Taking Secularism a bit too far.

123457

Comments

  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    So, three more innocent people are butchered for the presidentially endorsed right to be offensive. Collateral damage for the highest moral principle I'm sure.

    No, some asshole killed three people because he thinks he has a right to not be offended.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    A state education doesn't inherently remove all of religion's influence. Just look at the mess that is the US. Founded on the idea of separation of church and state and an atheist has fuck all chance of being president. Hell, they've only had one non-protestant president.

    Christianity's influence in the US goes well beyond the cultural. Catholic health care systems control 1 in 6 acute care beds in the US. Women's healthcare is compromised by Catholic restrictions, based in Catholic morality, which frankly I find immoral in the extreme. Catholic healthcare systems don't want to put in IUDs, even for non-contraceptive use. They won't let women having C-sections get their tubes tied in the same operation; women have to go elsewhere for a whole separate round of anesthesia and recovery for that. Doctors have to consult administrators before performing abortions to save women's lives.

    I don't know what France should do. But secularism in the US hasn't gone nearly far enough.
  • The fact that the US was founded on Separation Of Church And State doesn't neccessarily make it more likely that an atheist will be president.

    The First Amendment can guarantee that an atheist has the legal right to try and run for president. It doesn't prohibit the voters from deciding they only want to vote for believers.

  • stetson wrote: »
    The fact that the US was founded on Separation Of Church And State doesn't neccessarily make it more likely that an atheist will be president.

    The First Amendment can guarantee that an atheist has the legal right to try and run for president. It doesn't prohibit the voters from deciding they only want to vote for believers.
    'Decide' implies thought. If the US were a secular country that just happened to be filled with religious people who thought that being religious was a virtue, then it would be a different issue.
    But religion permeates the governental system. Oaths are sworn on bibles, legislators think it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on everyone, regardless of the the imposed upons' beliefs.
    The heathcare example Ruth gives should be Constitutionally illegal.
    Which is further hypocritical in that the "originalist" Supremes tend to be the religious ones.

  • But even if you were to fix it so that everything in the government was in strict accordance with the First Amendment, it would do nothing to guarantee that people would be religiously tolerant in the voting booth.

    I'm pretty sure the medicare-funded Grey Nuns Hospital in my Canadian hometown doesn't perform abortions, and the procedure was certainly lambasted in the publically supported Catholic schools I attended, which also exist in at least one other(very large) province. But Canadisns in general are still far more secularized than Americans.

    And even if the US First Amendment were to be applied consistently, would that stop religious legislators from imposing their views on the country? I think you would have to prove in court that, for example, the abortion law was motivated by religious morality, but unless the law is entitled something like A Bill To Protect God's Precious Life, that would be almost impossible to do.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    The heathcare example Ruth gives should be Constitutionally illegal.

    Wait a minute - you think that a business (a hospital) should be forced to provide a service it does not want to provide (tying fallopian tubes) by the Constitution?

    The problem Ruth describes is not caused by Catholic hospitals not wanting to provide certain services, but by all the hospitals in a particular area being Catholic hospitals, so women aren't reasonably able to choose to go to a hospital that will do both things at once.

    I don't see how you can find a mandate in the existing Constitution to force hospitals to offer sterilizations.

    Of course, in a government-run system (such as, presumably, the VA), the problem Ruth describes would be un-Constitutional, because it would be the Government doing it, which suggests perhaps a simpler solution than the "force hospitals to do what I want them to do" amendment.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    So, three more innocent people are butchered for the presidentially endorsed right to be offensive. Collateral damage for the highest moral principle I'm sure.

    No, some asshole killed three people because he thinks he has a right to not be offended.
    ...
    I don't know what France should do...

    No, everybody knows, and knew that would happen. So far at least 22 people have died as the result of the (trigger, catalyst, excuse, whatever term you need, of the) blasphemous cartoons. Where were the armed guards at all churches for a start? If you are going to deliberately provoke such assholes who've been doing this for 5 years for the cartoons alone, you need to protect your people. Islamists have murdered 264 and wounded 892 in 8 years.

    Pour France.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    The heathcare example Ruth gives should be Constitutionally illegal.

    Wait a minute - you think that a business (a hospital) should be forced to provide a service it does not want to provide (tying fallopian tubes) by the Constitution?

    I don't know if it needs to be in the Constitution. But if Catholics want to be in the healthcare business, they need to provide healthcare. The code is, First do no harm. They are actively harming women by refusing to follow the standards of care in this country.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    The code is, First do no harm. They are actively harming women by refusing to follow the standards of care in this country.

