eagle scout ordered to take god out of park project

[evmori 11]

OK! I'll play! If the God stone is an infusion of religion, what religion is it an infusion of?

 

A city official approved the project with the God stone in the original project.

 

99% of Christian churches belong to a religious denomination making your point moot, Merlyn. Argue about the 1% if you want.

 

Never said religious speech was the only thing that needed protected. I could pull the Merlyn card & call you a name but I would never stoop that low.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

A blessed New Year to all

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed writes:

OK! I'll play! If the God stone is an infusion of religion, what religion is it an infusion of?

 

An "infusion of religion" does not necessarily mean an infusion of a specific religion, Ed.

 

A city official approved the project with the God stone in the original project.

 

And higher city officials overruled that part.

 

99% of Christian churches belong to a religious denomination making your point moot, Merlyn. Argue about the 1% if you want.

 

No Ed, you're the one pushing the nonsense view that Christianity isn't a religion. If it isn't a religion, a whole host of changes are in store. Churches that say they are tax exempt because they are Christian churches are denied tax exemption, because, according to you, Christianity isn't a religion, so religious tax exemptions don't apply.

 

Never said religious speech was the only thing that needed protected.

 

Ed, you wrote "Then again, since it [Christianity] isn't a religion, it needs no protection." That statement assumes that anything that isn't a religion doesn't need protection. You can plug anything into that:

 

"Then again, since political speech isn't a religion, it needs no protection."

"Then again, since a newspaper editorial isn't a religion, it needs no protection."

 

The above statements use exactly the same logic you use in your statement above - all things that aren't religions don't need protection. But that's absurd.

 

[Beavah 205]

Yeh know, Merlyn, it really does get tiresome the way everything for you descends into a semantic argument with personal overtones.

 

If yeh treat evmori with a bit of respect and take a moment to understand what he's sayin', he's making an interesting argument.

 

Christianity is not a religion. He is quite correct in that, eh? It's a generic term that applies to a bunch of very different religions that don't agree with each other, or even like each other! Just like "bird," the meaning of the word is abstract, and we're not even sure about things at the edges, like da old thread whether Mormons were Christian .

 

So there's no "establishment" issue if you're just talkin' about Christianity. In fact, I rather suspect that was what da Framers intended, eh? That there be no Church of America as a specific state denomination of Christendom, the way there had been a Church of England which variously persecuted Puritans and Catholics and Scotch Presbyterians and other Christians.

 

That doesn't risk losing First Amendment protection for religions - Catholic, Methodist, Mormon, etc. Nor any of the other privileges you mention. Those First Amendment protections apply to religions (aka denominations), not more general categories of thought or belief. Seventh Day Adventists are a religion. Christianity is not.

 

Yah, the approach is interestin' because it implies that expressions which are generically Christian rather than denominationally Christian ("In God We Trust", "One Nation, under God", "The Heavens proclaim the glory of God", etc.) should not be treated as Establishment Clause issues. Nor should expressions which are generically pagan, if there is such a thing ("We give thanks for the Blessings of Mother Earth"?). Like Scouts Own services, such relatively generic inclusive statements can comfort and inspire large numbers of citizens of different beliefs, and perhaps be respectfully tolerated by the rest with gentility and understanding.

 

It also provides a rationale (beyond my thoughts on common sense citizenship) for saying "no" to a specific expression of a particular denomination like "God hates fags", while allowing more generic expressions.

 

Now, there's a part of me bettin' that rather than think a bit on Ed's idea or mine, you'll find a sentence or two to take out of context and attack. Or perhaps set up another extreme straw man so yeh can jump in and accuse us of censorship or somesuch.

 

Prove me wrong

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah writes:

Yeh know, Merlyn, it really does get tiresome the way everything for you descends into a semantic argument with personal overtones.

 

It's tiresome when people come up with nonsense like saying Christianity isn't a religion, or that not allowing people to erect religious statements into public parks is censorship (while also advocating a system that would allow officials to censor views they disagreed with).

 

If yeh treat evmori with a bit of respect and take a moment to understand what he's sayin', he's making an interesting argument.

 

No, it's a really tired old semantic argument.

 

Christianity is not a religion. He is quite correct in that, eh?

 

No, he isn't.

