[topic regretted] (was Jews against anti-Christian ...)

[Ethel]

Whistler - thank you for coming back to keep the dialog going. I am so, so sorry to find myself in the role of antagonist with someone I respect so much.

Let me try to address the question in a different way. You have said that you feel Christians in the US suffer persecution. How could this be ameliorated? What would you like to see happen? What changes - societal, governmental, whatever - do you advocate?

[Whistler]

You see?

Jn is better at this than I am, so she gets a bigger salary.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[Ethel]

Well... seems I do not belong and am not welcome here. But I do wish you all the best.

[Túrin Turambar]

Not you as well...

[Whistler]

Nobody is going anywhere! What nonsense!

No, Ethel. You are not an antagonist at all. You are just somebody asking honest questions. There is never anything wrong with that.

I’m afraid I cannot answer your (very reasonable) questions because my answers would be meaningless to a non-Christian. They would pre-suppose certain concepts that you do not accept, and we would only find ourselves on the verge of another unproductive argument.

If I were you, I would hate getting an answer like that! If I could do better, I would. Forgive me, it’s late and I am drained by this discussion.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[Faramond]

I'm going to start in this thread with a few scattered thoughts.



In Iran, are people free to practice Islam?

How can they be, if they are not free to practice Christianity? If they are not free to leave Islam at all?

Christianity in the United States is threatened when people feel pressure not to be Christian, and when people feel pressure to be Christian.



I think about the Shibboleth, mentioned in another forum.

The Shibboleth is exclusion. The only true humans are those aligned with oneself, those who pass the tests.

The test may consist of wearing a cross, or it may consist of NOT wearing a cross. Both of these are Shibboleths in the United States in certain places.



What motive beside hatred is there for a crime as pointless and destructive as breaking car antennas?

None, in my opinion. It may be hatred of a single person, or hatred of society and one's own life within it ( as in a random spree of car mutiliations ) or hatred of Jews or some other religious idea.



Is it important that Matthew and Tyler Williams were practitioners of a perverted kind of Christianity?

This question I'm not going to answer yet.

[JewelSong]

I think this is a very good thread and I think it is important that we find a way to keep it going - that everyone find a way to keep it going.

Religion and religious beliefs can be a huge hot-button issue for many and discussion can be difficult and often contentious. Yet I urge - I beg! - everyone to remain. Post less frequently if that feels better...let the thread move slowly and carefully and, dare I say, lovingly. Understand that many carry baggage and assumptions that have nothing to do with this particular thread.

And also understand that - as far as I can see - no one here has been deliberately disrespectful of another's beliefs. We are all learning. As Jnyusa said: a great divergence of opinion before we have gotten to know one another's sensibilities. (Lordy, jny, you have such a way with words! )

I think I may have some things to add...but later, after I've had a couple of cups of coffee.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In many ways, that IS my religion.

Love. Unconditional love. So simple, yet so difficult (for me, as much as anyone).

[Frelga]

Voronwë -
"It's simple. It's not easy, but it is simple."

Faramond, that was a brilliant post.

I think when it comes to religion the best we can hope to achieve are two things:

To hold to a respectful disagreement
To approach those of different faith with the desire to learn and understand, not to attack.

I truly thought this thread held to these guidelines, even though at times it was visibly difficult for some of us. Perhaps it's just as well that the thread took a break, but I do hope people would come back.

Silence can only divide us.

[vison]

Like Ethel, I feel very certain this thread isn't for me.

I think this is a topic worth discussing, and I hope the thread goes on and on.

Yet the "sensation" of being unwelcome is too strong for me to overlook. I 'm not blaming anyone, or feeling wounded, or anything unpleasant of that nature. Truly!

Being a Canadian, I am quite accustomed to living in Two Solitudes. I can more easily admire and respect people I'm not afraid of offending or hurting.

:gropehug: to all.

[nerdanel]

I, for one, do not feel unwelcome, which I am quite certain is more a sign of my "healthy" ego than anything else.

No, seriously: the thing is that no one's view on this subject is fully welcomed by everyone else in this discussion. However, this doesn't mean that each participant's continued presence is not warmly welcomed by the others.

We shouldn't have to share the same views on these subjects for us to share an abiding, mutual respect of each other. And so long as we have the latter, I think we're in decent shape.

Jn, it is only through the process of discussing issues on which there is a great divergence of opinion that we can feel out each other's differing sensibilities. To some extent, we've long ago begun this process. I'm one of the newest to this group of people, and my posting history with you all now goes back two full years as of this month. I'm confident in our ability to continue the process successfully on this new board with new rules.

[Sister Magpie]

actually I am the one who used the word 'persecution' first off, perhaps inappropriately, so I guess I should say what was going through my mind, which was, primarily, denying to a particular group the right to have a public voice.

