Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@vinlyn said:
what if they had a painting of Abe Lincoln above the exit doors?
"You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time!" . ..
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
I'm not getting the Abe Lincoln thing. Lincoln was a President of the United States, and it'd be no different having any former or current President's portrait... though people would question why that particular President instead of another (you'd expect only a place named after Lincoln would have his portrait instead of the current President). That's different than having a religious figure, specifically because of separation of church and state. Government and Public Education are both "state", so there's no line crossed in displaying U.S. Presidents in a school.
To really make a comparison it would have to be a figure from another religion instead of Jesus (say Shiva, or even the Buddha). Otherwise it's "apples and oranges", where apples are appropriate and oranges are anathema. And ducks. Ducks are anathema too.
I guess my point is that over the years, schools have often had pictures or paintings or statues of admired figures. There's a private school I know of who has a statue of Julius Caesar. Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson are common. Many schools are named after poets. Or non-governmental famous people (Rosa Parks, MLK, etc.). These are people whom a community states their respect for. Why can't it be Jesus? Go to a school in Thailand and you will most likely see a statue of Buddha...or numerous statues of Buddha.
Now, just to make clear -- I'm just putting forward a POV, not my POV.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
I'm sure it could be Jesus, if it weren't just Jesus. When it's just one religion's figure, that's divisive enough. I suppose it would still be bad to have 5-10 religious figures, because you might not cover all the religions of all the students, so best policy? No religious figures. Separation of church and state is meant to level the playing field not by having all religions displayed, but by keeping such a divisive thing out of government and public education altogether. That people admire these figures isn't reason enough to bring those potential problems into it, any more than having a statue of Hitler just because there's a lot of Neo-Nazis in the community.
When a court ruled the Ten Commandments could be up somewhere, instead of removing them, the Satanists then had the right to put up their own statue... and no one should complain, but of course they did. That's what happens; religions and their followers can't get along if any of them expect special treatment. That's the real issue; Christians in this country think that because they're a majority, they should get to "mark their territory" (all territory) with signs of their religion, even trying to insert Christian doctrine into science classes as we well know. There's no respect for the religious diversity of Americans in that; SOCAS is what respects our diversity.
I understand what you're saying though.
Religion is just "not good" when mixed with public necessity. It can't be in government because that's for all of us, and it can't be in public schools because that's for all of our children. Private schools, churches and other religious organizations... great!
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Yes, but I think they are church affiliated, not public.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I see... So some people pay for the privilege and others want the tax dollars to pay for their indoctrination.
I do think there are "nuts" on both sides of this issue.
In my school before I became principal, the teacher who sponsored the student government put a bare Christmas tree on the stage each year. The only decorations allowed were large index cards representing the flag of any country one of our students wanted to do (and we had a somewhat diverse student body, so there were lots of foreign flags). We got complaints about that.
Another hullabaloo often occurred about our Christmas concert by the chorus, band, and orchestra.
And then there were the religious holidays. Oy!
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
Christmas has become so secularized and borrowed from paganism that it really has two sides to it. My family has always celebrated Christmas, just not religiously as "the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ". My folks are Christians but never made it about that. It's a time of shared joy, giving and receiving, family and food and thankfulness. Togetherness!
The corollary is also true that Christmas can be a time of great depression if you don't have family or have family problems (or are considered a problem by your own family).
The corollary is also true that Christmas can be a time of great depression if you don't have family or have family problems (or are considered a problem by your own family).
Sadly it is also a time of family break ups, money worries, drunken violence, domestic abuse...
@AldrisTorvalds said:
The corollary is also true that Christmas can be a time of great depression if you don't have family or have family problems (or are considered a problem by your own family).
Yes, and there is added pressure from the advertising industry which promotes the fiction of an idealised family Christmas, where everyone is happy and affluent.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
One of the theories as to how 'Boxing Day' got its name was that collection money, put into a 'box' in church, on Christmas day, was opened the day after, and the money distributed to the poor and needy.
If true, I think it's a tradition that needs reviving, pronto, and it's long past its due date....
In 'Little Women' the four girls (Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy) go round to a family on christmas morning, to deliver food to the less fortunate. They have a very meagre Christmas themselves.
