a tough time with it, because I enjoy seeing the tree get raised in front of the White House every year (yes, sometimes I'll even go watch them put it up).

That said, I'm not certain what justification there is for there being Christmas trees at town squares or state halls, etc. They're pretty and I like them, but I do sorta understand the gripe. I mean, it's one thing for private citizens to be offending one another, but I think the government should try to avoid doing it, since we all pay taxes to it regardless of what religion we subscribe to, if any. I just don't know what business of the government's it is to be celebrating a religious holiday. Put up trees in your own homes and on your own property.

The White House is an exception, obviously, as it's a residence, and if the resident (POTUS) celebrates Christmas, then he/she should by all means be allowed to raise a tree on the property.

EDIT: Bud, just so you don't think I'm trying to halt our discussion, I'm not ignoring you by not replying further to what you wrote. I read it, and I disagree with a healthy bit of it, but it's a purely subjective disagreement and so I don't see any need to argue about it. We each believe different things and we're not going to be reconciled in that regard, so I'm not going to force it by pointing out everything I disagree with. Thanks for the thorough and well-thought-out answer, though.

[Cold_Zero]

I don't think we have a "rich history of Judeo Christian Traditions", I think we have a rich history of American traditions. In the past, the vast majority of Americans were Christians. At present, this is still true, but less so than in the past.

After I have had a chance to do some thinking, I think there is a lot of evidence in our culture, society, government and history to point to the fact that the United States does have a rich Judeo-Christian Tradition.

The biggest thing that jumped out at me was Public Education. Public Education in this country was started by churches with the intent to educate children so that they could read the bible. It was not until later in our history that the local and then the state governments took on the task of Public Education. Public schools also taught biblical morality (in some form or another) to students up to the 1960’s.

Also, when you look at some of the first Colleges and Universities in the Colonies, most of them were started as religious institutions.

-Harvard was established as Puritan school to train Puritan Ministers for the clergy. -Yale was established as a Congregationalist school to train its ministers for the clergy.-Princeton, while not an official Presbyterian school, was established by ministers for the training of Ministers. The school’s first three Presidents were:1. Jonathan d!ck, a minister and leader in the Great Awakening Movement2. Aaron Burr, a Presbyterian Minister3. Jonathan Edwards, a Congregationalist minister, theologian, leader of the Great Awakening and author of the famous sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”-Dartmouth was founded as a Congregationalist/Puritan school to train Native Americans as ministers to spread Anglo culture (aka Protestantism).-Rutgers was founded as a Dutch Reformed school to train Ministers.-Columbia was founded as a reaction to the founding of Princeton and a growing influence of Presbyterianism. It was chartered by the King of England as a Church of England school to train ministers for the clergy. It was deeply under the influence of the Arch Bishop of Canterbury. -College of William and Mary was founded as a Church of England school to train ministers. Its charter (from the King of England) states, “…to the end that the Church of Virginia may be furnished with a seminary of ministers of the gospel, and that the youth may be piously educated in good letters and manners, and that the Christian faith may be propagated amongst the Western Indians, to the glory of Almighty God; to make, found and establish a certain place of universal study..”

But let’s take a step back. Even the simplest things come to mind:Blue Book Laws- concepts founded from Biblical laws.

Thomas Jefferson negotiated Treaties with Native American Indians for the US Government that typically stipulated that Christian Missionaries be sent to the tribes.

Our National Cathedral is a church located in Washington, DC.

Bankruptcy Laws and Usury Laws- Old Testament concepts.

The legal concept of facing one’s accuser in a courtroom of law- again Old Testament concept.

The swearing in of officials to their duty, on a Bible and under oath of God.

“In God We Trust” being printed on our money and monuments.

Local, State and Federal governments observe Christian Holidays.

The holiday of Thanksgiving (to the Judeo Christian God) being an American invention.

Even the Puritans, came to this country to establish a colony (New England) that would embody Christian laws (how the Puritans saw fit) and as a utopian Christian society. And the subsequent founding of a religiously free state, Rhode Island, to be an escape from Puritan tyranny.

Heck, even Heliochrome's, mine and your home state was established by Lord Baltimore to be a Roman Catholic Colony.. aka Maryland.

Even the concept of Separation of Church and State has a Christian background, found in the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms where the left hand of is the Government and the right hand is the Kingdom of God. But it also has biblical roots.