    Catholic hospitals refusing to offer sterilizations to women are at best passively harming women. It certainly makes sense for me that, for women who want both a c-section and a tubal ligation, they'd be better having both done at once, and so those women will be best served by going to a facility that offers both services. But I gather you can't get a tubal ligation in a Catholic hospital, any more than you can get an abortion or a vasectomy.

    There's only really a problem when all the hospitals in an area are Catholic, so expectant mothers seeking a c-section don't have a viable alternative to a Catholic hospital.

    (I understand, however, that there is now a method of inserting plugs in the fallopian tubes via the uterus that can be carried out in a doctor's office, that has a similar reliability to a traditional tubal ligation.)
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    There are lots of places where the only hospital is Catholic. There are also limitations placed upon where people can receive care by insurance companies. My insurance company tells me what hospital I can go to. I don't get a choice. I have needed two D and C procedures in the last 18 months (not abortions, but it's the same procedure as an early-term abortion), and they sent me to a hospital in another city that is covered by my plan. Since the procedures were planned, it was inconvenient but not awful. But I once asked a friend who worked as a nurse at the local Catholic hospital, the one in town I'm supposed to go to, what would happen if a woman needed an emergency D and C and was transported there by ambulance because it was the closest place, and he turned pale and said he didn't know. Women in the midst of miscarriage have been turned away or given substandard care at Catholic hospitals. Catholic hospitals refuse to perform life-saving abortions as long as there is a fetal heartbeat, even when the fetus is not viable, jeopardizing women's lives and health. It's unconscionable.
  • stetson wrote: »
    But even if you were to fix it so that everything in the government was in strict accordance with the First Amendment, it would do nothing to guarantee that people would be religiously tolerant in the voting booth.

    I'm pretty sure the medicare-funded Grey Nuns Hospital in my Canadian hometown doesn't perform abortions, and the procedure was certainly lambasted in the publically supported Catholic schools I attended, which also exist in at least one other(very large) province. But Canadisns in general are still far more secularized than Americans.

    And even if the US First Amendment were to be applied consistently, would that stop religious legislators from imposing their views on the country? I think you would have to prove in court that, for example, the abortion law was motivated by religious morality, but unless the law is entitled something like A Bill To Protect God's Precious Life, that would be almost impossible to do.
    It is not about total control, but relative influence.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    The heathcare example Ruth gives should be Constitutionally illegal.

    Wait a minute - you think that a business (a hospital) should be forced to provide a service it does not want to provide (tying fallopian tubes) by the Constitution?

    The problem Ruth describes is not caused by Catholic hospitals not wanting to provide certain services, but by all the hospitals in a particular area being Catholic hospitals, so women aren't reasonably able to choose to go to a hospital that will do both things at once.

    I don't see how you can find a mandate in the existing Constitution to force hospitals to offer sterilizations.

    Of course, in a government-run system (such as, presumably, the VA), the problem Ruth describes would be un-Constitutional, because it would be the Government doing it, which suggests perhaps a simpler solution than the "force hospitals to do what I want them to do" amendment.
    The problem of only Catholic hospitals being available is not a separate one from policy implementation. Even if there are others, the catholic ones will have Emergency Rooms and that is were people will be taken by default. In an emergency. there is no choice in where one will go. The Emergency Rooms in America suck the government teat to cover the un and under insured.

    In simpler terms, they are not separate from the governmental process even though they be private entities.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Talking of taking secularism too far, it is illegal to collect of any data based on race, ethnicity or religion in France, as all are egal...
  • There is a misconception about the separation of Church and State concerning out First Amendment. Notice the wording of the clause:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

    Note the limitation is on the congress, not the church. While Congress cannot name an official religion or limit the free exercise of any religion, there is really no limitation on Religious Bodies trying to influence the government. In 1957, I think it was, Lyndon Johnson put an amendment on a spending bill that said no organization claiming 501c3 status in the IRS code, which includes non-profits and churches, can state their political preference without losing their tax-exempt status. Constitutionally, that amendment has never been challenged, but if it were I think it would easily be struck down.

