 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Separation of Church & State II
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Mrrzy Date: 23 Jun 01 - 04:56 PM SDShad - Precisely, again, thanks for noticing. John, thanks for answering mousethief so nicely. The company is promoting being religious, which may in fact be professionally detrimental to atheists, who have rights too. See, the basic issue to me is freedom FROM religion - leave it in the homes and holy places, not in my place of work, where having Bible stuff shoved onto my desktop bothers me. Sorry, but it does, whereas it wouldn't bother me on your coffee table, mousethief. It belongs there - it's your coffee table, and should I even have the honor of stepping over your threshold, I'd love to discuss anything with you, especially over some music. I would not and do not fear personal harm from indivisuals who have religion, although I have been personally accosted for being an atheist more times than I care to count. Think of it like any other harassment - if I am offended, then even if what was said wasn't "meant that way," I have been harrassed. And just like with sexual harassment, some people are more vocal in their efforts to make (usually the Good Old Boys, but basically businesspeople in general) realize that comments of that nature just plain don't belong in the air of an office. It wouldn't have bothered me if the people in the office in question had decided to hold Bible studies together. It probably wouldn't have bothered me to find out that the company was letting them use office space - after all, I sometimes have students come meet with me while I'm at the office, and I use the tables in the cafeteria or outside - but having it ANNOUNCED ON THE INTRANET so that I would see it every time I went there for work, which I do a lot, put it in my face, and that's what I objected to. I would have minded if it had been a women's group, or a men's group, or a white group, or any group that specifically excluded any employees, even if they included me. For instance, they had a self-defense seminar. Now it turned out only women went, but it wasn't a woman's announcement. And I have been accosted at work by fundamentalists before, too, when I had a fundamentalist (dig this) Christian Jewish boss, and he (the boss) made the evangelist lay off, as was right and proper. Some of us at lunch had been discussing this neat Nova on the origins of language, looking at theoretically unrelated languages and finding interesting "coincidences" and using them with biological data to attempt to map the origins of human language, when another colleague came over and told us we couldn't discuss this, the question couldn't even be asked, because the Bible already told us how it happened. And he meant it, too. I tried asking if it would be OK to try to figure out what had been spoken before the Tower of Babel was attempted, and he said No, because God fractured the languages specifically so that it couldn't be figured out. Now admittedly that was extreme, but it only that - an extreme, of something that ought just plain not to be tolerated. At work, that is. He'd have been welcome to say that if I'd been having that conversation inside his church, although I still think it's ridiculous. Personally. But even then, I didn't tell him so. He sat down, and we changed the subject. It wasn't harmful in any painful sense, but it was certainly curtailing of freedom... I also have a separate question for those who don't believe in God as a supernatural being, but as somehow imbuing everything, immanent in everything, if that is a fair assessment of your position? If deity is everywhere, isn't that logically equivalent to being nowhere? Is the only thing, then, the concept of soul, life everlasting, or something? That's where I fail to ken, to grok the fullness, as it were. I believe in physics, chemistry, and electromagnetism, which gave me life and consciousness. What lives forever in humans and no other animals that we know of (I give the benefit of the doubt to African elephants) is the memory, knowledge, teachings and wisdom of the dearly departed. Like those aliens in that Star Trek (Matt, you know which one I mean), as long as you are remembered, you aren't really gone. You're dead, of course, but not gone. But I don't consider any of these beliefs to be religious... but I do find that the emphasis on the next life detracts a limited amount of energy from the efforts that need to be made in THIS life, and that is what I find so sad, and so harmful, about religion in general. I've made this point before, but every time I am awed by the beauty of a mosque, or a Gregorian chant, I am dismayed anew by the ugliness of a public school, or the tune for the multiplication tables... I just wish people would concentrate on the here-and-now, rather than the thereafter. And I don't just mean folks that go to church but don't feed their elderly neighbors on holidays. Not that there are any of those here, I would trust a mudcatter to have kindness, whether religious or not, but you know what I mean, I hope! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: mousethief Date: 23 Jun 01 - 01:21 PM John, you didn't say the company was promoting *A* religion. You said they were allowing people of any religion to use company facilities to meet and disseminate information. Two completely different things. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: GUEST Date: 23 Jun 01 - 12:19 PM Those to evils together means the end to humanity there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: John P Date: 23 Jun 01 - 09:12 AM Alex, what specific harm does it do anyone to have a company officially promoting a religion? Are the top executives all members of that religion? Do they tend to promote people who are not? Even if they do promote them, are the non-Christians invited to the golf games and dinner parties where vital work-related subjects are discussed? It bothers me just because it creates a percieved conflict of interest. Most of us have run into enough Christians who don't, unlike you, have any respect for non-Christians that we are pretty gun-shy about this subject. Several years ago I interviewed for a management job in a mid-sized company. The people who interviewed me were open about their extreme Christianity and were obviously fishing for a similar expression of faith from me. They stopped short of breaking the law by asking me about my religion, but the very clear message was that I probably wouldn't be hired if I wasn't a professing Christian. Or even if I was hired I would always be an outsider. I stopped pursuing the job, even though I was exactly qualified for it, it would have been a very good career move for me, and it would have allowed me to live and work on Bainbridge Island or the Kitsap Penninsula. As you know, that's sort of like moving to Nirvanna for a lot of folks around here. So yes, I think that business owners and executives who bring their religion to work can easily do harm to their employees. Our laws guarantee us that employment decisions won't be based on our religion. Unless that also means our lack of religion, it doesn't really make any sense. And the only way to ensure that is to not have religion promoted in the workplace in any official way whatsoever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: John P Date: 23 Jun 01 - 08:53 AM SD Shad, Little Hawk, I like your concepts of God, and most Christians I know would probably put forth some similar definition. As would anyone who has spiritual experiences as part of their lives, a condition that doesn't require belief in or membership in any religion. You don't, however, address the central core of Christianity, the bit that separates it from other religions or spiritual experiences. That is the concept of Christ itself, the idea that Christ died and was resurrected and somehow thereby cleansed us all of our sins. That's the part that leaves me behind, that requires "faith" or "belief" and doesn't make any sense to many of us in light of everything else we know about the world. And, it seems to me, this is a central belief that has to be present in order for someone to consider themselves a Christian. Obviously, there are lots of other aspects of being a good Christian -- acts are more important than words, after all. It is hard to see how some the the hate-mongers can get away with calling themselves members of a religion that has love as one of its central tenets, but they do have the basic belief in the resurrection and divinity of Christ. Considering that, it is hard not call them Christians. It's just too bad they are so vocal, and so give all the rest of Christianity a bad name with people who tend toward bigotry themselves. And we're lucky they are such a small minority, or our legal code would be a very frightening place. The Bible also clearly states that the only way to salvation is through belief in the divinity of Christ. Most denominations teach this as a basic concept. Again, most Christians I know don't have any use for that kind of balderdash, but they also know they are going against one of the basic tenets of their religion when they reject the idea. The basic arrogance of this belief is another reason why many non-Christians are put off by the whole religion. I know that most other religions teach a similar concept, but Christianity is the one that most of us have to put up with encroaching on our lives on a day-to-day basis (just to pull it back to the original subject of the thread). John Peekstok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: MAV Date: 22 Jun 01 - 07:29 PM Hey Little Hawk, Mouse et al.
