![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 26. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on March 26, 2006, at 0:51:00
Here's an interesting little piece of legislation. One would think, from it's name that it is designed to allow everyone the ability to express their religion in public.
It's actual purpose is to prevent lawyers representing public citizens in religious disputes against the government from collecting fees from the government.
In suits against the government, it's obvious that private citizens are unable to rally the resources necessary to represent themselves. Our laws wisely permit lawyers to recoup their fees from the Government, ONLY IF THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL. This act would prevent such reimbursement in cases involving religion.
What they are trying to do is to stem the tide of successful assaults against the establishment of religion in schools and public places. The American Legion is championing this particular act. They are billing it as an assault against the ACLU, claiming that that organization is behind most of the "damage" being done to religious rights.
So how will this affect people? Suppose that your family is athiest in belief, but your child attends a school where the recitation of the Pledge of Aliegance, including the verse added in (I think) 1952, which says "Under God" is required. Without this law, you could find a lawyer to represent you, who may do so, believing he or she has a good case, and that they will recoup their costs when they are successful. If this act becomes law, you will have to pay the lawyer out of your own pocket, or hope to find one to represent you for free.
The ACLU, contrary to what the proponents of this bill would have you believe, do not recieve most of their funding from these fees. Many of the lawyers representing private citizens are not on the payroll of the ACLU. This act would SEVERELY hamper an individuals ability to challenge the government when their religious rights are violated. I really hope this dangerous piece of legislation fails.
Posted by special_k on March 27, 2006, at 6:32:53
In reply to Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679, posted by deirdrehbrt on March 26, 2006, at 0:51:00
Hmm.
The relationship between church and state is interesting to me.
Personally... I think they should be seperate.
But no doubt many would disagree with me.
If you think they should be seperate...
Then do you think the govt officials should have a duty / obligation / requirement to appear agnostic to the general public (though of course they could choose to worship whomever and whatever they liked in their PRIVATE lives).
I do...
But then I guess I'm used to Helen...
Helen the athiest.
Ahem. I mean agnost.I don't think things are quite liberal enough yet for a PM to publicly declare / admit to athiesm... So agnosticism is her line really... But then if church and state are supposed to be seperated... Then wouldn't this be a good thing in general?
Might help out relations between countries.
Especially in the sense of religious differences between countries etc.But maybe...
Religion still has the masses in its grip...
Posted by special_k on March 27, 2006, at 6:33:59
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679, posted by special_k on March 27, 2006, at 6:32:53
> Religion still has the masses in its grip...
Er sorry bout that... I'll rephrase.I mean...
Maybe religion is still too much a part of the majority of people's lives for government officials to be seen to be agnostic.
Posted by 10derHeart on March 27, 2006, at 15:32:48
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679, posted by special_k on March 27, 2006, at 6:32:53
>>But maybe...
Religion still has the masses in its grip... <<
:-(
I'm quite sure I am one of the masses this refers to. That's okay. I'm fairly fond of my brothers and sisters who make up the rest of the masses :-)
But I'm not sure I'm okay with being described as being in the "grip" of anything.
My choice of religion was made willingly, consciously and after literally *years* of study, investigation and soul-searching.
Posted by 10derHeart on March 27, 2006, at 15:34:56
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679, posted by special_k on March 27, 2006, at 6:33:59
Sorry, posted before I saw this post.
Thanks - that does sound better.
Posted by special_k on March 28, 2006, at 11:11:39
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679 » special_k, posted by 10derHeart on March 27, 2006, at 15:32:48
> My choice of religion was made willingly, consciously and after literally *years* of study, investigation and soul-searching.
Hmm. It is kinda funny how most people say this... And yet if you look at the parts around the globe... People tend to belong to the religion their parents belonged to.
You would think that if there was one way that people would converge...
And you would think that if it was a *rational* matter that people wouldn't tend to follow that which was most popular in their region.
That is one study that is cited to cast doubt on that typical claim at any rate...
Sometimes people don't have access to their motivations.
Familiar things tend to be preferred to unfamiliar things etc.
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 11:22:17
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679, posted by special_k on March 28, 2006, at 11:11:39
> You would think that if there was one way that people would converge...
You really put a lot of yourself into that belief. :)
There is an either Hindu or Buddhist belief (I can't remember which) that I tend to subscribe to. It says that there are many paths up a mountain, because people start in many different places. And yes, that implies that people eventually converge, but they may not know it in this lifetime.