    Now, going to religious hospitals. Yes, there are many Catholic Hospitals, but there are also Lutheran and Presbyterian Hospitals. Don't forget Jewish, Baptist, and Methodist hospitals. There are probably more denominations as well. I know in the Western United States the religious hospitals filled a critical void when states were still territories and did not have the tax base to establish public hospitals. There are still some counties in some states that have contracts with hospitals with religious roots because they cannot afford to have a public hospital themselves. Yes, that may mean the contracts cannot force a religious hospital to violate its principles (i.e. abortions), but the more important concern is to provide critical health care for the general public.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    There is a misconception about the separation of Church and State concerning out First Amendment. Notice the wording of the clause:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

    Note the limitation is on the congress, not the church. While Congress cannot name an official religion or limit the free exercise of any religion, there is really no limitation on Religious Bodies trying to influence the government. In 1957, I think it was, Lyndon Johnson put an amendment on a spending bill that said no organization claiming 501c3 status in the IRS code, which includes non-profits and churches, can state their political preference without losing their tax-exempt status. Constitutionally, that amendment has never been challenged, but if it were I think it would easily be struck down.
    According to this article, it was ruled constitutional by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1972 (a free speech challenge) and by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in 2000 (a free exercise of religion challenge.)
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    That does not surprise me (as an outsider with very limited education in US law). It does not establish a religion on the one hand, or prohibit the free exercise on the other. It does place some financial consequences on a non-religious activity by a religious body, nothing more.
  • I say take away their tax-exempt status altogether and let them say what they want. Why the fuck should they get special tax exemption?
  • Ruth wrote: »
    The code is, First do no harm. They are actively harming women by refusing to follow the standards of care in this country.

    Catholic hospitals refusing to offer sterilizations to women are at best passively harming women. It certainly makes sense for me that, for women who want both a c-section and a tubal ligation, they'd be better having both done at once, and so those women will be best served by going to a facility that offers both services. But I gather you can't get a tubal ligation in a Catholic hospital, any more than you can get an abortion or a vasectomy.

    There's only really a problem when all the hospitals in an area are Catholic, so expectant mothers seeking a c-section don't have a viable alternative to a Catholic hospital.

    (I understand, however, that there is now a method of inserting plugs in the fallopian tubes via the uterus that can be carried out in a doctor's office, that has a similar reliability to a traditional tubal ligation.)

    For technical reasons the NHS has not done tubal ligation at the same time as C-section for years. And now hardly ever done as hormone coils considered better all round.
  • Same in Oz. Tubal ligation at the same time as a Caesar is not smart. Much easier to vasectomise the male partner...
  • Merry Vole wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    The code is, First do no harm. They are actively harming women by refusing to follow the standards of care in this country.

    Catholic hospitals refusing to offer sterilizations to women are at best passively harming women. It certainly makes sense for me that, for women who want both a c-section and a tubal ligation, they'd be better having both done at once, and so those women will be best served by going to a facility that offers both services. But I gather you can't get a tubal ligation in a Catholic hospital, any more than you can get an abortion or a vasectomy.

    There's only really a problem when all the hospitals in an area are Catholic, so expectant mothers seeking a c-section don't have a viable alternative to a Catholic hospital.

    (I understand, however, that there is now a method of inserting plugs in the fallopian tubes via the uterus that can be carried out in a doctor's office, that has a similar reliability to a traditional tubal ligation.)

    For technical reasons the NHS has not done tubal ligation at the same time as C-section for years. And now hardly ever done as hormone coils considered better all round.

    If they're fitted well, of course. My wife had one, the fitting was botched, it got infected, they ignored her when she told them it was painful and she ended up yanking it out herself. :anguished:
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Talking of taking secularism too far, it is illegal to collect of any data based on race, ethnicity or religion in France, as all are egal...

    The US census does not ask religion questions. I have spoken with Canadian demographers who tell me that in Canada it is basically an identity question rather than one of religious practice or belief, and of little use to church planners. They tell me that the term Census Anglican, or Census Muslim, is common among demographers. Clergy tell me that if they had 5% of Census Anglicans attending church, they wouldn't know where to put them.
  • Clergy tell me that if they had 5% of Census Anglicans attending church, they wouldn't know where to put them.
    2 metres apart?
  • The only public agencies in the US that are permitted to ask about religious preferences are hospitals and military branches. That is because of the nature of the agency. Anyone can put down prefer not to answer

    Over the years the American Humanist Society or other similar free-thinking groups have challenged the use of chaplains in the military and public-funded hospitals. To my knowledge, any time it has come to the Supreme Court, the court has refused to hear the case.