Never have Ontario schools been so savaged by a "Big Brother" provincial government before...and all in the name of conservatism! How do you figure it, MAV?
I'll stick with my local control opinion which does not sound like what your Harris is doing. I don't care what they may do it in the name of......no two communities are alike and one size does not fit all.
One case where it would "fit all" is if the state (or province in your case) were to equally fund each student and allow the parents the right to send them to the school of their choice with no government strings attached (true state vouchers).
I don't think MAV was taking pride in those "religious nuts with guns" founding America
True, that's where I believe the tradition of "scalping" came from, a bounty on Indian scalps. I only was referencing the fact as a historical prededent.
I like to believe that today's Christians in general have "lightened up" quite a bit, and I appreciate their value system and moral code (most any real religion for that matter)
I also would like to mirror the comment about those who pretend to be Christians. A so-called "Born Again" just ripped me off for $3200.
MAV has a keen appreciation of the injustices perpetrated upon North American Indians, and he has talked with me before about that. He's what you would call definitely pro-Indian when it comes to such matters
It's true, believe it or not!
The true traditional Indians I've met live their spirituality 7 days a week.
Thanks LH.
mav out
PS. I think we should stop calling ourselves "conservatives" it's way too confusing. The current status quo liberals are trying to keep things the way they are and for that reason could be considered "conservatives".
I'll accept the moniker of "Constitutionalist" any day.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: mousethief Date: 22 Jun 01 - 04:53 PM But Graham/Grab, what HARM does it do you? Specific harm, now. Any? Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Grab Date: 22 Jun 01 - 02:23 PM A thought to Mrzzy - I work for a company who has many dealings with Ford. Ford has established what they call the Ford Interfaith Network, which basically means that religions are allowed to set up their own little groups, get intranet space and so on. The idea is that if you allow employees to promote what they're interested in, they'll work better and/or be more likely to stay with the company. We thought some of it was quite funny, especially when we saw "Religious car ornaments" on the list of topics! :-) But as you say, the appearance that this is promoted or encouraged by the company (and an email was sent round praising this in fairly glowing terms) is a bit worrying. If they make it clear that a religious group is no more important to them than a folk music group, a line-dancing club or the local bog-snorkeling league, I don't mind. When it becomes anything more than that, it starts to get intrusive. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Jun 01 - 01:07 PM SDShad - Precisely!!! The mistake that anti-theists usually make is that they assume people who believe in God believe in the same utterly childish and unlikely concept of God that the anti-theist has already concocted in his own imagination (or gleaned from the ravings of TV evangelists) and decided not to believe in. My belief in God is quite similar to yours, and in no way violates or opposes a scientific understanding of life, although it does touch on a number of areas that conventional science is at present either partially or wholly unaware of. First the scientific mind seizes upon a primitive and ludicrous concept of God. Then it decides that that must be the God that all religious or spiritually-minded people believe in... It's so convenient to assume that the "other guy" is simply an idiot with an idiotic belief... What I have studied leads me to believe that God is the entire summation of "all that is"...the whole continuum...including science and scientists themselves. Each little part of that whole continuum is working toward the dawning awareness that it is One and in perfect unity with the rest. When a sentient being realizes the Oneness, then kindness becomes a given, as do all the other common virtues. We have a word for that...it's called enlightenment. It's also called salvation. It is the one thing that life is really about. So when a non-believer says to me "I don't believe in God", I have to wonder what silly god he is talking about. To not believe in All That Is would leave one literally with no ground to stand on, after all...and no mind with which to form the notion of unbelief in something, and no mouth with which to utter the words. I could just reply "Oh, well I don't believe in that god either, as a matter of fact!" But would I be understood? I seriously doubt it. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: SDShad Date: 22 Jun 01 - 12:40 PM My apologies, Mrrzy. I just realized I've been mis-spelling your handle several times in this thread. Two r's, one z. Got it. C. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: SDShad Date: 22 Jun 01 - 12:38 PM Mrzzy, re: your bit about "believing" in the big bang v. "believing" in Biblical Creation: but what about theists who instead see Creation myths as just that--not "myths" in the incorrect negative sense of "falsehood" that the word doesn't really mean, but of ancient, powerful metaphorical stories that aren't historically true--and support the truth (and potential truth) and continued inquiry of modern cosmology and biology--big bang, string theory, bubble theory, natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, fossil record, the works. People (Christians, believers of other faiths, and nonbelievers alike) too often tend to believe that one's "belief in God" means that one literally believes in a white-haired, grumbly old sky-king looking down from a throne with some weird mixture of jealousy, rage, forgiveness, mercy, and indulgence. It's a dangerous assumption to make. To me, God isn't an actual supernatural being, but, in the 20th-century theologian Paul Tillich's words, "the depth and ground of all being." And it's the face of that God that I see in a constantly evolving, bedazzling, bewildering, and infinite creation. But I tell ya, a lot of nonbelievers simply assume that if you have any religious or spiritual beliefs, you obviously believe factually in silly sky-king (or sky-queen) myths rather than accept the conclusions of good, hard science. With a large number of us, that couldn't be further from the truth. Chris |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: mousethief Date: 22 Jun 01 - 11:10 AM I found myself sort of sidelined by the direction the thread was going (viz., inclusivism), and wanted to try to say how things look from my POV. Feel free to ignore. I don't know about other Christians, or about other "branches" of Christianity, or about people who might claim to be Christians but really aren't, or vice versa. All of that is outside my ability to make categorical statements about. I do know that I am taught that Jesus Christ is the only bridge between divinity and humanity. Being fully God and fully Man, he bridges the gap between the two realms and thereby makes it possible