 

It's a generic term that applies to a bunch of very different religions that don't agree with each other, or even like each other! Just like "bird," the meaning of the word is abstract, and we're not even sure about things at the edges, like da old thread whether Mormons were Christian .

 

That doesn't mean Christianity isn't a religion.

 

So there's no "establishment" issue if you're just talkin' about Christianity. In fact, I rather suspect that was what da Framers intended, eh?

 

Fortunately, the courts disagree with you.

 

That there be no Church of America as a specific state denomination of Christendom, the way there had been a Church of England which variously persecuted Puritans and Catholics and Scotch Presbyterians and other Christians.

 

It goes far beyond that.

 

That doesn't risk losing First Amendment protection for religions - Catholic, Methodist, Mormon, etc. Nor any of the other privileges you mention. Those First Amendment protections apply to religions (aka denominations), not more general categories of thought or belief. Seventh Day Adventists are a religion. Christianity is not.

 

Yah, the approach is interestin' because it implies that expressions which are generically Christian rather than denominationally Christian ("In God We Trust", "One Nation, under God", "The Heavens proclaim the glory of God", etc.) should not be treated as Establishment Clause issues.

 

Which is one reason why people like you and Ed try to argue that Christianity isn't a religion. It's so you can use the government to promote your religious views, while trying to claim that you aren't doing that.

 

Sorry, that doesn't work.

 

Nor should expressions which are generically pagan, if there is such a thing ("We give thanks for the Blessings of Mother Earth"?).

 

Or generically atheist? "Gods are myths" ok by you?

 

Like Scouts Own services, such relatively generic inclusive statements can comfort and inspire large numbers of citizens of different beliefs, and perhaps be respectfully tolerated by the rest with gentility and understanding.

 

Not when you try to use the government to promote your religious views.

 

It also provides a rationale (beyond my thoughts on common sense citizenship) for saying "no" to a specific expression of a particular denomination like "God hates fags", while allowing more generic expressions.

 

As I pointed out before, you're advocating censorship. If you think "god hates fags" is too denominational, how about "homosexuality is a sin"? There are a number of religions, and not just Christian religions, that would agree with that.

 

Now, there's a part of me bettin' that rather than think a bit on Ed's idea or mine, you'll find a sentence or two to take out of context and attack. Or perhaps set up another extreme straw man so yeh can jump in and accuse us of censorship or somesuch.

 

Both of your ideas are really bad ideas; but that's why you won't find courts ruling that way.

 

[Beavah 205]

Not when you try to use the government to promote your religious views.

 

Yah, Merlyn, I think it all just comes down to this, eh? If you're willin' to label me and all other Religionists as bad-idea folks tryin' to use government to promote our views, and at the same time you think your views (knowledge without reference to God) are just fine for government to promote while excluding ours, then there's nuthin' left to say, eh? Yeh want to put our books in a private closet or dungeon, we want 'em on the public shelf next to yours.

 

If that's where you're at, then we just have to oppose you vigorously. We have the majority, can determine elections, can force the appointment of judges, can remove tax dollars from public entities and in the end can prevail. Sound familiar? So while yeh seem to delight in the tactics, it just doesn't seem like an intelligent strategy for you.

 

The thing is, we're hugely reluctant to engage in that kinda thing because it's so... unChristian. Most of us don't care for the uncivil, polarizing dialog that promotes, or that's necessary for us to use to engage in the fight. 'Tis true that some of us have become more militant, but still the majority hold back or engage only reluctantly.

 

That's because we really don't care in the least about religious establishment, and tend to be polite even when we're talkin' about basic fairness. Fact is, it's hard to find an American denomination out there that doesn't formally teach religious pluralism. I'm in one of those. I wouldn't bridle at either "Gods are myths" or "Homosexuality is sinful." But I do have a notion of tact and courtesy, and would refrain from either in many places.

 

Yah, yah, I know, you're a black-and-white legal thinker, us-or-them, with no notion of judgment or shades of grey. Those of us that work with kids don't have that luxury . Kids require constant nuanced judgment. They learn that what's OK depends a bit on where they are and what the subject is. A statement that's OK among friends on the playground might be a bit "edgy" at Aunt Mildred's house and downright inappropriate in church. Learnin' that isn't censorship. It's learnin' propriety.