    Another issue in the US is the pledge of allegiance which has the clause: "One nation under God" clause in it. An atheist parent from California took that one to court. It ended up in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which did say the clause was unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has refused to hear it too which allows the 9th Circuit decision to stand at least in the states it covers (all the states west of the Rockies). Nevertheless, it is up to individual school districts to determine which form of the pledge they will use. I happened to start school before the clause was inserted and can remember the old pledge without the under God clause. It was inserted in 1954 because the thought was no self-respecting communist would dare say the phrase.

    And then there is the "In God We Trust" phrase on our coins.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    And then there is the "In God We Trust" phrase on our coins.

    Not to mention the Eye Of Providence on the Great Seal and the one-dollar bill. That one also gets the far-right Christian fundamentalists into a tizzy.

    As for ONUG being put into the Pledge to trip up the commies, that always struck me as representing a rather inaccurate idea of how Communists think: they don't regard it as a non-negotiable taboo merely to utter religious phrases, and would likely be happy to do so if it meant keeping their cover.

    (Not that I doubt that was a reason for putting the phrase in, just that the revisionists were pretty clueless as to its desired effects.)

  • stetson wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    And then there is the "In God We Trust" phrase on our coins.

    Not to mention the Eye Of Providence on the Great Seal and the one-dollar bill. That one also gets the far-right Christian fundamentalists into a tizzy.

    As for ONUG being put into the Pledge to trip up the commies, that always struck me as representing a rather inaccurate idea of how Communists think: they don't regard it as a non-negotiable taboo merely to utter religious phrases, and would likely be happy to do so if it meant keeping their cover.

    (Not that I doubt that was a reason for putting the phrase in, just that the revisionists were pretty clueless as to its desired effects.)

    The author of the original text of the Pledge of Allegiance, Bellamy, was a Christian Socialist, so it's interesting that the text was later deemed as being too secular.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    And then there is the "In God We Trust" phrase on our coins.

    Not to mention the Eye Of Providence on the Great Seal and the one-dollar bill. That one also gets the far-right Christian fundamentalists into a tizzy.

    As for ONUG being put into the Pledge to trip up the commies, that always struck me as representing a rather inaccurate idea of how Communists think: they don't regard it as a non-negotiable taboo merely to utter religious phrases, and would likely be happy to do so if it meant keeping their cover.

    (Not that I doubt that was a reason for putting the phrase in, just that the revisionists were pretty clueless as to its desired effects.)

    The author of the original text of the Pledge of Allegiance, Bellamy, was a Christian Socialist, so it's interesting that the text was later deemed as being too secular.

    Correct indeed on the political persuasions of Bellamy. Though I don't know if it was a case of people actively thinking the POA was too secular, so much as a case of people(specifically politicians) looking for a crowd-pleasing way to promote religion(and possibly unsettle Communists), and then just using the text of the Pledge as a convenient place to stick the word "God".
  • Re Pledge of Allegiance, "One Nation Under God", etc.:

    There was a lot going on about this when I was a kid, so maybe I can add some info and perspective. Please be patient. ;)

    Red Skelton was a wonderful, gentle, home-style comedian. Possibly a Christian, though I'm not sure. His humor, IIRC, was generally squeaky clean. He had a very popular TV show.

    He got involved in the conversation, and felt strongly about the Pledge and ONUG. He did a very heart-felt piece about it. This Red Skelton Museum link has an audio/video clip in the upper right-hand corner, with closed captioning. The text is down the page, in a poster format.

    This was very popular, and even put on vinyl records (45s, IME). In the midst of all the furor over God, prayer, and school, you could privately listen to it at home. You could reaffirm your moral compass, even if you weren't able to do anything about the situation in the larger world. Gives me a bit of sympathy/empathy for people who feel society and gov't have gone against important beliefs and principles.

    I'm not pushing any beliefs. I've got mixed feelings about much of this, but haven't felt any great need to spend a lot of time sorting them out.

    Anyway, Red's recording is about 3 1/2 minutes. Worth seeing/hearing, if only for historical perspective. There's still a lot of interest in it, based on my Duck Duck Go search. When I typed "Red Skelton" in the search box, one of the top options offered was "pledge of allegiance". And there were lots of hits.

    FYI, FWIW, YMMV.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Addendum to Pledge of Allegiance post:

    The clip is in the upper LEFT-hand corner. Sorry!

