BS: Separation of church & state lessened

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:18 PM

I think we're closer, GuestGuest, than you might believe. I'm also very uncomfortable with religion in the public sphere -- because there is no such thing as generic religion; anything religious excludes or denies somebody else's religious beliefs, and that's pushing towards establishment. BUT not letting a bunch of little kids use a classroom for whatever religious club they may have, when every other club in the school is allowed to, is just as much religious discrimination as anything else that's been mentioned here.

I'm also uncomfortable with having prayer opening the Senate and stuff like that.

I'm not at all sure what you mean by "based on objective reality" -- do you mean something that has been scientifically verified? If two people see a flash in the sky but nobody else does, is that "objective reality"? What if the others weren't looking in the same direction? This could be an interesting topic to take up, maybe in a different thread. I don't think "objective reality" is nearly so objectively definable as you apparently do.

Alex the philosopher

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Stevangelist
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:19 PM

What I mean is that there is such a dearth of knowledge in the general public's mind about authentic Christianity that it would be wise to save one's breath in order to not try to typify or pigeon-hole the members of that faith. I would never say that ALL Buddhists wear orange robes and are bald-headed Orientals... so why is every 'fundamentalist' Christian a narrow-minded bigot bent on zombie-izing the world with faith and fairy tales?

Stevangelist

P.S. There are so-called 'fundamentalist Christians' who are as full of shit as anyone else... they don't know thw truth, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:23 PM

Is "thw truth" Welsh? :-P

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: SeanM
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:36 PM

Kat & Susan;

You're both making a point that while I heartily agree with it, it's not the issue at hand (the Supreme Court decision).

The meetings themselves - which is what the decision covered - don't really seem to be the point of disagreement.

What the disagreement seems to be is the use or appearance that the school (and there from extension the local government) approves and uses public funds to support the organization. I think I said it earlier - THAT part (if it is indeed the case) is very likely against the 'separation clause'.

In related news, this article covers the Senate's passing of an amendment that would

"withhold federal funds from school districts that deny use of their facilities to the Boy Scouts because of the organization's exclusion of homosexuals."

This DOES raise a few interesting points. The BSA, normally worthy organization that it is, DOES bar the admission of homosexuals, which puts it athwart anti-discrimination laws regarding usage of public facilities in several states.

I see two issues: First, the BSA would apply under the recent Supreme Court decision excepting the anti-discrimination statutes.

Second, by willfully discriminating (and having been ruled that their discrimination IS legal), do they still have a right to the public facilities, given state law? I'm not sure if this is a conflict between state and other regulatory bodies, beyond the fact that schools in affected areas would now be facing a wonderful catch-22 - violate local laws by giving a group classified as 'discriminatory' public facilities to operate in, or lose federal funding by following said laws.

Interesting, indeed. Without the rhetoric, it becomes a sticky legal point. Anyone care to place bets on THIS one making it to the Supremes?

M

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 06:50 PM

Alex,

You are correct; we are, in part, on the same page. And I'm only GUESTGUEST because at this point I haven't set up a login. I shall set to and do that and then log in as myself....have to find an appropriate nom de debate.

"I'm also very uncomfortable with religion in the public sphere -- because there is no such thing as generic religion; anything religious excludes or denies somebody else's religious beliefs, and that's pushing towards establishment"

Exactly. Where we differ is in the expression. I do believe that having a club meet in a school, especially when their expressed motivation is to gather adherents, is wrong. The goal is not really instruction but increase. Chess club, math club, sports, etc, are based around relatively agreed-upon criteria -- the rules of chess and improvement thereby, math and its assorted and messy permutations, and so forth. A religious club for children exists less for the children than because some adult wishes an excuse to proselytize.

"I'm also uncomfortable with having prayer opening the Senate and stuff like that. "

Ditto. The most recent rampage (the spat over who the chaplain would be) was particularly repugnant, and, I think, instructive. The then-governing party, itself allied with certain extremist religious groups, basically attempted to supplant a perfectly good chaplain of the "wrong" religion (RC) with one of their own fold (SB). Now, chaplain, per se, s/b nondenominational and the one who had been in office for a bit had been (by all accounts) doing a perfectly good job. Why was he suddenly assailed? I'd suggest that it's due to a latent intolerance, and one unbefitting people at that level of government.