I don't think you can look at faith as a purely rational enterprise, any more than you can view it as an enterprise purely lacking in rationality.
Just my ever so humble opinion. :)
(By the way, I tried to start up a group of kids in middle school to go visit as many churches, synagogues, and mosques as we could, just for that very reason. That faith was something best acquired through hard work, not drifted into because that was what our parents were. It was met with resounding failure. But I personally did make that my spiritual quest, and ended up with a different path than either of my parents.)
Posted by deirdrehbrt on March 28, 2006, at 14:32:02
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679 » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 11:22:17
I'm in sort of the same position too... following a path dramatically different from that of my family. I suppose that many do follow the beliefs of their parents, but I don't have a problem with that either. Still, I think that people should at some point in their lives, make an active decidion regarding their spiritual paths.
I think I mentioned it somewhere here before, that I was once working on a musical entitled "The Inheritance", in which a young man learned that simply adopting the faith of his parents availed him nothing if he didn't make an active choice or commitment. It came down to the difference between "thinking" one believes, and truly believing. (Hope that makes sense).
Anyway, the real point of my first post is to point out the danger in this potential law. I believe in the establishment clause of the first ammendment' that the government shouldn't be in the position of establishing a religion. I also believe in the second clause which prohibits the government from interfering with the free expression of religion.
Let's look at a possible example: A court room has the ten commandments posted. Is this wrong? I say that if they have symbols of other religions, and symbols of pure reason, etc. posted, then they are showing that they respect all beliefs. If they exclude other symbols, refusing to change, then they are saying that it's a Judeo-Christian court-room. If I, as a Pagan, were to be tried in that court-room, I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable, or that I would receive a fair trial.
It would be the same thing if a Christian were to enter a court room and the only decoration being an inverted pentacle representative of Satanism.
This act is aimed at reducing the number of attempts at removing or limiting Christian - Only displays in such cases by removing financial compensation if they win.
Again, I'm not against the display of religious symbolism, but I do think that it should be done judiciously and with respect to the diversity of religious faiths in our country. We have religions, such as Trinitarian Christianity which believe in a single God in three persons. We have other religions that allow for more than one God, including Mormons, Native Americans and other Pagans, we have Unitarians, Scientologists, the church of Humanism, we're all over the place. To limit symbolism to that of a single sect harms the rest of us.
In the end, I'm just saying that if we are going to have religious symbolism allowed in our government facilities, that it should represent all of the faiths that people hold dear, or it should be excluded.
One possible solution might be to commission an artist to develop a symbol representative of the diversity of religious beliefs. Perhaps it could incorporate the symbols of the many faiths. I don't know. I just don't think it's fair for a Pagan to be tried beneath a symbol of the faith which tormented and killed her ancestors. A witch being tried for a crime in Salem, MA, under the banner of Christianity probably wouldn't be expecting a great deal of interest in her side of the story.
Just my own thoughts.
--Dee
Posted by zeugma on March 28, 2006, at 19:34:13
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679 » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 11:22:17
By the way, I tried to start up a group of kids in middle school to go visit as many churches, synagogues, and mosques as we could, just for that very reason. That faith was something best acquired through hard work, not drifted into because that was what our parents were.>>
That is a totally commendable endeavor, that I wish I had had the determination and energy as a child to have embarked upon. As an adult, I have even less energy and even more excuses.
I don't believe in convergence, btw.
Maybe a consequence of my own cognitive inertia.
-z
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 19:54:11
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679 » Dinah, posted by zeugma on March 28, 2006, at 19:34:13
I didn't mean to imply that there's anything wrong with following in the faith of one's ancestors. It's actually rather lovely. I feel a real kinship for my ancestors' faiths even if I didn't choose to follow them, and I can certainly understand choosing to follow them.
I was just repeating what I said to my less than impressed fellow students. Perhaps I should add that I was in Catholic school. :) I was just being a bit retroactively amused with myself.
Posted by zeugma on March 29, 2006, at 17:06:33
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679 » zeugma, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 19:54:11
> I didn't mean to imply that there's anything wrong with following in the faith of one's ancestors. It's actually rather lovely. I feel a real kinship for my ancestors' faiths even if I didn't choose to follow them, and I can certainly understand choosing to follow them.>>
I did not mean to imply such either.
As for what i said about convergence- we don't interpret beliefs. We either have them or not. Someone who believes, e.g., that modafinil can eliminate the need for sleep, has a belief that I cannot be brought to see the sense of, either intuitively or deductively. I can understand *why* someone has such a belief (perhaps they accept the testimony of an eminent researcher). And perhaps I am wrong. In a world turned upside down.