Not a bad example, really.....
@vinlyn said:
So just to be provocative (it's a fun hobby sometimes), what if they had a painting of Abe Lincoln above the exit doors?
I don't understand the reference. Abraham Lincoln is a very important figure in U.S. history.
@Hamsaka said:
Anyway, I didn't know the family had won their case. I wonder what that means? I wonder what it amounts to? What consequences for the school were there? Could you link to what you read (at your leisure)? I'd be interested.
What the Lane's asked for in their lawsuit was entirely reasonable, and the public school district was forced to change their policies on religious tolerance. If only this was adopted statewide.
@jbailey84 said:
I don't understand the reference. Abraham Lincoln is a very important figure in U.S. history.
Obviously you didn't read my follow-up post.
All presidents are important figures in American history, but we tend to look back only on those whom we admired most, no matter how much of that admiration is due to fables. But as I went on to say, we have statues or photos of non-Presidents in our schools, too: MLK, Rosa Parks, astronauts, Susan B. Anthony, Booker T. Washington, Jack Benny, non-American historical figures, and so forth. I was principal of William Wadsworth Longfellow Middle School; in fact every middle school in our county was named after a poet. In other words, people that the local community respects.
What if a community votes to name their school or have a painting of Christ in their school because that's whom they respect most?
Again, I'm not advocating it, and in fact I would abhor it. But I am trying to get others to look through a slightly different lens...to look from another perspective...at a principle. Now you might say, "What principle?" Perhaps the principle of freedom of speech. Like the Bible, the Constitution has conflicting principles. But consider this:
"...the term “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution. ... The metaphor of a “wall of separation” comes from a letter President Thomas Jefferson penned to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut—a dozen years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. The phrase is not mentioned in the Constitution’s text or in any of the debates leading to its ratification."
My point here is that the separation of church and state is not a Constitutional requirement or even an historical tradition. The fact of it is very far from a slam dunk.
But just to repeat, I'm not advocating it, and in fact I would abhor non-separation of church and state.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
Separation of Church and State does exist in the U.S. and represent the Constitutional position... just not in that exact phrase. That phrase was Jefferson capturing the essence of the law in his own words. Its non-existence is something Christians like to argue, but the legality and Constitutional reality is one of SOCAS. The Supreme Court has itself on several occasions used Jefferson's phrase to describe the law.
I don't even think you read the whole Wikipedia article that you cited. I know that the principle evolved to where it is today from some time after the writing of the Constitution, and particularly after the Supreme Court began citing the principle beginning in 1878 (which is a long ways from the writing of the Constitution). But your view -- which ironically mimics that of so many Christian conservatives -- that all the founding fathers believed the same thing -- is far from true.
Further, having a painting of a religious figure in a school does not establish a religion there, anymore than having a statue of Longfellow in a school requires every student to memorize "The Village Blacksmith", or even be aware of it.
1
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
I didn't say anything about what the founding fathers believed. SOCAS is the legal reality is all I said.
Sure you did. You referred to Thomas Jefferson's view as being THE view, although he was only one of the founding fathers.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
I recall, and can read myself having typed, that the phrase was spoken by Jefferson as his way of capturing the essence of the law. SOCAS is the legal reality in this country, though SOCAS as a phrase is just a pointer to the legal and Constitutional framework that creates that wall of separation.
You are refusing to see what one of my points is. So I will restate it again: the separation of church and state is not a slam dunk concept. Legal scholars debate the meaning and basis of it (as the Wikipedia articles you cited clearly state).
And again, I'm not advocating relaxing separation of church and state. In fact, I'd prefer to strengthen it. But there is another viewpoint out there, as is consistently shown by polls where the vast majority of the American people prefer a more relaxed position.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
I'm still colored done. Got half an hour of sleep and had to drive ye olde mother to hospital for an MRI, and the last thing I want to do is debate SOCAS right now. I might go sleep.
Give a theist a little shove in the right direction and they might become atheist . :rolleyes: ..
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited October 2014
I did....
France adheres so strongly to separation, that mere mention of spiritual/ecclesiastical matters during a Political discussion, genuinely borders on taboo...They have no notion, for example, of having nativity plays or Christmas concerts... Politics and Church not only do not mix, they are forcibly kept apart much as kerosene and fire, might be.