 

To get away from thinkin' I'm talkin' in black-and-white, yeh might think about it in terms of movie ratings. A generic statement like "The Heavens Proclaim the Glory of God" is pretty G-rated. You might quibble and say PG, but it's in that ballpark, eh? For the vast majority of citizens this statement is innocuous. Other statements may be more R-rated. Just fine in some venues, but not in others, as a matter of social mores. Only the ignorant or obnoxious want to categorize everything as either "OK" or banned, with nuthin' in between.

 

Anyway, my last attempt on da matter. But congratulations, yeh might get me to vote Republican again next go-round, despite this administration's bumbling.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah writes, responding to this statement of mine "Not when you try to use the government to promote your religious views. ":

Yah, Merlyn, I think it all just comes down to this, eh? If you're willin' to label me and all other Religionists as bad-idea folks tryin' to use government to promote our views, and at the same time you think your views (knowledge without reference to God) are just fine for government to promote while excluding ours, then there's nuthin' left to say, eh?

 

Well no, not when you phrase it like that. Apparently, you're one of those types who think statements that don't include your god are somehow promoting atheism. That's ridiculous.

 

Yeh want to put our books in a private closet or dungeon, we want 'em on the public shelf next to yours.

 

Where's the atheist rock "next to" the scout's god rock? Funny how you've completely twisted the analogy around to having the Christian point of view be suppressed and are only pleading for equal treatment. And misrepresented my views, as I've consistently argued for equal treatment. But I expected that from someone who argues that Christianity isn't a religion, so it's OK for the government to promote Christianity.

 

As I said earlier, if the park is a public forum where anyone can put up rocks with their own messages on them, it's fine. You know, genuine equal treatment regardless of the content. But that isn't the case here.

[SSScout 1615]

It is now getting somewhere we are.

 

Many Religions (there's that word) , Quakers among them, try hard "officially" not to do honor to other religions that they deem to be 'incorrect' or 'wrong'.

 

The honorific pagan names accorded in the past to the days of the week, the names of the months, the names of the planets are excellent examples.

To totally remove ALL RELIGIOUS (ie, honoring previously believed in and worshipped gods of various hues), one must fall back on the original old time Quaker tradition of NUMBERING the days of the week and NUMBERING the months of the year,and then referring to the years (anno domini?) as "the 4th year from the big snow that crushed the Baltimore Railroad Museum Round House Roof".

 

And we really do live on the third rock from the sun.

 

Somebody once worshipped the moon, asking it to provide big harvests, therefore monday is not a good government choice for a week day name. Must be "second day".

January honors the Roman god of time/history Janus, so the government should use "first month". Uh-huh, Month... honors the moon... need a new name for the 1/12th of the year thing...firstwelveth, secondtwelfth...

 

Can't acknowledge any religious belief in any govermentally sanctioned activity. Taxes remind me of tithing. Didn't somebody say a person should render Caeser type things to Caeser type entities?

 

Atheism is a belief, if only a belief in a LACK of belief, and thus is due our respect and (at least) tolerance. Government can't honor it, tho. I interpret that pesky amendment to include the establishment of a "lack of religion" too. Equality of access is important.

 

It won't be me or you that ultimately rewards (or punishes) our choice of belief. ((how we came to that belief is not the topic here.)), That is, if we believe that someone IS going to reward/punish.. oh never mind.

 

No one damages me by not believing as I do, assuming that's ALL they do, therefore I have no reason to mind or object to the way they feel (or not feel).

 

But to totally remove all religious reference from our activity would be not only awkward and difficult, it would be Orwellian in nature.

 

"And the heavens proclaim the Big Bang" doesn't sound quite as impressive.

 

Then to, placques could be set up to educate folks about the attributes of the orbital rocks and you could space them in scale distance from the Central Star. I know from my astrophysics class that Rockone is very hot.

 

YiS.

 

[Beavah 205]

Well no, not when you phrase it like that. Apparently, you're one of those types who think statements that don't include your god are somehow promoting atheism. That's ridiculous.

 

Reverse it, eh? How would you feel about this... Only books which connect theology to history/science/music, etc. are permitted in school. Only displays which make a connection to divinity are allowed on public property. Phrases and statements from any atheist or secular perspective (even generic, God-free viewpoints on tangential topics) were not permitted.