Nobody believes what they think is wrong. That seems trivial, self-evident, but it causes a big problem for those who argue for relativism (if e.g. you believe that no one can know the truth, or that the word 'truth' cannot be adequately defined so as to be useful, then it appears that your level of belief is staggering- what is a belief, that you do not believe true? Easy answer: Someone else's belief. It can't be yours.)
>
> I was just repeating what I said to my less than impressed fellow students. Perhaps I should add that I was in Catholic school. :) I was just being a bit retroactively amused with myself.>>I use that expression too, almost compulsively. There is something about being amused with oneself that has an intrinsically retroactive character.
:-)
-z
Posted by Dinah on March 29, 2006, at 18:08:07
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679 » Dinah, posted by zeugma on March 29, 2006, at 17:06:33
> I use that expression too, almost compulsively. There is something about being amused with oneself that has an intrinsically retroactive character.
:-)
Posted by deirdrehbrt on March 30, 2006, at 11:59:02
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679, posted by Dinah on March 29, 2006, at 18:08:07
But back to the topic....
Do you think it's right to change the laws such that it will make it more difficult to fight the government's establishment of one religion over others? Do you think it's fair for a town to allow Christian symbols and exclude others in public places? Do you think it's fair to allow invocations by Christian leaders but not others?
Right now, when the government is interfering with a person's civil rights, the offended party can sue the government, and if they win, the government may be compelled to pay the attorney's fees. This bill seeks to eliminate that benefit when the case involves religion.
Personally, if my religious freedom is trampled by the government, I think that's just as important as freedom of speech or freedom of the press. To me, it seems as if the Government is losing many cases that involve the establishment clause, and to stop that, they are trying to make it more difficult for people to bring their cases to court. Because they don't wish either to change their ways, or bear the burden of being wrong, they simply prevent people from suing in the first place.
Just doesn't seem right to me.
--Dee
Posted by special_k on March 30, 2006, at 20:34:34
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679 » Dinah, posted by zeugma on March 29, 2006, at 17:06:33
hey z...
i heard you disagreeing with the convergence thesis...
:-)
lets just check...
if everyone agrees on the facts (neutrally described)
then do you think that ideal reasoners would converge on the same judgement?
(regarding morality, etc)
?
maybe neutral description isn't possible...
(in which case... oh well... so long as we all manage to converge on a description)
but do you think ideal reasoners would agree if they start from the same knowledge base?
i like to think so.
but other people disagree.
went to a seminar yesterday... take the case of tony. tony hits john. hard. then he hits him again. hard. and again. hard. john wasn't a physical threat to tony.
court case...
is tony malevolent (implies he should be punished)
or is tony self interested (shouldn't necessarily be punished)all the brain facts... won't settle this issue...
people argue...
he who comes up with best justification wins.
sigh.
i don't like that.
philosophers do of course... lawyers do of course. i'm reminded of "The stranger". sigh.
but maybe ideal reasoners would converge?
dunno.
Posted by special_k on March 30, 2006, at 20:39:35
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679, posted by special_k on March 30, 2006, at 20:34:34
well bah ignore the reviews.
my understanding was that he refused to play the justification game (to come up with a convincing story)
and so he was convicted.
i was just thinking that there might be ideally a very good justification indeed it is just that nobody happened to come up with it at the trial.
so i want to talk about ideal justifications (the best possible justification) rather than actual justifications.
also... as dinah convincingly pointed out sometimes things might be improvable / indeterminate.
in which case... people could converge on a probability judgement (ie that there is .5 probability that phi is infinate and that there is .5 probability that phi is finite though maybe you don't like these disjunctive beliefs)
yuk.
sorry if this is uninteresting...
Posted by special_k on March 30, 2006, at 20:42:57
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679, posted by special_k on March 30, 2006, at 20:39:35
ps the tony case is meant to be a hard one...
it is supposed to show that there is genuine indeterminacy (maybe best case for it)
Tony from the Soprano's of course...
Acceptable within the subculture (self interest)
Not so within the rest of society (don't go around hitting people)point is that society and sub society can both do fodorian science and that won't settle the issue.
the thought is here it could be that rational people disagree...
but are they being equally rational?
i dunno.
i want convergence...
but i'm raving...
