Yes, but that's still the Establishment analysis. Have a look at Sherbert v. Verner 374 U.S. 398 (1963) The tests are closely related, but one tests whether government action unconstitutionally "entangles" government and religion and the other tests whether government action can restrict or prohibit an individual from practicing a religion.
What do you think Sherbert would have to say about the letter writer's proposal that people be forced by the government to practice a religion? What would be the compelling state interest? Would we even get that far in the analysis?
Even though I'm a catholic, I don't really give a damn whether you're atheists or not. It's these over-religious reporters who cant get an article so they rant about atheists like that one that give some religious people like me and others a bad name.
I really hope you're trying to be funny. That was a letter to the editor, not an article by a reporter.
My boss doesn't let his children read harry potter, or in fact, read most books, watch most TV or movies, and they can only listen to Christian Radio.
I personally find that depressing and quite a bit frightening.
This is such a tricky one. While I think your boss is a retard, there certainly should be parental content restrictions placed on children. There are scientific reasons why a nine-year-old shouldn't be watching or listening to certain things; it's a judgment call, but I think Erikson should decide.
I grew up in a fairly oppressive Christian home where my television and radio use were carefully monitored. It was just foolish. By age 10, I was reading books that were far worse than any TV show about which they were worried. I could never really understand how they could be so ignorant about cultural development while being so intelligent professionally. Their religion seemed to me to be a voluntary sort of lobotomy.
I'm not looking to be flamed and I won't respond to a flame. I'm also not looking for someone to say, "Your concerns demonstrate a basic misunderstanding and ignorance of history and economics and blah blah blah."
That said, (and somewhat off topic), I am aware of and understand the earlier problems with the government reading email, but is this email problem any better? Worse? No cause for concern whatsoever?
Getting back to the subject of this thread, I'm more concerned about posse comitatus. Normally, a president's power to use use military troops as a domestic police force is very limited, but notice the reported phrase "any 'other condition'" in the new legislation. I don't trust the current government or any other to have such a phrase in their pocket they can pull out whenever they decide for whatever reason. Do you1? This power, along with presidential power to decide that any U.S. citizen is an enemy combatant keeps me awake at night. Especially when I reflect that people like Ms. Alice Shannon are out there. See how I related my concern to the subject of the thread?
What would you do if martial law was declared? Would you be concerned or would you applaud as the "wrong kind" of American was taken away? Ms. Shannon would probably be pretty happy if such a thing were to happen.
1. All instances are meant as a generic "you" and not directed towards anyone in particular.
I'm not looking to be flamed and I won't respond to a flame. I'm also not looking for someone to say, "Your concerns demonstrate a basic misunderstanding and ignorance of history and economics and blah blah blah."
Okay. In the morning I feel a lot less paranoid. I'm still concerned, but not nearly as worked up. I should try to recognize when I'm too tired to listen to Randi Rhodes.
I think that the United States should take a look at it's older treaties:
Article 11
The official treaty was in Arabic text, and a translated version provided by Consul-General Barlow was ratified by the United States on June 10, 1797. Article 11 of the treaty was said to have not been part of the original Arabic version of the treaty, and was from a letter from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli.[1]
However it originated, it was undeniably a part of the treaty as approved by President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and ratified by the Senate by a unanimous vote.
Article 11, reads:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Article 11 has been a point of contention regarding the proper interpretation of the doctrine of separation of church and state. Supporters of the separation of church and state contend that this article is significant in that it confirms that the government of the United States was specifically intended to be religiously neutral. Supporters of the "Christian Nation" theory dispute this, arguing that the article in the treaty carries little or no significance.[citation needed]
Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in May of 1797, the entire treaty was read aloud on the Senate floor, including the famous words in Article 11, and copies were printed for every Senator. A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification, and the treaty was ratified by a unanimous vote of all 23 Senators. The treaty was reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.[2]
P.S. - I put emphasis on the first line of the paragraph.