"I'm not at all sure what you mean by "based on objective reality"

I suppose a better term might be common sense. If a tree's leaves are green, they're green irrespective of who is looking at it (all other things being equal, assuming daytime and sunlight and people with vision and no colorblindness, etc). If a tree has no leaves, then it has no leaves, and saying it has leaves won't make it so.

I find no direct link between physical manifestations and any numinous object (a god or other such being/force/what-have-you). Consequently, when I find someone speaking for their god, I am compelled to ask how they know their god's position on the issue at hand. If they cite historical texts, I can ask that they clarify the ethics expressed in said texts, but I fail to see the text as evidence of a numinous hand.

Given the inability of the religious I've dealt with to establish a clear causal relationship that leaves no doubt as to:

- any demonstrable existence of their numinous entity; - the positions allegedly taken and statements allegedly made by that numinous entity; - the correctness of their interpretations of the alleged statments and positions

... then I am loath to accept that their reasoning be established as public policy. If I suddenly told everyone that I had a vision in which everyone did something -- I don't know, wore white on alternate Thursdays -- and attempted to say it was of divine inspiration and cited a millinia-old text supporting my position, you'd tell me I was crazy. But that's what many religions ask us to do. I see it as a means by which to exert (often abusive) social control much more than as any sort of tool for peace and justice.

Personally, I believe that if I treat other people well, that I've done all I can do, and have (hopefully) left the world a more civil place. Demanding that other people adopt my view of proper living is pointless and time-consuming. I find it offensive and demeaning when someone who is religious who knows my antipathy towards religion assumes that my lack of religion is congruent to a lack of basic ethics....and it happens all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 07:14 PM

At last! A music tie-in:

A U.S. public high school, French class, circa 1964. The teacher was born in France and presumably Catholic. It was December, and we were translating French Christmas carols into English. One student stumbled over the phrase, "pour effacer la tache originelle" ("to erase original sin").

The carol was "Minuit Chrétiens", which is commonly known in English as "O Holy Night." As is common with verse translations, the familiar English version is quite different from the original. In fact, "O Holy Night" doesn't mention original sin at all.

With some prompting, the student finally arrived at the "correct" translation, but she was still confused and doubtful. She had never heard the term "original sin" before, and asked what it meant. The teacher's response was "What's the matter with you? Don't they teach you anything in that church of yours?"

Naturally the student felt humiliated, and so did anyone else who was unclear on the concept of original sin. (Original sin is the guilt that you inherit from Adam and Eve, and has nothing to do with your own behavior. How many knew that?)

I don't know whether this teacher was scornful of Protestantism in general, or whether she was merely ignorant of the fact that most Protestant churches either deny the existence of original sin, or de-emphasize it to the point that they don't bother to teach their kids about it. Perhaps she was merely scornful of what she assumed to be this particular student's failure to study her catechism carefully. But scornful she was, and she showed it.

The doctrine of separation of church and state may not prevent incidents like this, but it goes a long way toward minimizing them. And as such, I'm in favor of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 07:22 PM

Jim Dixon, I don't see how separation of church and state helps prevent such incidents at all. There are always asshole teachers willing to humiliate kids; if they don't humiliate them about religion, they'll humiliate them about something else.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 07:26 PM

Sean, I don't think even this Court will accept a case like that and I doubt it ever gets there. "Discriminatory Groups" have a long history of access to public facilities and on that basis alone I don't think it will ever be heard. Once again, no matter how repugnant or even mild a group or individual is, they have the same "rights."

I think the more interesting response will come from the schools. Will funding be withheld if they restrict ALL outside usage? By doing so, the school is showing no discrimination and the state would be hard pressed to show cause.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 07:56 PM

Stevangelist, I heartily support your right to believe whatever suits you as long as you don't attempt to infringe upon my right to believe what suits me.

Where I begin to have problems with your words is when you make broad sweeping generalizatons like this one...

"I simply respond to anything anyone says to me in a way that is in accordance with my beliefs. Yet when the word Christian is mentioned, everyone feels perfectly OK about generalizing and making fun."