The three branches of Government (Judicial, Legislative and Executive) come from the Old Testament (Isaiah).

The concept of Separation of Powers was instituted in our government because the Founding Fathers strongly believed in man’s corrupt nature (Original Sin) and it was necessary to separate the powers of government.

I don’t understand the hesitation to acknowledge America’s Judeo-Christian roots and the attempt to remove it from history. We are a Christian Nation in the broad sense of the term. While our country does not ascribe to one certain denomination we are heavily influenced by Christianity. Probably even more than we would like to think. This doesn’t mean that we don’t have religious freedom or that you are some way bound to Christianity by being an American.

[Cold_Zero]

I mean, it's one thing for private citizens to be offending one another, but I think the government should try to avoid doing it, since we all pay taxes to it regardless of what religion we subscribe to, if any. I just don't know what business of the government's it is to be celebrating a religious holiday. Put up trees in your own homes and on your own property.

Then I am sure you have an even bigger problem with Congress opening up their session each day with a Prayer for the Chaplain.

What I find ironic is the fact that our Indian contractors here at work, some of which are naturalized, really have no problem with a lot of these issues. Maybe where you come from (I am thinking of India's Colonial roots) has something to do with this view?

EDIT: Bud, just so you don't think I'm trying to halt our discussion, I'm not ignoring you by not replying further to what you wrote. I read it, and I disagree with a healthy bit of it, but it's a purely subjective disagreement and so I don't see any need to argue about it. We each believe different things and we're not going to be reconciled in that regard, so I'm not going to force it by pointing out everything I disagree with. Thanks for the thorough and well-thought-out answer, though.

And aint it a grand country that we live in that we can discuss such matters, disagree and not launch wars over it?

[HashiriyaS14]

And ain't it a grand country that we live in that we can discuss such matters, disagree and not launch wars over it?

Yes it is.

And for what it's worth, while I have to run to class now, I'd rather argue about religion with you than just about anyone else I can think of. You seem to have a vast depth of knowledge on the topic, you take it seriously, and you don't rant. Good show.

[ishkabibble]

Posting naked again, eh?

Gays march all over and constantly block streets.

The question was, how would gay marraige harm you? You're having some other conversation, apparently. How about answering the question?

Everything that does not meet yours and others viewpoints are immediately labeled and put away in a nice little box.

Right back at ya. We've all seen how far you reach to make everything fit into your predetermined viewpoint.

[krimsonviper]

The question was, how would gay marraige harm you? You're having some other conversation, apparently. How about answering the question?

My guess is that it undermines the basic belief of what our Creator wants, soul connection(marriage) between a man and a woman. My belief is that in marriage, the couple's soul merges into one.

[edit]As far as the gov't concerned, I think they should take the term marriage out of law. In fact, anything thats religiously related shouldn't have any jurisdiction with law and vice versa. Seperation of power? Yeah, to a point.[/edit]

I feel that people "advertise" their religion as being a way to "spread the word." I happily display my rosary that hangs off of my rearview mirror, but not to offend non-believers, but maybe to get them to ask me about it. It then gives me an oppurtunity to share my ideas.

I don't force my ideas on anyone, I will simply put it in front of you, and you can either take and run with it, or don't. Not gonna mangle you or kill you for not believing what I believe or how I believe.

Now before someone goes and picks apart my statement about what marriage is and who it belongs to, what I said is my belief. Nothing you can write, or quote will change it. You're welcome to question it, but I probably wont even respond because I'm tired of arguing about my beliefs to people, but I will take what you say into my own mental reasonings.

I am still young, and I dont have enough wisdom as most, but I try my best to interprete teachings and apply my own logic to them, instead of just following because someone said so.

Oh yeah, IBTL.
Modified by krimsonviper at 6:23 AM 11/27/2008

[ishkabibble]

My guess is that it undermines the basic belief of what our Creator wants, soul connection(marriage) between a man and a woman. My belief is that in marriage, the couple's soul merges into one.

That's fine, but it doesn't really address how exactly you would be harmed. The fact is that gays getting married has zero bearing on your personal beliefs and your personal experience.

The religious "base" (not you, kv) keeps trying to twist the discussion around and claiming that they are the ones being persecuted because they are prevented from imposing their beliefs on others. It's almost laughable.