for us mere mortals to have concourse with God. This doesn't mean I don't value people who are not Christians, or who don't believe this the way I do. I know many, many good and loving people -- and even holy people -- who are on quite different paths from me. It is not my job to judge them, or their decisions, or their paths. I feel it is my job to do the best I can to be faithful to the path I find myself on. I count pagans, atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha'is, etc. etc. among my friends. And yet I belong to what you might call a very "exclusivist" branch of Christianity. How can this be? I don't know. Maybe I'm not a very good Orthodox Christian (such has been hinted here before). But I find myself in very good company, including some real luminaries of the Eastern Church like Fr. Alexander Men, who was martyred by the Soviets on the very eve of the downfall of their atheistic empire. He too refused to discount and reject others based on their religious choices, and was open to learning truth at any table he sat at, and yet he still proclaimed the gospel he was entrusted to teach. Very often "conservative" Christians find themselves left out of a "tolerance" that tolerates everybody who olerates everybody, but subtly refuses to tolerate people who make any kind of truth claims, or who say "This is true and its opposite is false." I cannot join in the great toleration round robin and say, "your way is just as true as my way." I can say, "My way may be false and yours true," because as a fallible human I might, in fact, have it all wrong. But if I'm right, then those creeds or paths which deny the things that are right, are wrong. Which perforce leaves me out of the great toleration round robin. Yet I do have a great love and respect for people on different paths, and don't look down on them as being of any less intellect, goodness, or even ultimately salvation, than myself. For as my one-time roommate once said, "you don't need to know the name of a bridge to cross it." And we are told in our own Scriptures that many will enter the kingdom of Heaven who didn't even know they were headed that way. Again, mine is not the judgment. Mine is only to keep my own nose clean, and try to practice the sort of faith and love that I've been called to. This is where I am. Thanks for listening, if anybody did. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Mrrzy Date: 22 Jun 01 - 10:55 AM Not all fervor is religious. "This is what the atheist fails to comprehend, generally...[s/]he is following a religion based on various material considerations. I have seen blind faith demonstrated by atheists that is positively mind-boggling...at least as rabid as the faith displayed by the common religious fundamentalist, and resting on equally shaky ground, IMO" - I agree with the statements, mostly. However, I don't think that I take it "on faith" that there is no god, although I do have a fundementalist atheist friend who claims to "believe in" the Big Bang, the way a theist might believe in The Creation. He says, however, that it is the ONLY thing he takes on faith, and I don't believe that it is religious to believe in the Big Bang. I do agree that blind faith is mind-boggling, whether it's faith in the supernatural or not. However, I would not agree that atheists are necessarily following a religion based on various material considerations. For instance, I believe in kindness. That is, I believe that it exists, and I believe it is a good thing which ought to be propagated. However, I don't consider it "against my religion" to be unkind, I consider it reprehensible. There was another thread on this, where I was trying to explain that my kind of atheism is a belief system, and I was being told that No, it's not, it's the absence of belief. Now I'm being told it's a belief system like any other and I don't like that either. Hmm. Am going to have to think long and hard on this! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: sophocleese Date: 22 Jun 01 - 08:33 AM Pennsylvania was settled by religious nuts without guns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: DougR Date: 22 Jun 01 - 01:27 AM I thought so, LH. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jun 01 - 11:21 PM Definitely, Doug! The Cuban revolutionaries had a religious fervour about them that was quite extraordinary. When Fidel rode into Havana on a tank, he was greeted with the sort of ecstatic fervour you would almost expect to see at the official return of Christ, and that fervour sustained itself for some considerable time. He loved to talk, and used to give speeches to the Cuban crowds that went on for hours at a time...and he had their full attention, even their adulation. That was long before the Warsaw Pact fell apart, and hard economic times came to Cuba. Since then, many people have longed to get out and go to the USA or Canada. All of Latin American shares that aspiration. The mitigating grace about it all, however, is that Fidel replaced a government (that of Batista) which was so much more corrupt than his own in almost every way... It's not surprising that he was popular back then. Batista was utterly despised by most of the people (except the rich)...and feared! The Fidelistas are no angels, but, my friend, they are an enormous improvement over what preceded them, and over what would still be there had they not overthrown it. Just my humble opinion, of course...having been there and seen it for myself. Too bad more Americans haven't. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: mousethief Date: 21 Jun 01 - 11:21 PM I don't know a whole lot about the Cuban revolution, Doug. I'll have to take your word for it! (My education is sadly lacking; I was educated in American public schools!) Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: DougR Date: 21 Jun 01 - 10:56 PM Yes, Alex, and the same could be said for Cuba! Right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: SDShad Date: 21 Jun 01 - 06:01 PM Jim, thanks for the link to that article on Ladinsky. An interesting and thought-provoking read. The same author had an interesting bit in another article at the site about poetry being the most "eastern" and "sufi" of America's arts, so I don't think that his is just a knee-jerk "fundamentalist" response to perceived "new-age" translation. So yeah, I'm aware of some of the complaints against both Ladinsky and Barks, and the accusation of "new-ageism." I don't have any volume of Ladinsky's versions of Hafiz, as I do a copy of Barks' "Essential Rumi." So with Barks, I at least know his method. He makes no claims to being a translator. He works from the translations of others, most notably Arberry, and tries to cast them in a poetical form that makes sense in a modern mystical context. On the whole, Barks works for me. It helps that Barks is himself a decent poet. And short of learning to read Persian, I'd be left only with the option of Arberry's original translations in order to experience in some way the true light that shone in Mevlana's original ghazals. Now, I know that Rumi's originals had definite, sometimes prescribed rhyme and meter, and thus sounded little like Barks' free verse in that regard. But Arberry's insistence on keeping