Posted by zeugma on March 30, 2006, at 21:53:56
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679, posted by special_k on March 30, 2006, at 20:34:34
> hey z...
>
> i heard you disagreeing with the convergence thesis...yes, you noticed :-)
>
> :-)
>
> lets just check...
>
> if everyone agrees on the facts (neutrally described)
>
> then do you think that ideal reasoners would converge on the same judgement?
>
No. Because (and here I am plodding around in the backwaters of my own theory, a marshy region not too far from where the verificationists sank without trace, and not too far from the behaviorist promontory) there are two kinds of content: call them alpha content and beta content. Alpha content is descriptive content. We can agree on such, provided we can each verify such; for instance we concur that bananas are rich in K, because we are either chemists who perform the analyses, or else we are more the spiders weaving the web of belief into a serviceable thread for catching flies: we know what bananas are, we know what K is, we read the literature on K and its uses, and we believe the nutritionists who tell us bananas are good for us in virtue of containing K. So we swallow the story (and the banana) and acquire the belief that bananas are rich in K ('that' is of course the propositional operator tokened). The belief is the same as the one expressed by myriads of languages concerning the soon-to-be-overripe objects on my kitchen table. Alpha content is what the ancient astronomers discovered when they wrote Morning Star = Evening Star on their tablets. And it is a fact of astronomical history that numerous cultures discovered this independently, and that is convergence, correct?beta content is the Morning Star disappearing among the clouds of day. The propositional operator has not worked its magic yet. The cycles of Venus have not been 'positioned'. Since positioning has not occurred yet, convergence can't happen. (This may seem despicably similar to Jackson's 'qualia.'I'm too sleepy to get upset.)None of us can have the same beta content, because it is plain that we do not have identical percepts. Kaplan talks about Castor and pollux (I love these astronomical referents) not even knowing which is which (i.e. who they are) because they are identical in all respects, nonetheless there is different beta content because they cannot occupy the same points in space-time (conceived four dimensionally) and therefore the task of 'positioning' (getting the descriptions to work) must be somehow different (I have to make allowances for your location on Earth's surface to know what time it is where you are; I have to have alpha content, or perhaps beta content of an alpha-content-rich scroll (i.e. I am looking at a map) (and now you know one reason my bosses become infuriated with the reports I write for them; tedious and obscure phrasings of the obvious. Oh well.))
Anyway, religion. Someone believes that God exists. They may be right or wrong, but it is necessarily beta content that persuades them. I have infuriated my bosses today with incredible prolixity, and I can't stay up all night anymore removing the commas I inserted before dinner (as Oscar Wilde said of his compositional habits). But it is an awful lot of work setting up a coordinate system of alpha content that maps adequate samples of beta content onto a usable scroll. Some things just pass its limits, and such is religious experience. And as Blake said the fool does not see the tree that the wise man sees, we can't locate God on the periodic table. Morality, the same. Some people think a burning building looks great on the television (i.e., it serves some purpose of their own to find it beautiful.) And at this point, you kn ow, I am about to vomit.
-z
> (regarding morality, etc)
>
> ?
>
> maybe neutral description isn't possible...
>
> (in which case... oh well... so long as we all manage to converge on a description)
>
> but do you think ideal reasoners would agree if they start from the same knowledge base?
>
> i like to think so.
>
> but other people disagree.
>
> went to a seminar yesterday... take the case of tony. tony hits john. hard. then he hits him again. hard. and again. hard. john wasn't a physical threat to tony.
>
> court case...
>
> is tony malevolent (implies he should be punished)
> or is tony self interested (shouldn't necessarily be punished)
>
> all the brain facts... won't settle this issue...
>
> people argue...
>
> he who comes up with best justification wins.
>
> sigh.
>
> i don't like that.
>
> philosophers do of course... lawyers do of course. i'm reminded of "The stranger". sigh.
>
> but maybe ideal reasoners would converge?
>
> dunno.
Posted by zeugma on March 30, 2006, at 22:13:03
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679, posted by special_k on March 30, 2006, at 20:39:35
in which case... people could converge on a probability judgement (ie that there is .5 probability that phi is infinate and that there is .5 probability that phi is finite though maybe you don't like these disjunctive beliefs).>
I like those disjunctive beliefs. I couldnt even think about the Andromeda Galaxy containing sapient life (hopefully not in such dire predicaments as we are) without disjunction, being of a verificationist stripe if not verificationist outright, and I do not have an instrument of sufficient resolution to verify either limb, therefore I must opt out and say that I can verify neither limb, but can assert the disjunction (law of excluded middle).