Church and State are NOT separate in the UK, although it is rare for one to interfere with the other, other than in matters concerning same-sex marriage and euthanasia, for example. The Queen is Head of the Church, but plays more of a Cosmetic role with regard to her Parliament.
2
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
So just to be provocative (it's a fun hobby sometimes), what if they had a painting of Abe Lincoln above the exit doors?
I don't think we can ignore that glaring difference, even though in the great scheme of things, there is no real difference. Most people operate at the level where Jesus inspires worship (forced or desired) while Lincoln inspires nonreligious ideologies. I suspect most Americans have been subjected to Christian entitlement and are wary of it while Lincoln inspires no such thing to enough people that his ideologies are hoisted on a petard.
What a big picture of Jesus MEANS to the average American may dissolve into meaninglessness with the application of relativity, but that's not what is happening -- obviously. And it's not going to happen any time soon, so for me, I'm more open to comparing a big ole Buddha statue to a portrait of Jesus.
There are Christians paying for their beliefs with their innocent lives under the aegis of fundamentalist Islam. The Buddhist monks in Myanmar are drawing from the same sickness that seems too common with any religious ideology from above to below. When my children were very young, I had a friend who for religious reasons did not 'believe' in modern medicine. She allowed her daughters eardrums to rupture from an ear infection. She wasn't a Christian or a Buddhist, Ba'hai (sp) I think.
The 'sickness' is the difference, and though it appears completely optional in the great scheme of things, it is apparently NOT optional for the majority, and it's the majority that 'rules' the consensual reality. WE question everything but we are a minority and our voices are drowned in the roar. We make little contribution to consensual reality though with the 'new atheists', whatever their intention, are making our kind of contribution to reality more frank and accessible.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
What amazes me is that, considering how 'Godly' a country one is led to believe America is, it's astounding how FEW people actually attend Church regularly. Apparently, fewer than 20 people in 100, counting the entire USA population, attend Church on a regular, habitual basis. I honestly thought, with all the seeming bias, prejudice and downright total denial of other forms and types of 'calling', the figure would have been much higher.
Yes, @Federica, it is interesting. In my hometown when I was a boy, the Catholic Church had 4 masses on Sundays, 2 on Saturdays, and 1 every weekday. Now they have 1 Sunday mass, and that's all.
At a very nice Methodist Church here in Colo Springs, the main Sunday service is about half full.
But the mega churches here are doing very well...unfortunately.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
OFF-TOPIC COMMENT @Linc, this is interesting.... I always thought using a person's name as an alert, depended on using the forum member's name spelt accurately, for its success, but vinlyn just capitalised my name, ( see his comment, above - it isn't capitalised as my forum name) and I STILL received an alert.... Have I always been wrong? Or has a change been implemented?
OFF-TOPIC COMMENT ENDS.
@vinlyin, it seems astonishing to me then, that we get so many reports on here about how members are made to feel within their own communities and neighbourhoods, about being members of a Religion (let's not quibble about the terminology here, it's been done to death!) not associated with God.... when it would therefore seem that the majority of people imposing these attacks may well not be regular church-goers anyway.
It may be a suitable come-back... "At least I am a regular 24/7 Buddhist. You only 'Christian' once a week - and even that's debatable!"
@federica said:
It may be a suitable come-back... "At least I am a regular 24/7 Buddhist. You only 'Christian' once a week - and even that's debatable!"
Yes, now I'm a Buddhist it's just Sunday that I have off. .
Eh, America is being what it always was. We're all for Truth and Justice and Democracy as long as it's our Truth and who says we can't have different types of Justice, depending on the color of your skin and as for those voting rights, well some people shouldn't have the same vote as me. But hey, we're exceptional! Or at least special. Our politicians and preachers tell us that, so it must be true.
Today, we have Scalia, a Supreme Court justice who recently gave a speech insisting the constitution gives our government the right to impose religion over "secular" or non-religious people. This court also ruled that a corporation's religious beliefs trump the civil rights of its employees. Now, just how a corporation can have a religion besides profit is beyond me, but then again I've thought humanity was collectively bedbug nuts for much of my life.
vinlyin, it seems astonishing to me then, that we get so many reports on here about how members are made to feel within their own communities and neighbourhoods, about being members of a Religion (let's not quibble about the terminology here, it's been done to death!) not associated with God.... when it would therefore seem that the majority of people imposing these attacks may well not be regular church-goers anyway.