I submit that your use of the word 'everyone' is hardly fair, and is far from correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: MMario
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 08:53 PM

Jim - I think your example just poiints out that a) the teacher was either ignorant or deliberatly baiting the child

and b) that a good broad based culteral course in various faithsa and denominations would DECREASE such incidents as people would be aware of differences.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Peg
Date: 14 Jun 01 - 09:14 PM

Alex wrote:

"Okay, all you pagans: moment of honesty. If this were a Wiccan group instead of a Christian group which was allowed to use the school after suing, what would your response be? Be honest. Brutally honest. You'd be dancing in the streets, right?"

NO I would not. Because this is a violation of the separation of church and state.

Why even bother to ask questions if you are just going to provide your own answers?

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 12:16 AM

Sorry Peg. I'll try not to do that next time.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 10:29 AM

From what I've seen, nobody has responded to this question yet:

He said all children, there [in Germany], from kindergarten through 4th grade, have to attend religious instruction classes during their school day. According to him, they have a choice of Roman Catholic or Lutheran. His son was prepared, in school, for his first communion by the local priest. When asked what a person was supposed to do if they were Jewish, he had no answer, except that a better question might be what to do if one is Muslim, as they have so many immigrants.

I would like to hear from some of you who live in Germany, if this is true, please.

That's a mixture of true and false and a central assertion (have to) is false.

There is religious instruction in the curriculum of all German schools (after kindergarten) but it is the only part of the curriculum that is not compulsory (for a qualification see below). Until a kid is 14 years old it is her parents choice whether she has to attend or not, from 14 on it is her choice.

Due to the relative proportion of catholics/protestants the usual classes offerend will come from these two faiths. With a strong enough minority from another religion there can be classes for other religions as well.

In some lands (parts) of Germany, pupils that do not go to religious instruction have to attend a class on 'general ethics' (or some other fancy name) in which thry are e.g. taught about ethical questions from different point of views, among them religious.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: MMario
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 10:36 AM

I still don't see, based on the constitution, how the use of the school by a religious group of any affiliation defys seperation of church and state.

basically the constitution says no rights shall be denied based on religion (or lack therof)

if any other non-school group has the right to use the school - then so does a religious one.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 10:43 AM

kat, Wolfgang - there is a similar set up in N.Ireland:

"Religious Education
All schools, except nursery and special schools, must provide religious education for all pupils as part of the curriculum, and must also give then the opportunity to take part in daily collective worship.

As a parent you have, however, the right to ask that your child should be excused from attending classes in religious education, or from collective worship, or both.

In special schools, religious education and collective worship will be provided insofar as this is practicable.

From September 1993 a core syllabus for religious education must be used in all grant- aided schools."

(from The Parents' Charter for Northern Ireland)

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 10:56 AM

Thanks, Wolfgang and Fibula. I appreciate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: SeanM
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 03:45 PM

Mmario -

There's a case of that right now in California. I can't find a link to it, so I'll copy the blurb from the local paper: "

School District Bans Student Clubs

An Orange County high school district banned noncurriculum clubs from its campuses rather than allow the establishment of a Christian club.

The action resulted from a lawsuit settlement by Saddleback Valley Unified School District, which agreed to exclude student clubs rather than allow a chapter of Fellowship of Christian Athletes on one of its campuses.

The clubs will have to meet before or after school, and can no longer use campus bulletin boards or other school outlets to solicit members or publicize meetings, Bill Manahan, the school district superintendent, said Thursday.
FROM NEWS SERVICES"

What I find interesting is that this is two pages after the article wherein the 'Boy Scout' funding restriction that I mentioned above has been broadened (By Barbara Boxer - a Democrat, no less) to now state that a school refusing to allow a group that discriminates on the basis of the organization's "position concerning sexual orientation" to use their facilities risks losing federal funds.