with rhyme and meter led to ham-handed, sing-songy, forced, pedestrian poetry that makes me frickin' cringe, as to fingernails on a chalkboard. I recognize the immense value of Arberry, but God bless Coleman Barks for wading through the man's turgid translations so I don't have to. If only Arberry had the poetical sensitivity of Edward Fitzgerald's luminous work translating the Rubaiyyat of Omar Khayyam.... Now, with Ladinsky, I know much less about how he approaches it all, but I have noticed that with Barks, the attribution is always "version by Coleman Barks," whereas with Ladinsky it's "tr. by Daniel Ladinsky." I didn't trust that that's very true even before reading that article, Jim, so I always say "version by D.L." when I'm quoting him. And it sounds from that article that Ladinsky's process may be rather less reliable than Barks'. That said, I do still think it's safe to say that Ladinsky's take on that poem (if in fact it comes from a Hafez poem at all, which is an open question after that article) is in keeping with known Sufi precedent. It dovetails with the Barks/Rumi poem, and it's worth noting that Rumi was known to be very ecumenical: he was known to have a great love and respect for Christians, Jews, Hindus, and those of other Middle-Eastern faiths; his funeral was attended by many representatives of all regional faiths, in a returned show of respect; and there are Christian churches to this day in Iran that have quotes from Rumi over their front doors. And if anything, Hafez was even more of an outlandish fool for the Friend than Mevlana, if less profound, so it does fit. So, I do find much spiritual food in these versions of Rumi and Hafez, but I don't see them as scripture--and I'm not necessarily completely happy with any English translations of the Bible, either!--and I do know to take Barks' versions with a grain of salt, and Ladinsky's with at least two or three.... Thread drift? What's that? Chris |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jun 01 - 01:59 PM True enough, Alex. Their religion was the Communist Party and its ideology, their prophets were Marx and Engels, and their holy books "The Communist Manifesto" and "Das Kapital". Their cathedral? The Kremlin. Same basic routine, except it was an Earth-based religion rather than a spirit-based religion. This is what the atheist fails to comprehend, generally...he is following a religion based on various material considerations. I have seen blind faith demonstrated by atheists that is positively mind-boggling...at least as rabid as the faith displayed by the common religious fundamentalist, and resting on equally shaky ground, IMO. However, I don't think MAV was taking pride in those "religious nuts with guns" founding America. MAV has a keen appreciation of the injustices perpetrated upon North American Indians, and he has talked with me before about that. He's what you would call definitely pro-Indian when it comes to such matters. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: mousethief Date: 21 Jun 01 - 01:22 PM THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED BY RELIGIOUS NUTS WITH GUNS!!! The same could be said for the Soviet Union. It's hardly a cause for pride. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Mrrzy Date: 21 Jun 01 - 10:52 AM Indeed, I've been away from this thread, glad to see there are so many people who have managed to find apparently once-in-a-blue-moon practitioners of faiths that do usually exclude, but who individually choose not to. I haven't seen anything like that yet, but admittedly I'm not looking. Armed fundamentalists - scary visual! But yes, that is how we got founded... and it really is apparent, often, unfortunately. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jun 01 - 09:16 AM Bravo, MAV! Your statement: "THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED BY RELIGIOUS NUTS WITH GUNS!!!" is the most succinct and apt summary of the colonization of America that I've heard yet. In Central and South America it was done by religious nuts with guns and swords, yelling "Santiago!"...and millions died. I also believe there is no separation of church and state...by which I mean...if anyone truly has any form of spiritual belief, then he must bring it into all areas of his life, governing included, or he's a hypocrite. It is when one organized religion is given governmental domination over all other forms of belief that the situation becomes ugly, and that should never be permitted. I believe in the practice of diversity...a voice for every belief. As for schools, I essentially agree that each school should be run by its own community in an autonomous way. I've seen the opposite done in Ontario lately by Mike Harris's government (which claims to be conservative...and is certainly seen by everyone as conservative). That government has repeatedly interfered in Ontario's schools and brought in draconian legislation which has so demoralized teachers that they are giving up their careers and retiring in record numbers. Never have Ontario schools been so savaged by a "Big Brother" provincial government before...and all in the name of conservatism! How do you figure it, MAV? Just wondering, not taking potshots at you over it...after all, you didn't vote for Harris. - LH
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Jim Dixon Date: 20 Jun 01 - 08:20 PM SDShad/Chris: Please read what this review has to say about Daniel Ladinsky as a translator. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: MAV Date: 20 Jun 01 - 07:57 PM Well where the heck have I been anyway?
Congratulations Kat for a great thread and to everyone else for a polite but diverse discussion.
Believe it or not I have very little to add.
I'll be brief:
I've seen the comments here on the Constitutional controls on the "Separation of Church and State". The Constitution limits the power of the federal government only, not the various "2000" religions. The establishment clause refers to the "Church of England" type of entity.
I believe there IS NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!
Each school's control SHOULD be limited to the town or community in which it sits and have no mandates placed on it by the central government. Each individual school should have alswys had the right to make their own decisions
I'm fairly inactive but was raised a Lutheran, Mousetheif, glad to hear the news.
Little Hawk, I also appreciate the various diversity of Native American religious practices and that they largely assumed that others (from other areas)had their own personal form of spirituality and had no interest in converting them.
It's tragic that there is a very long history of conflict between groups for no other reason than religious persecution.
That is one reason why the original settlers came to America's shores.
THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED BY RELIGIOUS NUTS WITH GUNS!!!
One final point.....The American Nazis and Klan are authoritarian murdering thugs and have no interest in freedom and equal individual rights. We as Constitutional conservatives reject and disavow them. They are not legitimate.
They deserve our ridicule, scrutiny and heckling as the hateful and violent criminals they are.
Good job folks!
mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: DougR Date: 20 Jun 01 - 07:46 PM SDShad: Phoenix, Arizona |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: SeanM Date: 20 Jun 01 - 07:24 PM As a note on 'non-exclusive' religions... apparently, the Presbyterian conference voted in language to the 'creed' that Christ is not the ONLY path to 'salvation'. In doing so, most of the interviewed ministers (I caught this on the BBC World News broadcast in California, of all things0 seemed to believe that this was a step towards the idea that 'salvation' is not a matter of belief only, but a matter of works. One must not only proclaim that one is good - one must actually do something about it, and one of those things (by extension of the allowance of other routes) looks to be acceptance that there is NOT only 'one way' to be saved. Presbyterians... who'da thunk... No offense to any out there. There's just such a conservative/middle class/suburbanite soccermom feel to Presbyterians... M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: SDShad Date: 20 Jun 01 - 07:21 PM DougR, whereabouts do you reside? I wanna go to your church some time.... And I realized that that Rumi poem wasn't actually the one I was thinking of when I set out to find and include it. Actually, it's this one, from a 14th-century Sufi, Hafez, who was very much influenced by Mevlana:
I have learned so much from God Chris
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: DougR Date: 20 Jun 01 - 06:22 PM Mrzzy: Well, my religion doesn't teach that other religions are wrong! I attend an Espiscopal church and we have a Rabbi in residence, as well as a Southern Baptist African American minister on staff. Both preach sermons regularly. I would say, though, that probably less tolerance is shown to religions that take the Bible on a literal basis, however, I have never heard anyone say they are wrong. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Jim Dixon Date: 20 Jun 01 - 06:22 PM SDShad/Chris: Well, I appreciate everything you've written. And I believe every word of it, too. I even like the Rumi poem. Shalom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: SDShad Date: 20 Jun 01 - 05:40 PM Man, can I kill a thread, or what? Sorry if that was all a bit much. Basically, the point was: you can't find what Mrzzy was talking about in every spirtual community. But you can find it, and in more communities than I think a lot of us (often me) suspect. Chris |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: SDShad Date: 19 Jun 01 - 05:35 PM Mrrzy writes: "And I'd like an example of a religion that preaches that other religions are true, please, Mmario. I'd like to believe it were possible." At first, my thought when I read this, I must admit, was a touch uncharitable, as I was thinking "well, read the bloody post right before yours, then!" Then I realized that LH's good and relevant post was only one minute before yours, so obviously you and LH were writing your posts at the same time, so my snarky attitude was wholly unjustified. LH makes an exceedingly valid point, though, in bringing up the Baha'i faith. This comes from their official website at www.bahai.org:
Bahá'u'lláh taught that there is one God Who progressively reveals His will to humanity. Each of the great religions brought by the Messengers of God - Moses, Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammad - represents a successive stage in the spiritual development of civilization. Bahá'u'lláh, the most recent Messenger in this line, has brought teachings that address the moral and spiritual challenges of the modern world. I've studied Baha'ism quite a lot over the years, and I don't think I'm out of line in saying that list is not meant to be exhaustive. I've had Lakota Baha'is include the White Buffalo Calf Woman in that list, for instance. I considered becoming a Baha'i convert for quite a while, but a number of factors weighed against that. One was the realization that because of the radical ecumenism of my upbringing and personal faith and belief, I'm pretty much immune to proselytization (the poem at the end of this post pretty much explains what I mean by that better than I could myself). Much of what the Baha'is profess had already been at the core of my spiritual life as a Christian before I hever heard of the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh. Another, sadly, was the centralized nature of the Baha'i organization and the "puritan" moral code forwarded by that central authority in Haifa. But again, as with the discussion of the Society of Friends on another thread, it's dangerous to make generalizations, and I want to make it clear that I'm not painting the Baha'i faith, for which I have great reverence, with a generalized "puritannical" brush. Fortunately, I have found a spiritual home in a Christian denomination (United Church of Christ, or for the old-fashioned, Congregational) with no ecclesiastical hierarchy whatsoever--no bishops, no synod, and state and national organizations with almost no power to effect what happens in individual congregations. For that matter, the ministers of individual churches don't have the power to tell anyone what to believe. The marvelous result of this lack of hierarchy has been ministers who are free to practice and encourage free thought in spiritual pursuit, and indeed, to encourage their churches to view other religions just as you have asked. Our minister does just that quite regularly, and most memorably in a sermon a couple-three years ago that was entitled "The Ocean Refuses No River," which comes from a Moslem proverb, in which he exhorted the Church to abandon exclusivist language. Believe me, were I not able to find a home where exclusivism is not practiced, I could not have remained a Christian in any formal sense. In our church, Lakota sacred pipe healing ceremonies (and Tai Chi lessons) have taken place in our basement. The Moslem student organization has also used our basement for meetings. We have sung and danced language of Universal Peace in Aramaic, and shared Sufi poetry. Most dear to me was a retreat in Illinois I went to with Steve, or pastor, where many religious traditions were very specifically celebrated and practiced side-by-side: Jewish, Moslem, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Native American...the list is actually pretty open-ended. At this retreat, a marvelous Dominican monk stated, "because God's very name ['Alaha' in Aramaic] means Unity, you cannot say you believe and God and exclude anyone. It's heresy." What you asked for is all around you, Mrrzy, if you know what to look for. Is it in the minority? Sadly, I suspect it yet is. But look for a local group near you that does an Abwoon Study Circle or Dances for Universal Peace (both are Aramaic-related work), and you'll find good-hearted, open people who believe, live, and advocate ("preach" being a little too politically charged a word for it) exactly what you ask. You write above of religious people that "they are not out for the good of all," but I'd say that the good of all, regardless of creed, religion (or lack thereof), color, gender, sexual orientation, or any other divisive classification that rends Unity, is exactly what Dances of Universal Peace is about. Read any book by Matthew Fox or Neil Douglas-Klotz, and you'll see what I mean. That is not to say that I'm seeking to convert you to any particular spiritual way or suggesting that you need to go to one of these spiritually-open-and-seeking groups and become one of them in order to see what I'm saying. I'm only telling you where you might see in action what, from what you say above, you wish you could believe possible. Not only is it all around us, I'd say that it's been around us for a lot longer than you'd suspect. This from a Moslem, a Sufi to be precise, the 13th-century mystic and poet Mevlana Jelaluddin Rumi:
Not Christian or Jew or Muslim, not Hindu, This post has all practically spilled out of my head onto the keyboard in one headlong rush, and it's my sincere wish and prayer that it makes at least a wee bit of sense, and that it offend or distress no one. Salaam, Chris--Christian, Sufi, Baha'i, Taoist, Pipe follower, human |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: MMario Date: 19 Jun 01 - 01:18 PM see also Little Hawks post above. and since I personally was preached against from the pulpit as a child - I *do* know whereof I speak. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Jim Dixon Date: 19 Jun 01 - 01:05 PM Mrrzy: You said you'd like an example of a religion that preaches that other religions are true. I believe Hinduism admits the possibility that other religions contain some truth. I know that Gandhi took a lot of his inspiration from the Christian New Testament, although he remained a Hindu all his life. Maybe it's because Hinduism has so many gods already, that they have no trouble adding a few more! I think the ancient Romans did the same thing. They easily accepted Mithaism, for example, as long as its practitioners also performed perfunctory sacrifices to the emperor. What bothered them about the Christians was that they refused to perform these sacrifices. I think I once read where a Hindu explained it something like this: If a Hindu becomes interested in Christianity, he becomes a Hindu AND a Christian. The idea that one must give up one religion to practice another is foreign to Hinduism. It's about as silly as saying you have to give up believing in mathematics if you want to study music. I once knew a man of Indian origin, who said he was a Hindu AND a Muslim AND a Christian. I have known Quakers who practiced more than one religion, for example, Quaker and Catholic, or Quaker and Jewish. There is nothing in Quakerism that forbids this. And I've heard there are some Quakers who believe you can be a Quaker and an atheist at the same time, although I don't know how they make that work. In fact, I think you can find people in almost any religion (a minority, admittedly) who also have high respect for - if not actually practice - other religions. Mystics of whatever denomination often discover that they have a lot in common with mystics of other religions. And every major religion has its share of mystics. And there are probably a lot of people in mixed marriages who practice their own religion as well as their spouse's. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: mousethief Date: 18 Jun 01 - 11:29 PM I have to disagree that they're not out for the good of all. I mean some might not be, but others are. This is an over-generalization. alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Mrrzy Date: 18 Jun 01 - 10:33 PM harmful only if allowed to be. Yeah, right, tell that to a child: "Don't let it bother you, dear!" and see how much that helps... Mousethief, I'm not saying all religious people harm all others all the time. Never did. But they are not out for the good of all, and as such, have no place on campus. IM(AO)O (in my admittedly-opinionated opinion) And I'd like an example of a religion that preaches that other religions are true, please, Mmario. I'd like to believe it were possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Jun 01 - 10:32 PM M.Ted - LOL! That's cos animals aren't as stupid as people...in the sense of natural-based, useful intelligence, I mean. They are impervious to the blandishments of religious zealouts. And...they are beautifully tuned in to Spirit...but I can't prove that to anyone who doesn't know about Spirit in the first place. To someone like that, they are just dumb animals. Mrzzy - There are a few religions which do not "immediately claim that all other religions are false". The Bahais are one. They respect (and often study) all other notable religions, and they place all the great holy books of the world around the altars of their temples (of which there are just a handful in the world at present, but there are many Bahais in most countries). The Native American Medicine Way does not deny other religions (nor ever did), but respects them as long as they respect it. There are some Christians (particularly in the United Church) who do honor the other religions and give them recognition. I know a pastor in my own town who does. He accepts the truth of all religions...with the possible exception of a few really weird cults, like Satanists, for example. He has no problem whatsoever with Pagans, or people in Goddess-based faiths (Wicca or whatever). There are some Buddhists and Hindus about whom I could say the same...depends how deeply they've gone into study and understanding of their faith. The same is probably true of some Muslims as well. But they're not the ones you will hear about on the news. Most people in spiritual studies these days (as opposed to name-brand religions) honor all religions and limit themselves to none, but find the same inner truth in all. I count myself among those people. Be that as it may, I understand the point you were making about religious prejudice....I just wanted to qualify it some, that's all. Spiritual study asserts that we are all one, regardless of religious or cultural bias, and that human cultural variety is a good and beneficial thing, enriching the entire humanity. - LH
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: M.Ted Date: 18 Jun 01 - 10:06 PM Religions have one unsurmountable problem--they all have to recruit from the human race--- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: MMario Date: 18 Jun 01 - 02:26 PM stupid html! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: MMario Date: 18 Jun 01 - 02:18 PM Any religion immediately claims that all other religions are false, which is directly harmful to adherents of those other religions. ?? Since When? Some may - and some denominations/sects claim the same - even in relation to other branches of their own faith. Others do not and never have. And directly harmful????? That makes about as much sense as saying that calling someone a name is directly harmful. Hurtful purhaps, harmful only if allowed to be. And even among the various Christian denominations the "duty" to convert is of greater or lesser or no importance depending on whom you talk with.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: mousethief Date: 18 Jun 01 - 02:07 PM One of my dearest friends is Pagan (licensed minister, no less!). My religion claims that his religion is wrong. Yet he never says "ouch!" when we have lunch together, or when I help him move his stuff out of storage, or when he helps me when my car is broken down. I shall have to ask him exactly what harm I'm doing him. I wonder what he'd say. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Mrrzy Date: 18 Jun 01 - 01:48 PM Mousethief, I deny strenuously that religions don't advocate harm to others. Any religion immediately claims that all other religions are false, which is directly harmful to adherents of those other religions. Look at the religions that advocate the killing of the "infidel" (which is not limited to Islam, they're just the ones who killed all those Americans for not being Islamic, and incidentally killed a lot of moslems who were committing the heinous sin of working with Americans). Or the ones like Christianity where adherents have a DUTY to attempt to convert others from their "heathen" ways, and include the jews amongst the heathen. And so on. Boy, we're going to have fun when I get to your end of the world! And little hawk et al., I couldn't agree more - let's be HUMANS! Woo hoo! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Jun 01 - 12:12 PM Right, Mole! Let's remove those labels, and throw 'em in the trash along with the Gap and Tommy Hillfigger ones, and start just being human for a change. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: LR Mole Date: 18 Jun 01 - 12:00 PM I think "Teapot Tempest" is a swell name for a band(or maybe a stripper) and I may use it. (For the former purpose.) Perhaps anyone who chooses to define him or herself with one word (religion, occupation, avocation, country) may be a tad narrow. It's a little like doctors referring to one as "the leg" or "the venereal disease". It's certainly easier than being our complex, silly selves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: mousethief Date: 18 Jun 01 - 11:52 AM Mrrzy, surely one can distinguish between groups that advocate harm to others and groups that don't without having to make judgement calls on religion qua religion. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Mrrzy Date: 18 Jun 01 - 11:31 AM Update: I have now heard from my HR person, who said that I was not the only person to have complained, that she is looking into how it got posted at all (since it is actually against company bylaws, thank you thank you) and at any rate, it isn't on the Intranet any more. So that's something! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Jun 01 - 08:29 PM Hmmm...well, my, my...lotta stuff to think about here. I've known "Christians" whom I thought were out of touch or obnoxious or hypocritical...and I've met Christians who were just average, likeable people...and I've met Christians who were marvellous people. They seem to run the gamut, actually. I find this is also true of Muslims, Jews, Pagans, atheists, and any other group you could care to mention. So although the temptation may be there to generalize when discussing Christians or Muslims or any of the others, it will usually tend to lead one astray. God knows, I have been tempted to generalize more than a few times... :-) There have got to be at least 10,000 different varieties of Christian out there, judging by my experience... Anyway, let me throw out a divergent notion here: Given the fact that the dominant religion of this present society is the worship of money...followed closely by the worship of material possessions, fame, youthful good looks, and a few other materialistic things... Then if you want to talk about separating "Church and State", we had better discuss how we can achieve a government that isn't dominated by Big Money...a far more powerful and insidious lobby nowadays than any of the traditional churches (except maybe in Afghanistan and a handful of other small and isolated countries). The churches today are a mere shadow of what they once were. It is rampant materialism that is devouring this society. Arguing about church and state at this juncture in history is, for most of us in the modern world, a tempest in a teapot. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Mrrzy Date: 17 Jun 01 - 04:25 PM I sure will. The individual I emailed is the one I deal with most, not officially my rep (who is in another state as I report out of my location), but she was OOT so I'm waiting for Monday. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: M.Ted Date: 17 Jun 01 - 04:15 PM Mrzzy, Let us know what sort of response you get from your HR person on the bible studies thing--that would scare me for a lot of reasons--mostly because corporations are not democracies, and things only happen when there is a decision at the top that they will happen--if that is the case, it may be time to think about moving on-anyway let us know what is going on and how you are going to deal with it-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Mrrzy Date: 17 Jun 01 - 02:32 PM Mousethief, consider this: if a school doesn't allow the KKK or the Youth Nazi groups to meet, but does allow the Christians, then isn't it saying it supports it? By virtue of not banning it as it would the ones it doesn't support? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Haruo Date: 17 Jun 01 - 02:20 AM I haven't been really following this one, but of course as a Baptist I'm in favor of separation of church & state (we invented the notion); question is, how far. I suggest 3 feet, on the analogy of table dances. Liland who is off to bed as his brain is fried from the Fremont Fair |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: mousethief Date: 17 Jun 01 - 01:06 AM Yeah, for one thing, both our nicknames begin with "M"! Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Mrrzy Date: 16 Jun 01 - 08:56 PM I didn't say it promoted it, I said it APPEARED to. But we don't need to agree on this, we have enough in common! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: mousethief Date: 16 Jun 01 - 07:08 PM Mrrzy, much as I love you, I have to disagree. Simply allowing students to meet in a room after school is not PROMOTING what they do in there, by any definition of "promoting" that I'm familiar with. We may have to agree to disagree on this one. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Mrrzy Date: 16 Jun 01 - 02:33 PM I am adding some things: The reason I don't want people meeting in schools to promote things I am not for is not that I want to deny them the right to those things. It's that there is no way to avoid the appearance of the school promoting it as well, and it is that to which I object so strenuously. Likewise the 10C's for Teens would be fine somewhere else, just not at the City park my kids like to go to. If my firm has Bible studies, it IS saying that it supports this religion for its workers more so than others whether it wants to be saying that or not. And having all the Hindus also hold meetings isn't the answer, I'm sorry, my firm has no business promoting ANY religion when it's a global multinational corporation. I know it's private and the Constitution doesn't bar it, but doesn't anything else? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Mrrzy Date: 16 Jun 01 - 02:23 PM OK, I didn't want to post earlier because I hadn't the time to read the whole thing through, which I have now done. So first, bully for all keeping this from getting nasty. We have to be sure we maintain freedom FROM religion, if that is our choice for our children, was said very early on, but I haven't seen a lot of that aspect. That is for me the main reason I'm so rabid about the Separation of Church and State (SCS). Many o fyou know my background, but I'll summarize again: Mom was liberated the day before her 16th birthday from Auschwitz, while most of her family died for being affiliated with a religion they didn't practice. Dad was a Quaker by background (half Russian, but I don't know what granny was before becoming a Quaker too) who was killed by radical Moslem fundamentalists the month before my college graduation. So I have no, shall we say, inherent respect or regard for religion per se, but I wasn't raised to anyway. I grew up in a nonreligious family in a country about half Moslem and half ancient non-monotheistic animisms, before being colonized by the French (Catholics). I went to French school in West Africa, we had Catholic (French) and Moslem (local) holidays, but nobody I knew went to any churches, that I know of. Moslems everywhere tended just to pray when it was prayer time, but otherwise I didn't see religion, really, anywhere, growing up. My sisters and I sometimes notice, as adults many years later, that we are the only people we know who were raised without religion. OK, so coming from there, my basic take is that even in very small towns where "there really is no other place to meet" has been said, there is a coffeeshop or truck stop or something with tables and chairs, I don't see the need to use the school. What should meet on school grounds is groups like Students Against Violence For Personal Reasons, where teens from any religious background, or none, could meet with adult and peer counselors to combat the problem of violence in the schools. Or Students Against Bigotry, where ditto, basically. Now the teachers and parents and even kids might be approaching the problem from a religious point of view (anger is a deadly sin, thou shalt not kill, or whatever other religions including paganism "preach" about the problem), but the instruction should be firmly rooted in reality. Ethics before Morals in the Schools, say I. Recently I noticed on a city park bulletin board The Ten Commandments for Teenagers. I thought it would be a top-ten list, like Be Respectful to Adults, but no, it was the 10 commandments, saying things like You should worship only God, not a rock star, not your parents. On a CITY bulletin board. I marched in and asked to whom to write to ask if it were OK to post anything there or if it were city-sponsored, and explained politely that I didn't want the City to be telling my kids how to worship, so the guy took it down but he said something that showed that he just thought I was anti-Christian (forgetting, of course, that the Jews share that part of the bible), rather than protecting what I still think are my rights. Was I out of line? Then shortly thereafter my firm, a huge global corporation with parts in many places even across the US, started holding "non-denominational" Bible studies on one of the main campuses. I have emailed HR (no idea whom else to go to) to put my strenuous objections on the record, even though I know that as a private enterprise it can be as Christian (which is what they meant - so nondenominationnal it even includes the Catholics, I guess) as it wants, but I don't want to work for a Christian firm, or even one that wasn't but is now becoming so. Is there anything I can do there? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: CarolC Date: 16 Jun 01 - 02:03 PM eewww... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: mousethief Date: 16 Jun 01 - 01:51 PM Carol, don't go to one of those $19.99 brain tune-up places. They left the cap off my brain pan, and I leaked brains all the way home. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: CarolC Date: 16 Jun 01 - 01:42 PM Oops!
I need to make a correction. The Jewish joke thread was started, inocently, by a member who's father was Jewish. He thought because he was making jokes about a culture that he can partially claim as his own, people wouldn't find it offensive. This sparked a flame war, and someone else started a thread of jokes about African Americans (I think), and it was that thread that was supposed to make the point of jokes about groups of people being in bad taste. I think it's time for me to get a brain tune-up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: CarolC Date: 16 Jun 01 - 01:35 PM Hi Stevangelist. I appreciate your apology.