Just read an article -- from a religious group -- that contends that pollsters (including Gallup) who fairly consistently report an approximately 39% rate of church attendance on any given Sunday are way wrong...that the rate is actually more like 20%.
I have a 77 year old neighbor who often goes off on a religious kick. You'd think he was the most religious (and the most anti-Obama) person on the planet. Yet "because of my health" I can't go to church, so his minister comes to his house once a month. Oddly enough, he and his wife go out to dinner once or twice a week. On the other hand, I have 3 other friends who do attend church (Catholic and Methodist) virtually every week, and if they do fail to attend, it's usually for a very good reason. But, my impression is that most of my other friends here attend church only very occasionally.
As I have posited in the past, I think what is taking place in this country is that people are formulating their own religious beliefs based on "that old time religion", but tailored to themselves, and church attendance in not necessarily a part of their personal religion.
@Vinlyn. Some christians that I know seem to enjoy TBN. So I am thinking that the television set probably is the electronic church. Why venture out when it all comes to you.
I also think that Elmer Gantry does a good job of explaining that ever rocky road that is so much part and parcel of protestant culture. Though Elmer Gantry by Sinclair Lewis was written many years ago it contained the scandals and misdeeds we see so often today.
@SpinyNorman Ricky Gervais's comedy is priceless. Great clip. It is rather insightful to see it the way he introduced the Bible, though. He went from a purely scientific p.o.v. to discovering this religious text. Like just because this old religious text says it's true, makes it true. Silly Darwin.
I was raised in a Christian home and started to doubt there was a god and the legitimacy of the Bible when I was a teenager. Not really out of angst, but because I was discovering more about science, logic, and my own reasoning.
@Vinlyn You are correct that I did not read your previous post before commenting. I apologize. I went soley on my notification, and failed to read the previous comments...in fact, I didn't even realize there were any new comments.
This thread has been very thought-provoking on the issues of public school and religion. Thank you all for imparting your insight.
Comments
"You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time!" .
..
I'm not getting the Abe Lincoln thing. Lincoln was a President of the United States, and it'd be no different having any former or current President's portrait... though people would question why that particular President instead of another (you'd expect only a place named after Lincoln would have his portrait instead of the current President). That's different than having a religious figure, specifically because of separation of church and state. Government and Public Education are both "state", so there's no line crossed in displaying U.S. Presidents in a school.
To really make a comparison it would have to be a figure from another religion instead of Jesus (say Shiva, or even the Buddha). Otherwise it's "apples and oranges", where apples are appropriate and oranges are anathema. And ducks. Ducks are anathema too.
I guess my point is that over the years, schools have often had pictures or paintings or statues of admired figures. There's a private school I know of who has a statue of Julius Caesar. Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson are common. Many schools are named after poets. Or non-governmental famous people (Rosa Parks, MLK, etc.). These are people whom a community states their respect for. Why can't it be Jesus? Go to a school in Thailand and you will most likely see a statue of Buddha...or numerous statues of Buddha.
This about Scalia, a man whom I loathe and consider a nut, is still interesting: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/antonin-scalia-religion-government_n_5922944.html
Now, just to make clear -- I'm just putting forward a POV, not my POV.
I'm sure it could be Jesus, if it weren't just Jesus. When it's just one religion's figure, that's divisive enough. I suppose it would still be bad to have 5-10 religious figures, because you might not cover all the religions of all the students, so best policy? No religious figures. Separation of church and state is meant to level the playing field not by having all religions displayed, but by keeping such a divisive thing out of government and public education altogether. That people admire these figures isn't reason enough to bring those potential problems into it, any more than having a statue of Hitler just because there's a lot of Neo-Nazis in the community.