Oh man...This reminds me of some craziness in downtown Minneapolis. See, every Friday afternoon is yell about God day, when several black men (that part is important to this little anecdote) dressed in fancy embroidered silk robes stand around on the corner by my bus stop yelling about God. They shout out Bible verses and hold up little pictures taped to cardboard that I suppose are holy type pictures. I've never stopped to actually pay attention because I don't care much what they have to say, they have a right to be there, and my bus could be arriving any minute...heh.
Anyway, this past weekend really bothered me a lot. (This is where the black being important comes in.) As I boarded my bus I saw the main evangelist? holding up a picture most people would recognize as a picture of Jesus and proclaiming that Jesus was not white but was in fact Black! Calm down, Calm down...my problem with this is not that they wish to believe that Jesus was Black...my problem is that they feel the need to proclaim that at all. What difference does it make what color Jesus was? My skin is white, my bruises are purple...so what? Maybe this is a bit of topic...I don't know...but the topic brought this to the forefront of my memory and I felt it was worth sharing...
Is there anywhere you can get statistics on the amount of wars started by someone with a religious conviction as opposed to those started without and/or with a logical one?
I'd point out to the evangelists that Jesus, if he actually existed, would not have been white, but certainly not black. More likely semitic in descent since the area he would have inhabited had more Arabs, Jews, and Persians that Blacks/Africans.
I must say, at one of my school's assemblies we were asked to do the pledge. I refused and was glared at by my teachers. People are looked down upon by most if they don't believe what the majority believes. But I think that the majority is slowly shifting. At least in America.
I must say, at one of my school's assemblies we were asked to do the pledge. I refused and was glared at by my teachers. People are looked down upon by most if they don't believe what the majority believes. But I think that the majority is slowly shifting. At least in America.
That's because these days it is a virtue to blindly believe and have faith. It's pretty ridiculous when you think about it and it is a counter-scientific view. I hope that this changes in the near future.
I must say, at one of my school's assemblies we were asked to do the pledge. I refused and was glared at by my teachers. People are looked down upon by most if they don't believe what the majority believes. But I think that the majority is slowly shifting. At least in America.
As a teacher on the east coast, I'll tell you that this is actually not how it is supposed to work. In most schools I've been in, students are allowed to not say the pledge or even remain seated. The only thing they are not allowed to do is disrupt it as it is being performed. I say the pledge as an example, but if my students pay close attention, they notice I leave out 'under god'. I get around saying it in my head as a pledge to my ideal of what the country should be. A pledge to the dream, if you will.
I've always had a big problem with the pledge. People should not pledge themselves or swear fealty to a government or nationality. Hasn't this caused enough problems already? America is about enlightened self-interest, not about choosing to back the ideas of politicians no matter what the consequences.
Besides, there's just something creepy about it. Each day in school when it was recited, I could see in my mind legions of brown-clad youth screaming, "Heil, heil, heil, heil." Sorry to godwin it, but that's nationalistic fervor's ultimate evolution.
hehehe, I guess I would shock you Jason, to mention that I found comfort when about five hundred students were in the cafeteria registering for AP exams. It was probably about as close to whatever social/commonwealth/leftist whatever you want to call it community thing going on I've felt in a long while.
We were all in the same boat that day, we were all quiet, complacent, and following the proctors directions for the paperwork. But I think for the kids who actually were paying attention, or at least, who had any bit of insight, they, as I, would realize, perhaps with a bit of nostalgia to a time they had never really experienced, but in a striking irony I at least felt so complacent with, that we were all on the very edge that day together, about to face the world, and life. Our own little clave, having spent a handful of years together in school, we'd be cast out into a larger pool of society and interaction. I think what I am really trying to strike at is, that day we as students were something we all never realized we were: We're all human, and quite frankly we're all in this together as a species, not as a people.
I say the pledge most often every morning, and being quite audible, (what can I say, I talk loud) I think most people at this point have, (if they're paying attention at 9 in the morning, I don't blame them) realize that I hold my tongue at "under god." The unfortunate fact is, little episodes like this, and really quite innocent comments on the side have culminated in an all-not-so-very-amiable reception by my more...devout if you will, peers.