 

How would you feel? Excluded? Wouldn't you consider excluding references and expressions of your views to be "establishment" of the other viewpoint?

 

Ethics at its root requires the ability to feel empathy for the other guy. If you don't believe in God, then the omission of God from everything doesn't seem at all unnatural to you. I understand that. But if yeh do believe in God, then the omission of God from every display, discussion, and text feels an awful lot like exclusion, eh? "You can have God, but only in private." "Religion is a private matter." No it's NOT! Some types of prayer are private, but religion is something done in public with other people. To understand, you must be able to empathize, to put yourself in our shoes, as fellow citizens.

 

And to us, the censoring of religious perspectives is artificial. History has been strongly guided by the moral and religious ideas of various groups. Science, right up to Einstein's notions that the universe should be ordered, beautiful, and simple has been guided by religious notions. All of Western Music has as its root da chromatic scale chosen by Benedictine monks, and a heck of a lot of its history and even current practice is in music for worship. Art... literature.... all similarly intertwined. I'd argue yeh can't understand current events without a deep understanding of religion.

 

But you would create what to us would be a sterilized version of all these things, and insist that be all that's allowed on public grounds. You'd cut our ideas off from public funding so that your ideas have access to nearly double the funding sources of ours, though you amount to only 2% of the population. You'd not allow our ideas in public schools, which educate 85% of the children. You'd say, "Well, go to your own school if you want that." And then you'd campaign incessantly for more public school funding (exclusively!) to try to price our schools out of the market, so that the tax burden leaves families with less money for private schools, and so public schools can offer double the wages and benefits and taxpayer-bonded facility expansions, leaving private schools and teachers impoverished (or available only to the wealthy).

 

If that isn't usin' the government to promote one viewpoint over another, I'm not sure what is. And then you'd wrap yourself in da flag and quote the Constitution like all good despots do, eh?

 

All that's not meant to be an argument, eh? It's an invitation for yeh to put yourself in someone else's shoes, to see a diverse perspective from their point of view. If the situation were reversed, and we integrated religious understandings into all subject areas but did not allow an areligious perspective, how would you feel? If we said "if you want atheism, go to an atheist school." But we'll tax you so that the non-atheist schools have the best facilities, and best teachers, and it's hard for all but wealthy atheists to afford an atheist school. Museums, parks, all displays with reference to God, but not one to a God-free understanding, let alone God as Myth.

 

If yeh really believe in equal treatment, then yeh have to welcome diversity into your public spaces, while also bein' mindful of courtesy and civility. And diversity includes that 98% of the population that might enjoy a small rock that says "The Heavens Proclaim the Glory of God," and civility suggests that's a "rated G", innocuous thing not worth raisin' a fuss over.

 

Either that, or we try to sterilize everything, like SS suggests . Down with Truffula Trees! No tree-hugging view allowed on public property!

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah writes, responding to me:

Well no, not when you phrase it like that. Apparently, you're one of those types who think statements that don't include your god are somehow promoting atheism. That's ridiculous.

 

Reverse it, eh? How would you feel about this... Only books which connect theology to history/science/music, etc. are permitted in school. Only displays which make a connection to divinity are allowed on public property. Phrases and statements from any atheist or secular perspective (even generic, God-free viewpoints on tangential topics) were not permitted.

 

That isn't a reversal. Right now, religious statements AND atheistic statements are treated equally, and neither are allowed special privileges. But you're trying to set it up as if religious statements are suppressed while atheistic statements are not. Statements that do not address gods are not atheistic, they are neutral. "2+2=4" is not an atheistic statement merely because it omits any mention of gods.

 

Ethics at its root requires the ability to feel empathy for the other guy. If you don't believe in God, then the omission of God from everything doesn't seem at all unnatural to you. I understand that. But if yeh do believe in God, then the omission of God from every display, discussion, and text feels an awful lot like exclusion, eh?

 

The omission of "gods are myths" from every display excludes me, right? A display showing the relative distances of the planets is not promoting atheism any more than it's promoting religion, but you're trying to portray it that way. I'm not buying that malarkey.

 

But you would create what to us would be a sterilized version of all these things, and insist that be all that's allowed on public grounds. You'd cut our ideas off from public funding so that your ideas have access to nearly double the funding sources of ours, though you amount to only 2% of the population.