I don't know who has called all Christians narrow minded. Joe Offer is a Christian, and pretty much everyone around here respects him very highly. I seriously doubt anyone thinks he's narrow minded.
About deleting threads. There was one recently that used 'Jewish' instead of 'Orthodox Christian'. That one was not deleted either. The Orthodox Christian thread is a troll. It exists for one purpose... to get a flame war started. The other one was started in a somewhat misguided attempt to make the point that all jokes about groups of people are in bad taste and are inapropriate. Unfortunately, all it accomplished was to escalate an existing flame war.
Max has a hands off policy with regard to deleting threads. It only done under the most extreme circumstances. If you have any questions about this policy, or why he does things in this way, you can ask him yourself in a PM. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Stevangelist Date: 16 Jun 01 - 01:11 PM CarolC, I apologize for using the word "everyone"... I was referring to the self-appointed people who seem to be threatened by the way Christians express themselves. I have personally never pushed my ideas on anyone. As I said in an earlier post, REAL Christians are not out to win adherents at any cost; REAL Christians seek to adhere own their own above all. I choose to express myself in ways that are conformed to my beliefs... if someone asks for prayers and good thoughts, I pray in the name of Jesus Christ. If someone asks MY OPINION about something that I feel strongly for or against, I respond in kind WITH MY OPINION WHICH IS CLEARLY STATED AS SUCH. Again, I apologize for "eveyone"... but I do NOT apologize for pointing out the fact that calling all Christians narrow-minded while threads like "Orthodox Christian jokes" are allowed to even remain posted is a shame. I would heartily and readily call for the deletion of any thread doing the same to a Bhuddist or a pagan or a Muslim. May The Road Rise To Meet You, Stevangelist
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Roughyed Date: 16 Jun 01 - 03:15 AM It seems to me that you can use any belief system (including atheism) in a way that excludes, oppresses and bullies people. At the same time you can use precisely the same belief system to include, help and cherish people. After a fairly rough Roman Catholic schooling I had a fair prejudice against Christianity generally but one day I broke down outside a complete strangers house and the help, friendliness and consideration they showed me and my family was extraordinary. From the stickers on their car and the books in their house they were evangelical Christians and I must admit I was ashamed of some of my easy assumptions. I now try to see the person underneath the religion and react to that rather than lumping people into categories. On that basis the question of proseletysing seems to me a question of behaviour. There is no problem with anyone trying to persuade anyone of anything as long as there is mutual respect. If there is no respect then the behaviour is not acceptable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: CarolC Date: 16 Jun 01 - 03:13 AM I could be wrong about this, but I don't recall anyone in this discussion saying he or she distrusts all Christians. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: wysiwyg Date: 16 Jun 01 - 02:37 AM Yes, but distrusting all Christians one does not know because the Christians one has known have done wrong is a lot like deciding black people are all "xxxxxx" because the ones that have been encountered have done bad things. "I was mugged by a black man in 1963, and yada yada yada...." As though the operation of racism has nothing to do with the conditions affecting the behavior of both groups involved. It's for sure the other one is the one at fault... it tends not to be we ourselves we see as falling short, eh? I find it ironic that we have the thread running about being friends with people who hold extreme prejudices, right now. Let's see. Does that mean I need to take a fresh look at the extremely-prejudiced-against-Christian friends I have... or are they looking at the extreme Christian frieed they have? Which one is wondering if the other is a suitable candidate to be called "friend"? Oy, my head hurts. Those mirror with two faces are hard to look into without getting eyestrain! ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: mousethief Date: 16 Jun 01 - 01:52 AM Amen, Carol! Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: CarolC Date: 15 Jun 01 - 08:53 PM All teachers who ridicule or otherwise humiliate students should be fired immediately. Teachers who ridicule students' religions or spiritual beliefs should be fired twice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Donuel Date: 15 Jun 01 - 05:58 PM It was funny the the House of Representatives had a big controversy last year about the religion of the new "religious guy" appointed to say a prayer before each congressional session. (the new guy wasn't protestant - oh my!) These guys did not learn what your church was teaching now did they. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: mousethief Date: 15 Jun 01 - 05:46 PM Well the obvious answer: "What do they teach you in that church of yours?!" "They teach me not to ridicule other people's religions. Don't they teach that at yours?" But of course what kid can think of such things on the spot? But speaking of thinking of things on the spot, this is a true story. A child was being ridiculed for being a Christian in a public school in Memphis, Tennessee (it happens even in the Bible Belt!). After a bit of abuse, the teacher said, "You just believe because your parents believe!" The kid, showing what I thought was perfect presence-of-mind, replied, "I'm only 11 years old! I think that's perfectly appropriate!" Smart kid. Teacher should be fired, though. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: Jim Dixon Date: 15 Jun 01 - 05:43 PM MOUSETHIEF, IT SURE SOUNDED LIKE THAT WAS YOUR POINT. OK, the teacher was being abusive. Abusive teachers were not unusual in my youth. But I can't recall this particular teacher being abusive in other ways. Maybe the reason I can't recall it is that abuse WAS so commonplace. This incident stood out in my memory because it was highly unusual for a teacher to use religion as a means of humiliating a student. I remember even then thinking that she (the teacher was female, by the way) was hitting below the belt in a way that was worse than run-of-the-mill abuse. If a teacher calls you a thief, you can deny it. If she calls you an idiot because you haven't learned all your verbs, you can maybe take comfort in the fact that other students haven't learned them either, and anyway, you can resolve to prove her wrong by learning your verbs in the future. But if she insults your religion, what can you do? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Separation of Church & State II From: mousethief Date: 15 Jun 01 - 05:14 PM In general, it's a weak argument, although I hear it often. "There's no point in trying to keep people from doing X, because if they can't do X, they'll do Y, which is just as bad." THAT IS NOT MY POINT. My point is that the real issue here is an abusive teacher. The fact that he used religion to belittle the student is neither here nor there; the real issue in the story you told is that you have an abusive teacher, not that you have a teacher who doesn't separate church from state. Or to put it another way, this isn't really a church-vs-state story, this is an abusive-teacher story. Get it now? Alex |
|
Subject: Separation of Church & State II From: mousethief Date: 15 Jun 01 - 04:52 PM Continuation of this thread. Alex |