New: Bush agrees.That article, while informative, is about the former President Bush. George H.W. Bush.
I don't doubt that the current Bush is just as 'progressive' as his father though.
Well over here in Albion there's never been ties between government and any particular religion; this is mostly due to the sheer amount of different religions. One good thing about the monarchy is they take all the responsibility for the religious side of things and while the queen may be "Defender of the faith" it doesn't specify which.
I do think the current problem is people who use the symbol of a deity as a means to defy the very basis of their religion. Gods shouldn't be more important than the lives of people you can see suffering.
Comments
What do you think Sherbert would have to say about the letter writer's proposal that people be forced by the government to practice a religion? What would be the compelling state interest? Would we even get that far in the analysis?
I personally find that depressing and quite a bit frightening.
I grew up in a fairly oppressive Christian home where my television and radio use were carefully monitored. It was just foolish. By age 10, I was reading books that were far worse than any TV show about which they were worried. I could never really understand how they could be so ignorant about cultural development while being so intelligent professionally. Their religion seemed to me to be a voluntary sort of lobotomy.
That said, (and somewhat off topic), I am aware of and understand the earlier problems with the government reading email, but is this email problem any better? Worse? No cause for concern whatsoever?
Getting back to the subject of this thread, I'm more concerned about posse comitatus. Normally, a president's power to use use military troops as a domestic police force is very limited, but notice the reported phrase "any 'other condition'" in the new legislation. I don't trust the current government or any other to have such a phrase in their pocket they can pull out whenever they decide for whatever reason. Do you1? This power, along with presidential power to decide that any U.S. citizen is an enemy combatant keeps me awake at night. Especially when I reflect that people like Ms. Alice Shannon are out there. See how I related my concern to the subject of the thread?
What would you do if martial law was declared? Would you be concerned or would you applaud as the "wrong kind" of American was taken away? Ms. Shannon would probably be pretty happy if such a thing were to happen.
1. All instances are meant as a generic "you" and not directed towards anyone in particular.
P.S. - I put emphasis on the first line of the paragraph.
I love how she understands that atheism means no religion and yet says that we have practices. Of evil, no less.
Anyway, this past weekend really bothered me a lot. (This is where the black being important comes in.) As I boarded my bus I saw the main evangelist? holding up a picture most people would recognize as a picture of Jesus and proclaiming that Jesus was not white but was in fact Black! Calm down, Calm down...my problem with this is not that they wish to believe that Jesus was Black...my problem is that they feel the need to proclaim that at all. What difference does it make what color Jesus was? My skin is white, my bruises are purple...so what? Maybe this is a bit of topic...I don't know...but the topic brought this to the forefront of my memory and I felt it was worth sharing...
Besides, there's just something creepy about it. Each day in school when it was recited, I could see in my mind legions of brown-clad youth screaming, "Heil, heil, heil, heil." Sorry to godwin it, but that's nationalistic fervor's ultimate evolution.
We were all in the same boat that day, we were all quiet, complacent, and following the proctors directions for the paperwork. But I think for the kids who actually were paying attention, or at least, who had any bit of insight, they, as I, would realize, perhaps with a bit of nostalgia to a time they had never really experienced, but in a striking irony I at least felt so complacent with, that we were all on the very edge that day together, about to face the world, and life. Our own little clave, having spent a handful of years together in school, we'd be cast out into a larger pool of society and interaction. I think what I am really trying to strike at is, that day we as students were something we all never realized we were: We're all human, and quite frankly we're all in this together as a species, not as a people.
I say the pledge most often every morning, and being quite audible, (what can I say, I talk loud) I think most people at this point have, (if they're paying attention at 9 in the morning, I don't blame them) realize that I hold my tongue at "under god." The unfortunate fact is, little episodes like this, and really quite innocent comments on the side have culminated in an all-not-so-very-amiable reception by my more...devout if you will, peers.
I don't doubt that the current Bush is just as 'progressive' as his father though.
I do think the current problem is people who use the symbol of a deity as a means to defy the very basis of their religion. Gods shouldn't be more important than the lives of people you can see suffering.