M

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: M.Ted
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 03:52 PM

I am enjoying GUEST/GUEST's rantings in particular, since (and I am sorry to say this,Guest) he crusades for "objective reality" with a pouch full of totally subjective blathering--this statement is a good example:

"I find no direct link between physical manifestations and any numinous object (a god or other such being/force/what-have-you)"

One imagines that someone who refutes (or seems to refute, depending on what a "Numinous object" is) Aristotle, St. Thomas, DesCartes, among others, would give us a little more to go on than the extremely subjective assertion that that *he* has seen nothing--

The business about 'If a tree has no leaves, then it has no leaves, and saying it has leaves won't make it so." demonstrates that he is neither a student of logic nor a student of natural science--a tree could have no leaves because it's leaves were on the ground, in which case it simultanously has leaves and has no leaves- (and even a kindergartener can verify that this is often the case)--

My point really is that GUEST/GUEST really doesn't seem to have made any sort of objective or oritical inquiry into any of the ideas or philosophies that he is lambasting--

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 04:42 PM

Mousethief, I've been pondering your assertion that separation of church and state wouldn't prevent the incident I described above.

If you think of separation of church and state as being purely a legal principle, where the only means of enforcing it is to sue someone, then I suppose you're right. But I think of it as more than that. For me it's also an ethical principle, a moral ideal, and I wish more people accepted it as such, too.

Here's an analogy: Assault and battery is a crime, punishable by a jail term. But that's not why we teach our children not to fight. Most adults feel that unnecessary violence is morally wrong. (Interestingly, I don't see anything in the Ten Commandments that prohibits punching your neighbor in the nose, so I wonder why so many people consider them the paragon of moral guidance.)

When kids fight, most adults will intervene to stop them. We usually don't find it necessary to call the police or sue the other kid's parents. That's because there is a consensus among adults that fighting is a bad thing. If we did not have this consensus - if, say, one kid's parents encouraged him to assault other kids - then perhaps we would be forced to have the police or the courts intervene.

Now I believe that needlessly flouting your religious beliefs, practices, or lack of them, in front of people whose beliefs are different, is morally wrong. I wouldn't invite a Muslim to my house for dinner and then serve him pork. I wouldn't hide the fact that I sometimes eat pork, but I probably wouldn't cook it or eat it in front of him, either. I would do this because (1) I want to be polite and respectful and make him feel comfortable, and (2) I don't feel that going without pork for a short time is much of a hardship for me.

Separation of church and state is simply politeness extended to the public sphere. Or at least it COULD be thought of that way, if we could count on people to be polite. But I'm afraid we can't. Unlike fighting, we don't have a consensus in America about whether religious practice in public is good or bad, offensive or honorable, uplifting or degrading. It's because of this lack of consensus that we end up fighting it out in court.

I wish religious people all felt that they could refrain from vocally praying in public schools as easily as I refrain from eating pork while my Muslim friend is visiting. That just seems like the polite thing to do. And that's what the majority of religious people actually do. It's only a minority (but possibly a majority in some areas) who claim that NOT vocally praying is a hardship and an injustice. I can't help but feel they are a bit disingenuous (to put it mildly) when they claim to be an OPPRESSED minority.

To get back to my original point - if there were a consensus that separation of church and state is more than a legal principle, but also a moral ideal, then I would have some basis for approaching that teacher who insulted her student's religion. I could say, "Look, this is a public school. You are paid by tax money. You have no business commenting on other people's religion." And I might have some chance persuading her to stop. But without that consensus, the teacher could equally claim, "Hey, you're trying to restrict MY freedom of speech!" And if I had to appeal to the administration, I wonder whose side they would come down on?

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 04:46 PM

Jim, you missed my point. The teacher used religion to club the student. If you take away that club, the teacher would find a different club.

As for "separation" as a function of politeness, I agree with all you say.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: MMario
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 04:51 PM

that wasn't a case of freedom of speech - that was a case of a teacher verbally abusing a student in his/her care - and showed (primarily) a lack of judgement on the teacher's part - plus a pretty good dose of disregard for his/her students.

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 04:51 PM

My point exactly, MMario.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 04:54 PM

This thread is getting very long; as many of you know, we have been asked to try to keep threads down to the 100 post range. Thus I've started a CONTINUATION THREAD. Please continue discussion there.

Thanks,
Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 05:12 PM

Mousethief, if that's your point, I don't agree with that either.

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."

"There's no point in trying to keep people from robbing convenience stores, because if they can't rob convenience stores, they'll rob houses, which is just as bad."

To make it a strong argument, first, you have to prove it's true. THEN you have to answer the argument, "OK, then, let's stop people from doing X AND Y."

Subject: RE: BS: Separation of church & state lessened
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jun 01 - 05:12 PM

Jim, I'll respond to this in the new thread.