That's an interesting point, though, because are Christians denied a public voice? I seem to hear from them all the time. I'm not seeing where this voice is being silenced.

-m

[Ethel]

Well, here's two examples: the lawsuits to remove the word "God" from money and from the plege of allegiance.

I consider the word "God" to be a generic term, not specific to any one religion and therefore not a violation of the first amendment.

Atheists claim that any mention of the word God discriminates against them.

Only really tiresome ones who need to get a life. I have never actually heard anyone say this, have you? I know it's the kind of thing the ACLU gets up to, but they just like to test boundaries.

As for the pledge - well, I'm sure you know that "under God" was only added to it in 1954. I'm not bothered about it either way, but I think it's fair to say the phrase was added for a reason.

I personally do not think that a strict interpretation of the Constitution gives atheism standing as an alternative religion because it is not participation in an alternative but rather non-participation in all alternatives.

There are many belief systems that do not involve a God, or one almighty God. Also, I suspect that many atheists experience their own kind of spirituality.

Now, I'm not arguing whether atheists are right or wrong. I don't feel threatened by them personally, nor do I care what they believe. I think they should be protected from anything that would force them to profess a religious belief against their will, but I don't think they should be considered a religion in and of themselves. Nor should they be allowed to prevent others from espousing religious beliefs.

Can you provide an example of an atheist preventing anyone from espousing a religious belief? I'm asking because I can't think of one.

Our country is ~55% Christian by the way. So I think a strong argument can be made for public recognition of non-Christian holidays if Christian holidays are receiving public recognition. But to destroy all public recognition of all religious holidays because some 1% of the population can't stand the sight of religious practice, this is indeed oppression of the majority by a minority, in my opinion, and a very dangerous path to tread.

Actually, as of 2001, 52% of Americans identified themselves as Protestant and 24.5% identified themselves as Catholic. (link)
76.5% is a whopping majority, and if they are indeed being oppressed they surely have the votes to change it. However, I don't agree that all public recognition of religious holidays has been destroyed. Christmas is still a holiday. It's on the Federal Reserve's bank calendar every year. As I've said, I'd just as soon the ACLU and the courts didn't prohibit things like publicly sponsored Nativity displays. But... do you think there's a line past which religious display becomes "establishment of religion" or do you think there should be no limit at all? For instance, do you think it should it be okay to mount a Crucifix over the entrance to City Hall? To print Christian prayers on ballots? If not, why not? How is it different?

[Sister Magpie]

Only really tiresome ones who need to get a life. I have never actually heard anyone say this, have you? I know it's the kind of thing the ACLU gets up to, but they just like to test boundaries.

As for the pledge - well, I'm sure you know that "under God" was only added to it in 1954. I'm not bothered about it either way, but I think it's fair to say the phrase was added for a reason.

I doubt, too, that there would't be plenty of Christians speaking up loud and clear if "In the God and Goddess We Trust" was printed on the money, or if their children were expected to recite something about the Great Spirit in school (and why shouldn't they?). They speak up when the idea of it being removed comes up, and saying this in itself means someone else is being favored, when I can't see how it does.

The Pledge, as I understand it, was changed for a very specific reason--to be against Atheists. Without that term, I believe it was the Knights of Columbus' point, a kid in Russia could say the same pledge. So the two words were added to separate "us" from the Atheist Communists.

My own feeling on the Pledge, frankly, is that while I may not have ever gone to the length of complaining about it, I can see no reason whatsoever for keeping "under God" in there. And when it comes to people being tiresome and needing a life, I'd first apply that to the folks who felt the need to get the words put in there to show their distaste of others, before the person who's asking it be taken out so they don't have to say something they don't think has anything to do with the point of the Pledge. I mean, the Pledge without the two words makes no statement whatsoever about religion. Putting it in was absolutely always meant to state that the children saying it believed in the God of the Bible--which many don't, so why would they be asked to say it in school?

Though I guess maybe one could also question the guy who came up with the Pledge in the first place--do we really need to do that in class?

However, I don't agree that all public recognition of religious holidays has been destroyed. Christmas is still a holiday. It's on the Federal Reserve's bank calendar every year. As I've said, I'd just as soon the ACLU and the courts didn't prohibit Nativity displays. But... do you think there's a line past which religious display becomes "establishment of religion" or do you think there should be no limit at all? For instance, do you think it should it be okay to mount a Crucifix over the entrance to City Hall? To print Christian prayers on ballots? If not, why not? How is it different?