Oh yes, I can have beta content of such, or think I have, say if like many sufferers of hypnagogic hallucinations (and I follow the eminent neuropsychiatrist J.A. Hobson here) believe I have been abducted in that dissociated state of hallucination to Andromeda by inhabitants of that beaetiful galaxy (I think the ancients thought it looked like a cluster of honeybees)only to find that it was nothing special, its inhabitants were as devoid of scruples as, oh, some Anglophone humans, and were willing to break their equivalent of our Geneva Convention in order to extract information they could not possibly need from me. Beta content, and having had such hallucinations, I can see why such elaborate stories get contacted to put an alpha frame on such otherwise deviant experience. Those states are really weird, and i am asking for them now, in boring everyone silly with my prolixity. But Hobson is alpha content that grafts some odd beta content into a usable map. He's got a nice diagram of it in "The Dream Drugstore".
-z
Posted by zeugma on March 30, 2006, at 22:55:52
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679, posted by special_k on March 30, 2006, at 20:42:57
Acceptable within the subculture (self interest)
Not so within the rest of society (don't go around hitting people)point is that society and sub society can both do fodorian science and that won't settle the issue.
the thought is here it could be that rational people disagree...
but are they being equally rational?
i dunno.
i want convergence...>>
the medievals called this casuistry, and eagerly engaged in it.
they had reasonably functional guidelines for settling these matters (Islamic, Jewish and Christian scholars agreed that aristotle had a handle on things and that an ontological postulate of a supreme being could be made, ie.e they probably did some counterfactuals involving God's nonexistence, or considered whether such counterfactuals were candidates for plausibility. This practice got a bad name later.)
I can't engage in this, because although I have beta content on hand of Tony Soprano (I live in New York and got a glimpse of him) I lack the bacjkground information on the Sopranos to practice casuistry (not using the word prejoratively).
-z
Posted by deirdrehbrt on March 30, 2006, at 23:10:48
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679, posted by special_k on March 30, 2006, at 20:34:34
Oh well... was worth a try.
Posted by special_k on March 31, 2006, at 5:06:24
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679, posted by deirdrehbrt on March 30, 2006, at 11:59:02
> But back to the topic....
ah. sorry.
> Do you think it's right to change the laws such that it will make it more difficult to fight the government's establishment of one religion over others? Do you think it's fair for a town to allow Christian symbols and exclude others in public places? Do you think it's fair to allow invocations by Christian leaders but not others?personally...
i have more sympathy with the notion of 'freedom from religion' than 'freedom of religion'. in the sense that rather than seeing more religious stuff i'd really prefer to see less of it.because i think church and state should be seperate.
so i think church / religion (all religions) should be seperate from schools (excepting perhaps a course or other on comparative religion which is more anthropology or history or whatever i guess).
> they simply prevent people from suing in the first place.
mmm. i'm all in favour of trying to cut down on litigation... but i think i hear what you are saying... if other religions get a foothold in public schools then that ain't so fair...
i'm reminded of a south park episode when they wanted to have a christmas parade and ended up with this culturally and religion neutral pagent thing. it was pretty funny. but... i have sympathy for the idea really i do.
i don't know.
religion... i didn't encounter it is the public schools i attended. nope.
not at uni either unless you count the persistent handout givers... here there are these adds on tv...
'you know i'm really not into religion at all but when you start hearing about JC then you just have to admit he is such a cool guy'
yeah whatever. not sure where they are getting the money for those adds... sigh.
i dunno. i'm all for the seperation of church and state.
i mean what people get up to in their personal lives is their own business i guess. politicians can be into porn or whatever. but you don't expect them go go on about that in public. same with religious beliefs / religious practice.
i dunno...
Posted by Declan on March 31, 2006, at 14:13:12
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679, posted by special_k on March 31, 2006, at 5:06:24
I grew up feeling that western society was this deathly boring suburban wasteland and it was only when I took religion seriously and saw it from the outside that I realised that we were not quite as dull as we seemed and were scary enough to be interesting. If you took the religion away you'd be left with lawns and curbing. Then again there are religions these days that feel like spiritual suburbia. The suburban thing worries me more.
Declan
Posted by deirdrehbrt on March 31, 2006, at 20:25:22
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679, posted by Declan on March 31, 2006, at 14:13:12
I kind of worry because I'm an LGBT Witch. I'll be going to court in a few weeks with my daughter to fight a traffic ticket. (the specifics are irrelevant) Anyway, it will seem interesting if they have the requisite ten commandments hung on the wall or other Judeo-Christian symbolism.