 

All of your arguments are based on the false premise that not promoting gods at every opportunity is somehow promoting atheism. That's just ridiculous. Teaching math doesn't involve gods, but that isn't promoting atheism.

 

You'd not allow our ideas in public schools, which educate 85% of the children.

 

Public schools are not for instructing kids in religion; that infringes on their rights and the rights of their parents who have the authority to instruct their own children on religion without interference from the state. If you'd like to go back to the bible riots of the 1840s and have Christians killing each other over which version of the bible to use in public schools, I'd say you're nuts.

 

If yeh really believe in equal treatment, then yeh have to welcome diversity into your public spaces, while also bein' mindful of courtesy and civility. And diversity includes that 98% of the population that might enjoy a small rock that says "The Heavens Proclaim the Glory of God," and civility suggests that's a "rated G", innocuous thing not worth raisin' a fuss over.

 

Sorry, religious rights are too important to allow 98% dictate to the 2% what they ought to believe, even if you think the 2% are being uppity.

 

[skeptic 993]

So, for Merlyn, and others of similar feelings; explain how the simple exposure of someone to the mention of God is somehow hurtful to you. You do not believe God exists, nor any other power beyond yourselves, so why do you care? No one has said you have to change your opinion or accept theirs. While they believe their beliefs are more viable or real, they have no effect on you. Or does the remote possibility, shown by the existence of the word God or Power Greater than I, traumatize your Id? Why can't you simply "not believe", rather than find it necessary to belittle and demonify others for their their audacity "to believe"?

 

Have fun with your answer; I have already donned my fire suit.

[scoutmomma 10]

Sorry, religious rights are too important to allow 98% dictate to the 2% what they ought to believe, even if you think the 2% are being uppity.

 

 

Hear, hear.(This message has been edited by scoutmomma)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

skeptic writes:

So, for Merlyn, and others of similar feelings; explain how the simple exposure of someone to the mention of God is somehow hurtful to you.

 

I didn't say it was.

 

You do not believe God exists,

 

I don't believe ANY gods exist.

 

nor any other power beyond yourselves,

 

Wrong; other people exist, and they have the same simple powers over time & space that I do, so the six billion or so people on this planet constitute a power beyond me, if rather mundane. Plus it's quite possible that there is life elsewhere in the universe.

 

so why do you care?

 

Non-sequitur. Why WOULDN'T I care about being treated equally by my own government, regardless of my religious views? Do you think only theists care about the first amendment?

 

No one has said you have to change your opinion or accept theirs.

 

I haven't said it would. I've been arguing about equal access to public forums, and how public parks generally are not public forums.

 

While they believe their beliefs are more viable or real, they have no effect on you. Or does the remote possibility, shown by the existence of the word God or Power Greater than I, traumatize your Id? Why can't you simply "not believe", rather than find it necessary to belittle and demonify others for their their audacity "to believe"?

 

I haven't been doing that at all. I've been arguing about free speech and local government.

 

[Beavah 205]

Sorry, religious rights are too important to allow 98% dictate to the 2% what they ought to believe, even if you think the 2% are being uppity.

 

Yah, I'm sure "In God We Trust" on the dollar bills in your pocket is "dictating what you ought to believe." That's a hoot. But it does a real disservice to the many people around the world who are truly being oppressed for their beliefs. Most of 'em religious.

 

Religious rights are too important to allow .5% to manipulate the system to exclude one whole branch of human thought from all public places.

 

B

 

 

 

[DanKroh 11]

"Somebody once worshipped the moon, asking it to provide big harvests"

 

"Once"? Try "are now".

 

I've got it, let's just put a Goddess stone next to the God stone. After all, she was the one who really birthed the universe....

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah, allowing only the religious majority to use public property to promote their religious views is, yes, dictating to the rest what they ought to believe, since only religious views favored by city officials will be permitted. Yes, there's a lot of worse religious oppression in other parts of the world, but that's no reason to allow more minor oppression in my country.

 

And no, "in god we trust" should not be on currency, but I find it ironic that the only way religious people can justify keeping it is to blatantly lie and claim it has no religious significance. I'm sure all such people have no problem denying it has religious meaning three times before the cock crows.