Sister Magpie wrote:But is the majority really supposed to rule all the time? I mean, it seems like the point of rights is that they're not agreed upon by the majority. So, for instance, if the majority of people in my town want the Ten Commandments up in the courthouse it would still matter that I didn't, because it would reflect, as you said, that the courthouse was being guided by those laws. Often the government is supposed to represent the rights of the individual citizen over what the majority might want.
Well, ideally I think the majority rules while at the same the rights of the minority are protected. So in the example above, the Ten Commandments in the courthouse does violate the right of the minority not to be subject to the tenets of a single religion in the context of government business they can't avoid. But I don't see how the rights of the minority are violated by a seasonal celebration of the religious beliefs held to by a large segment of the community, as in a nativity scene displayed on publicly designated land. I don't see what else a complaint about something like that would be based on other than personal offense.
Note: Having now read tp's response, I gather it is an issue of tax-payer money being used to fund the display.
tolkienpurist wrote:Just as in the other examples you address, everyone entering for government sanctioned business is forced to acknowledge to the influence, on their government, of the religion the seasonal nativity scene demonstrates.
Ethel had asked if there was a line of sorts, and to me it does seem substantively different, having a seasonal display on the lawn as opposed to having a permanent cross on the building itself. But that is just my personal sense of it.
What if it was, though, Cerin? What if you were a member of a Christian minority in America - say, the majority was Wiccan and embraced a belief "in the God and Goddess"...? In such a case, would you have no problem using such money?
If it were the case that our country had been founded by Wiccans (that is, Wiccans had left England so as to be able to worship in the way they believed without government interference) and as a result of that pervasive influence the country's currency had eventually ended up vaguely indicating a basic Wiccan belief, I imagine I would not like seeing it, but I'm not sure I would feel I had grounds to try to change what was grounded in historical reality on the basis that it bothered me personally.
Would you feel in the least bit different about Wiccan displays being erected on public property so that the Wiccan majority could "publicly celebrate who they are"?
I honestly don't think so, if I knew that the majority of the population held those beliefs. Walking by a display doesn't compromise my beliefs, but participating in government-sanctioned procedures I can't avoid that I know are being conducted in the context of those beliefs would be a violation of my rights under our Constitution, I think.
If you had to walk by such displays to enter your city hall, would you feel free of any pressure to participate or acknowledge it in any way?
As I said, I think that would be different than a permanent symbol affixed to the building in which I was forced to conduct business and submit to laws implicitly guided by the religion that symbol represents. It just feels different to me, somehow. I don't believe I would feel pressured to participate or acknowledge those beliefs because of a seasonal celebratory display I had to walk by, but I've never been in that position.
I don't know if this example is applicable, but if I lived on a Native American Reservation, I don't imagine that I would feel pressured by displays of Native American spirituality, or that I would protest that the prevailing spiritual viewpoint shouldn't be seasonally displayed on public or government property because I didn't share it.
What if the majority of this country was Hindu, and wanted, "In Brahma, Krishna, and Vishnu we trust" on everything. You would have no objection with using this money, because the majority view was continuing to be reflected, and your (clearly unimportant) sensibilities as a member of the Christian minority should just be disregarded? (By "clearly unimportant," I'm responding to what I perceived to be your assessment of the sensibilities of current religious minorities. My apologies if this is inaccurate.)
If I lived in a country that had been historically founded on those beliefs, then no, I don't believe I would object to using money that reflected that historical reality. I don't think using the official currency that reflected that history would mean that I was professing that faith or compromising my own beliefs. I think in that case (supposing of course), I would agree that my sensibilities as a member of the Christian minority should be disregarded. The history of the country shouldn't have to be wiped out in part because there are those who don't share the religious views upon which it was founded.
I sometimes feel that for people in majority groups, it is very difficult fully to internalize the concept of protecting minority rights and sensibilities (regardless of the minority group being spoken about).
I'm all for protecting rights, but not for accommodating all sensibilities if it reqires something unreasonable, like re-designing a currency that reflects historical reality. I guess I'm insensitive in that way. It reminds me of a story awhile back about immigrants in England complaining because the government-funded school lunches didn't properly reflect ethnic diversity (i.e., African children should be able to eat African food in English schools). I admit, that was an eye-roller for me.
But, I'd just like to comment on this:
) there is plenty of marketing specifically to Jews at Hannukah--and also at other holidays. That's also where you get into the majority having a big say in what you find, because people want to put out products that people are going to buy so that they can make money. At Passover all the butchers get have shank bones, for instance. All the stores stock matzoh. It's going to sell. There are far fewer public signs of Ramadan that I've noticed, though I'm sure they're there. There are places to buy supplies for most religions somewhere--and actually, I suspect they've all been somewhat commercialized. Like, perhaps to our Western eyes it seems like Christmas and Hannukah are the more commercialized, but if you went to a Muslim country or even heavily Muslim neighborhood there'd be plenty of vulgar things on display, as long as people buy them. 
I would really love to see your thoughts on the subject.