When a court ruled the Ten Commandments could be up somewhere, instead of removing them, the Satanists then had the right to put up their own statue... and no one should complain, but of course they did. That's what happens; religions and their followers can't get along if any of them expect special treatment. That's the real issue; Christians in this country think that because they're a majority, they should get to "mark their territory" (all territory) with signs of their religion, even trying to insert Christian doctrine into science classes as we well know. There's no respect for the religious diversity of Americans in that; SOCAS is what respects our diversity.
I understand what you're saying though.
Religion is just "not good" when mixed with public necessity. It can't be in government because that's for all of us, and it can't be in public schools because that's for all of our children. Private schools, churches and other religious organizations... great!
Aren't there already schools named after Jesus?
Yes, but I think they are church affiliated, not public.
I see... So some people pay for the privilege and others want the tax dollars to pay for their indoctrination.
LOL...interesting way to put it.
I do think there are "nuts" on both sides of this issue.
In my school before I became principal, the teacher who sponsored the student government put a bare Christmas tree on the stage each year. The only decorations allowed were large index cards representing the flag of any country one of our students wanted to do (and we had a somewhat diverse student body, so there were lots of foreign flags). We got complaints about that.
Another hullabaloo often occurred about our Christmas concert by the chorus, band, and orchestra.
And then there were the religious holidays. Oy!
Christmas has become so secularized and borrowed from paganism that it really has two sides to it. My family has always celebrated Christmas, just not religiously as "the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ". My folks are Christians but never made it about that. It's a time of shared joy, giving and receiving, family and food and thankfulness. Togetherness!
The corollary is also true that Christmas can be a time of great depression if you don't have family or have family problems (or are considered a problem by your own family).
Sadly it is also a time of family break ups, money worries, drunken violence, domestic abuse...
Merry Xmas one and all... . :screwy: ..
But this is true during Buddhist holiday periods in Thailand, as well.
Humans will be humans and Samsara is Samsara whatever part of the planet one lives....
Yes, and there is added pressure from the advertising industry which promotes the fiction of an idealised family Christmas, where everyone is happy and affluent.
One of the theories as to how 'Boxing Day' got its name was that collection money, put into a 'box' in church, on Christmas day, was opened the day after, and the money distributed to the poor and needy.
If true, I think it's a tradition that needs reviving, pronto, and it's long past its due date....
In 'Little Women' the four girls (Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy) go round to a family on christmas morning, to deliver food to the less fortunate. They have a very meagre Christmas themselves.
Not a bad example, really.....
I don't understand the reference. Abraham Lincoln is a very important figure in U.S. history.
http://www.nola.com/crime/baton-rouge/index.ssf/2014/03/settlement_over_harassment_of.html
What the Lane's asked for in their lawsuit was entirely reasonable, and the public school district was forced to change their policies on religious tolerance. If only this was adopted statewide.
Obviously you didn't read my follow-up post.
All presidents are important figures in American history, but we tend to look back only on those whom we admired most, no matter how much of that admiration is due to fables. But as I went on to say, we have statues or photos of non-Presidents in our schools, too: MLK, Rosa Parks, astronauts, Susan B. Anthony, Booker T. Washington, Jack Benny, non-American historical figures, and so forth. I was principal of William Wadsworth Longfellow Middle School; in fact every middle school in our county was named after a poet. In other words, people that the local community respects.
What if a community votes to name their school or have a painting of Christ in their school because that's whom they respect most?
Again, I'm not advocating it, and in fact I would abhor it. But I am trying to get others to look through a slightly different lens...to look from another perspective...at a principle. Now you might say, "What principle?" Perhaps the principle of freedom of speech. Like the Bible, the Constitution has conflicting principles. But consider this:
"...the term “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution. ... The metaphor of a “wall of separation” comes from a letter President Thomas Jefferson penned to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut—a dozen years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. The phrase is not mentioned in the Constitution’s text or in any of the debates leading to its ratification."
In fact, historically, there is more historical substance supporting a mix for religion and state than for the separation of church and state. See for example: http://www.timesrecordnews.com/lifestyle/just-where-does-the-constitution-mention-god
My point here is that the separation of church and state is not a Constitutional requirement or even an historical tradition. The fact of it is very far from a slam dunk.
But just to repeat, I'm not advocating it, and in fact I would abhor non-separation of church and state.