I think I think along the same lines as you do here. Plenty of places display mennorahs in their windows at Christmas and I see no problem with public nativity scenes as well. But still, not having a nativity scene in the public park--as much as I would agree to one--would not, to me, indicate anyone not being allowed to recognize the holiday publically. I've never seen any public recognition of a Hindu holiday, yet people are free to practice Hindu in America. Of course there are more Christians, which means more people wanting the displays, just as in areas with many Hindus I'm going to see more public signs of Hindu. I do think that compromise is going to have to involve both sides agreeing to each other. That means it's not always going to come down to the non-Christian not having to see anything Christian in public. But it also doesn't mean that it always comes down to the non-Christian having to do something either.

-m

[Sassafras]

Ethel wrote:

Also, I suspect that many atheists experience their own kind of spirituality.

Thank you, Ethel.

It is often assumed that agnostics or atheists do not know spirituality.
It's a false assumption as I, and many others, can attest.

I shan't participate in this discussion although I shall be reading with great interest.

[Cerin]

In fact, I am fearful that - indeed, fairly certain that - this admission will result in you and others thinking less of me.

Speaking for myself, this isn't the case.

Can you provide an example of an atheist preventing anyone from espousing a religious belief? I'm asking because I can't think of one.

Speaking of the kinds of cases brought by the ACLU on behalf of atheists, I would say it isn't preventing people from espousing a religious belief, but of publicly celebrating their religious beliefs. If I've understood Jnyusa, I agree that it would be preferrable for all of our citizens to have an equal opportunity to publicly celebrate who they are, rather than that everyone have to keep mum publicly about their spirituality for the sake of those it offends.

As I've said, I'd just as soon the ACLU and the courts didn't prohibit Nativity displays. But... do you think there's a line past which religious display becomes "establishment of religion" or do you think there should be no limit at all? For instance, do you think it should it be okay to mount a Crucifix over the entrance to City Hall? To print Christian prayers on ballots? If not, why not? How is it different?

There does seem to be some kind of line, represented in the examples you gave. If there is a seasonal nativity display on the lawn of the City Hall seemingly indicating the religious beliefs of a large segment of the community, it seems to me neither the people passing by nor those going in are forced to participate or acknowledge it in any way.

If there is a cross permanently placed over the entrance on the very building itself, then it seems to me that everyone entering for government sanctioned business is forced to acknowledge and acquiesce to the influence, on their government, of the religion the cross represents. If I were in an Islamic country and there was some kind of display identifying the courthouse as being guided by Islamic principles, then when I enter there, I am acknowledging and acquiescing to those principles and truths in the context of whatever proceeding I am attending.

So that would be wrong, IMO (just as the statue depicting the Ten Commandments inside the courthouse was a violation of the establishment of a single religion). The same with printing Christian prayers on ballots. You would be forcing participation in a particular religion.

[Cerin]

I doubt, too, that there would't be plenty of Christians speaking up loud and clear if "In the God and Goddess We Trust" was printed on the money, or if their children were expected to recite something about the Great Spirit in school.

I don't know just when our money was designed, but I think the difference (referring to the scenarios you suggested above) is that when the money was designed that sentiment expressed the majority belief (as is still the case today). Neither a federally mandated 'In the God and Goddess' on currency nor a pledge to the Great Spirit in schools would reflect a majority belief. So what I'm saying is, it wouldn't even have that rational basis for being mandated.

They speak up when the idea of it being removed comes up, and saying this in itself means someone else is being favored, when I can't see how it does.

It would mean a tiny majority is being accommodated, rather than the majority view continuing to be reflected (speaking of the currency issue).

It seems to be the same question referred to previously, of allowing the vast majority to publicly acknowledge religious belief, rather than disallowing it for the sake of the small minority such acknowledgment offends.

Edit

Will someone please warn me if my tone seems inappropriate for this discussion. When reading through the thread I saw nothing that struck me as offensive, yet obviously there were difficult moments for people; so it's quite possible that I am not sufficiently sensitive in this regard. I would much rather not contribute than cause difficulty here!

[JewelSong]

I talked about this with my pastor recently (young, Harvard School of Div grad - awesome guy!) and he agrees with the ruling about Nativity scenes and so on in public places.

He said, "We, as Christians, have certain things and certain beliefs that separate us from the other religions and from the non-religious. If we basically force everyone to accept the symbols of our religion by insisting on public displays, what does that say about us as Christians? Not everyone is Christian. Our symbols and rituals set us apart, just as other beliefs have their symbols and rituals."

I tend to agree with him. I think the separation of church and state is something that should not be tampered with. The Founders (who by and large were NOT Christian, BTW!) knew what they were doing.

Keep the Nativity displays on church grounds. Then they can be as big and gaudy as anyone would like. If people like to string festive lights on a big old evergreen in the Town Square, let 'em. Call it a December Tree, if you want. (Although the term "Christmas" has been kind of secularized.) Let the temples erect giant Menorahs on their front lawns...and let any other religious group put whatever symbols of their faith they choose up for all to see...on their own property. Keep it separate.

Not everyone is Christian.