My point is that these symbols while comforting for Christians truly alienate those with other beliefs, especially considering there were western laws prohibiting Witchcraft as recently as 1951. Shortly before that, a woman was tried for practicing witchcraft in England, I think during world war 2.I KNOW, absolutely, that many Christians are afraid of my religion. I'm quite certain that if it were not unconstitutional, there would be significant support for outlawing my religion.
The reason I am against this law is that I think it is worthwhile to find some way to eliminate religious bias from public spaces. I would prefer that rather than eliminating Christian symbolism that emblems of other faiths be permitted. I would rather educate people about other faiths than eliminate speech about the majority religions.
Unfortunately, there are many religious leaders that would prefer their flocks heard nothing of paganism, fearing that if it presented in a positive light that their people may be led astray. Many of these people would rather eliminate Christian symbols than have them presented aside, in my case, the pentacle.
The truth is that pagans do not wish to destroy Christianity. We don't proslytize. If someone asks us about our symbols, we'll tell them, just as a Christian would tell someone about the cross on their necklace, or the WWJD bracelets. Still, we are feared, and we are fought when we complain that Christian symbols in court rooms, to the exclusion of symbols of other faiths can be intimidating. They tell us that we are subject to the laws of a God that we may not believe in, whose first commandment is "I am the Lord Thy God, Thou shall have no false gods before me". That first statement tells to me that My Gods and Goddesses are considered false in that court.
I am religiously tollerant, but can find good reason to support a case to try to compel that court to either allow other emblems of faith, making the court less intimidating to those who aren't Judeo-Christian, or to remove religious artifacts altogether.
So, I don't wish to diminish Christianity, but to make the country, which isn't supposed to be promoting any religion over any other, less hostile to those of other faiths.
Hope I'm making sense.
BTW, I don't consider my faith "suburban" though there are some who approach it as a "fun thing to try". Typically these people don't stick around too long though.
--Dee
Posted by zeugma on April 2, 2006, at 12:54:50
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679, posted by deirdrehbrt on March 31, 2006, at 20:25:22
I am religiously tollerant, but can find good reason to support a case to try to compel that court to either allow other emblems of faith, making the court less intimidating to those who aren't Judeo-Christian, or to remove religious artifacts altogether.>>
It would be easier to remove religious artifacts altogether from a court of law, then to allow multiple symbolic objects of faith. There are too many faiths that people adhere to, and most of them have the unfortunate property of being mutually exclusive.
John Dryden in "Religio Laici" was upset by this, as the particular faith he adhered to circa 1680 consigned to Hell even those who may not have accepted Christianity as the exclusive path to Heaven, not through any choice of theirs, but merely as a result of having been born in some remote region of Central Asia (say) to which Christian doctrine could not possibly have penetrated. (I suppose this consigning to Hell is a kind of "collateral damage" similar to fate of Iraqis who had no part in schemes to obtain mythological WMD's, but were born in a place likely to experience an American airstrike at some time or times in their lives. Geographic misfortune.) Dryden left the faith he adhered to in 1680, perhaps as a result of these considerations, which in the above-mentioned work he was able to dismiss, though uneasily.
But I fear that the precarious freedom we have won from religious prosecution in America, relative to many other nations, is in dager of being eroded, even as we promote it via our foreign policy in the Middle East and adjacent regions.
The problem is that people are usually more tolerant as individuals than as members of a group. Religious groups are no exception, and in this I do not express any anti-religious sentiment whatsoever, only a general statement about group morality and behavior.
-z
Posted by AuntieMel on April 5, 2006, at 9:44:54
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679, posted by deirdrehbrt on March 31, 2006, at 20:25:22
"They tell us that we are subject to the laws of a God that we may not believe in, whose first commandment is "I am the Lord Thy God, Thou shall have no false gods before me". That first statement tells to me that My Gods and Goddesses are considered false in that court."
I have found this topic interesting - and I agree with you that those things do not belong in a courtroom.
People love to say how our laws were based on the 10 commandments, but in reality only two of the commandments are law - don't steal and don't kill - though adultery used to also be considered a major offense.
Another interesting thing - for pagans - is that the commandment doesn't say 'false' gods. Depending on the version of the commandments you read (there are several!!) it says 'strange' or 'other' - acknowledging that there *are* other gods.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.