Separation of Church and State does exist in the U.S. and represent the Constitutional position... just not in that exact phrase. That phrase was Jefferson capturing the essence of the law in his own words. Its non-existence is something Christians like to argue, but the legality and Constitutional reality is one of SOCAS. The Supreme Court has itself on several occasions used Jefferson's phrase to describe the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
I don't even think you read the whole Wikipedia article that you cited. I know that the principle evolved to where it is today from some time after the writing of the Constitution, and particularly after the Supreme Court began citing the principle beginning in 1878 (which is a long ways from the writing of the Constitution). But your view -- which ironically mimics that of so many Christian conservatives -- that all the founding fathers believed the same thing -- is far from true.
Further, having a painting of a religious figure in a school does not establish a religion there, anymore than having a statue of Longfellow in a school requires every student to memorize "The Village Blacksmith", or even be aware of it.
I didn't say anything about what the founding fathers believed. SOCAS is the legal reality is all I said.
Sure you did. You referred to Thomas Jefferson's view as being THE view, although he was only one of the founding fathers.
I recall, and can read myself having typed, that the phrase was spoken by Jefferson as his way of capturing the essence of the law. SOCAS is the legal reality in this country, though SOCAS as a phrase is just a pointer to the legal and Constitutional framework that creates that wall of separation.
I'm not going to argue about this. Color me done!
You are refusing to see what one of my points is. So I will restate it again: the separation of church and state is not a slam dunk concept. Legal scholars debate the meaning and basis of it (as the Wikipedia articles you cited clearly state).
As outlined by the Pew Foundation (http://www.pewforum.org/files/2007/06/religious-displays.pdf), federal courts have been far from consistent in how they have dealt with religious displays on public property.
And again, I'm not advocating relaxing separation of church and state. In fact, I'd prefer to strengthen it. But there is another viewpoint out there, as is consistently shown by polls where the vast majority of the American people prefer a more relaxed position.
I'm still colored done. Got half an hour of sleep and had to drive ye olde mother to hospital for an MRI, and the last thing I want to do is debate SOCAS right now. I might go sleep.
Give a theist a little shove in the right direction and they might become atheist . :rolleyes: ..
I did....
France adheres so strongly to separation, that mere mention of spiritual/ecclesiastical matters during a Political discussion, genuinely borders on taboo...They have no notion, for example, of having nativity plays or Christmas concerts... Politics and Church not only do not mix, they are forcibly kept apart much as kerosene and fire, might be.
Church and State are NOT separate in the UK, although it is rare for one to interfere with the other, other than in matters concerning same-sex marriage and euthanasia, for example. The Queen is Head of the Church, but plays more of a Cosmetic role with regard to her Parliament.
So just to be provocative (it's a fun hobby sometimes), what if they had a painting of Abe Lincoln above the exit doors?
I don't think we can ignore that glaring difference, even though in the great scheme of things, there is no real difference. Most people operate at the level where Jesus inspires worship (forced or desired) while Lincoln inspires nonreligious ideologies. I suspect most Americans have been subjected to Christian entitlement and are wary of it while Lincoln inspires no such thing to enough people that his ideologies are hoisted on a petard.
What a big picture of Jesus MEANS to the average American may dissolve into meaninglessness with the application of relativity, but that's not what is happening -- obviously. And it's not going to happen any time soon, so for me, I'm more open to comparing a big ole Buddha statue to a portrait of Jesus.
There are Christians paying for their beliefs with their innocent lives under the aegis of fundamentalist Islam. The Buddhist monks in Myanmar are drawing from the same sickness that seems too common with any religious ideology from above to below. When my children were very young, I had a friend who for religious reasons did not 'believe' in modern medicine. She allowed her daughters eardrums to rupture from an ear infection. She wasn't a Christian or a Buddhist, Ba'hai (sp) I think.
The 'sickness' is the difference, and though it appears completely optional in the great scheme of things, it is apparently NOT optional for the majority, and it's the majority that 'rules' the consensual reality. WE question everything but we are a minority and our voices are drowned in the roar. We make little contribution to consensual reality though with the 'new atheists', whatever their intention, are making our kind of contribution to reality more frank and accessible.
Thoughtful post, @Hamsaka.
Thanks @vinlyn.
What amazes me is that, considering how 'Godly' a country one is led to believe America is, it's astounding how FEW people actually attend Church regularly. Apparently, fewer than 20 people in 100, counting the entire USA population, attend Church on a regular, habitual basis. I honestly thought, with all the seeming bias, prejudice and downright total denial of other forms and types of 'calling', the figure would have been much higher.
Yes, @Federica, it is interesting. In my hometown when I was a boy, the Catholic Church had 4 masses on Sundays, 2 on Saturdays, and 1 every weekday. Now they have 1 Sunday mass, and that's all.
At a very nice Methodist Church here in Colo Springs, the main Sunday service is about half full.
But the mega churches here are doing very well...unfortunately.
OFF-TOPIC COMMENT
@Linc, this is interesting.... I always thought using a person's name as an alert, depended on using the forum member's name spelt accurately, for its success, but vinlyn just capitalised my name, ( see his comment, above - it isn't capitalised as my forum name) and I STILL received an alert.... Have I always been wrong? Or has a change been implemented?
OFF-TOPIC COMMENT ENDS.
@vinlyin, it seems astonishing to me then, that we get so many reports on here about how members are made to feel within their own communities and neighbourhoods, about being members of a Religion (let's not quibble about the terminology here, it's been done to death!) not associated with God.... when it would therefore seem that the majority of people imposing these attacks may well not be regular church-goers anyway.
It may be a suitable come-back... "At least I am a regular 24/7 Buddhist. You only 'Christian' once a week - and even that's debatable!"
Yes, now I'm a Buddhist it's just Sunday that I have off.
.
Eh, America is being what it always was. We're all for Truth and Justice and Democracy as long as it's our Truth and who says we can't have different types of Justice, depending on the color of your skin and as for those voting rights, well some people shouldn't have the same vote as me. But hey, we're exceptional! Or at least special. Our politicians and preachers tell us that, so it must be true.
Today, we have Scalia, a Supreme Court justice who recently gave a speech insisting the constitution gives our government the right to impose religion over "secular" or non-religious people. This court also ruled that a corporation's religious beliefs trump the civil rights of its employees. Now, just how a corporation can have a religion besides profit is beyond me, but then again I've thought humanity was collectively bedbug nuts for much of my life.
Just read an article -- from a religious group -- that contends that pollsters (including Gallup) who fairly consistently report an approximately 39% rate of church attendance on any given Sunday are way wrong...that the rate is actually more like 20%.
I have a 77 year old neighbor who often goes off on a religious kick. You'd think he was the most religious (and the most anti-Obama) person on the planet. Yet "because of my health" I can't go to church, so his minister comes to his house once a month. Oddly enough, he and his wife go out to dinner once or twice a week. On the other hand, I have 3 other friends who do attend church (Catholic and Methodist) virtually every week, and if they do fail to attend, it's usually for a very good reason. But, my impression is that most of my other friends here attend church only very occasionally.
As I have posited in the past, I think what is taking place in this country is that people are formulating their own religious beliefs based on "that old time religion", but tailored to themselves, and church attendance in not necessarily a part of their personal religion.
@Vinlyn. Some christians that I know seem to enjoy TBN. So I am thinking that the television set probably is the electronic church. Why venture out when it all comes to you.
I also think that Elmer Gantry does a good job of explaining that ever rocky road that is so much part and parcel of protestant culture. Though Elmer Gantry by Sinclair Lewis was written many years ago it contained the scandals and misdeeds we see so often today.
@SpinyNorman Ricky Gervais's comedy is priceless. Great clip. It is rather insightful to see it the way he introduced the Bible, though. He went from a purely scientific p.o.v. to discovering this religious text. Like just because this old religious text says it's true, makes it true. Silly Darwin.
I was raised in a Christian home and started to doubt there was a god and the legitimacy of the Bible when I was a teenager. Not really out of angst, but because I was discovering more about science, logic, and my own reasoning.
@Vinlyn You are correct that I did not read your previous post before commenting. I apologize. I went soley on my notification, and failed to read the previous comments...in fact, I didn't even realize there were any new comments.
This thread has been very thought-provoking on the issues of public school and religion. Thank you all for imparting your insight.