    Non-US Shipmates:

    The link I put in my post just above may help you understand some things.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Thank you @Golden Key for that link. It does help me to understand some things, but it makes me relieved that I'm not a US citizen and never have to face having to say or refuse to say it. As a Christian, I don't think I could give a corresponding pledge to my own country. I'd better add a warning that what I'm going to say may be deeply controversial and shocking to some shipmates. There are two reasons.

    The first is that to me swearing allegiance to a flag rather than a person feels uncomfortably like idolatry and so breaking the Commandments.

    I recognise that the flag symbolises something else. Others may not be as squeamish about this. They may even regard me as being over-literal. However, my second reason is even more fundamental. This is the bit my warning is about.

    For a Christian, it strikes me that one's duty to one's country is one allegiance among several. It has to be treated as not an absolute one, but one that must be balanced with others. There are at least two others which in some circumstances will and should trump it. One is one's duty, loyalty, allegiance to Jesus Christ. The other is one's commitment to one's family.

    So, in Mr Skelton's gloss, irrespective of whether accompanied by self pity or not, dedicating all one's worldly goods to one's country, whether the state or an idealised version of it, is either wrong or meaningless and overblown rhetoric. Furthermore, no schoolchild should be exhorted to make statements that neither he, she or anyone else is expecting them to mean.


    We have suffered here and still do too much from Caesaropapism and the spurious sanctification of nationalism over the centuries.

  • Perhaps the nearest UK equivalent would be "I Vow To Thee My Country" on Remembrance Sunday.

    @Enoch I'm pretty sure your views are widely shared on the Ship.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Perhaps the nearest UK equivalent would be "I Vow To Thee My Country" on Remembrance Sunday. ...
    Which I refuse to sing and regard as an abomination.


  • Enoch--

    ;) O...k... ;)

    A couple thoughts now, and maybe more later:

    --Some people do have objections, for the reasons you state. And students who are members of Jehovah's Witnesses have sometimes run into a little trouble, because they don't believe in standing and saluting the flag--never mind pledging.

    --I don't know what current thought and protocols are about saying the pledge in schools and elsewhere. I think many schools have moved away from it. When I was in grade school, we said it in our classrooms at the beginning of the day. (Not sure if that was all the way through grade school.) I don't think we did that in jr. high and high school, though we said it at assemblies and such.

    --I'd have to read up and remind myself of the original stated reasons for the pledge, and adding "Under God". Countries/societies tell themselves stories about themselves. Sometimes, there's even truth and/or fact in them! ;) America's include Manifest Destiny ("God brought our ancestors here to honor Him, and accomplish X, Y, and Z; and we've done it, and that's why God's blessed us, and aren't we cool?") That ignores, among other things, the horrors perpetrated on the indigenous people who were already here.

    And *that* makes our Thanksgiving Day a tangled mess. The basic, schoolkid version of the story is along the lines of "when we first came to this land, everything was unfamiliar, including the people, and we didn't know where to start; but the 'Indians' were kind and helpful, and showed us how to plant corn, and put some fish in with the seed as fertilizer; and it took us a while to get use to each other; but they and we all got together for a potluck dinner and to give thanks". A lot more sad, awful, and complicated than that, of course. The narrative is *slowly* changing, as it has been with Columbus Day (for similar reasons).

    --Ummm, what makes you think there might be self-pity in what Red said?

    If you mean the "wouldn't it be a pity" in his last line, it's because that was a time when there was a major...storm?...about prayer in schools. The Supremes banned it. (Public/state school teachers could still get away with praying and talking about God in class, when I started school. I had one in particular who did. Not sure if any other teacher there did.)

    He wasn't indulging in self-pity. He, like many, many other people, deeply believed it was horribly wrong to ban prayer in school. Bad for the kids, bad for the country, bad for our future. He was afraid "under God" would be banned, too, and he spoke out about it.

    --Ummm, what makes you think that saying the Pledge "exhorted to make statements that neither he, she or anyone else is expecting them to mean"?

    IME, we were supposed to mean at least the general gist, and it was a reminder of (supposed) founding principles. Saying it daily could become monotonous, as Red's teacher said. But it did tend to get us geared for the day--which could also have been done in other ways.
  • “Prayer in schools” isn’t banned; school-mandated prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Enoch--
    --Ummm, what makes you think there might be self-pity in what Red said?
    I was referencing his words
    "Pledge - dedicate a my worldly goods to give without self pity".
    I've no idea what he meant by 'self pity' there. @Golden Key can you explain what he meant?
    ... --Ummm, what makes you think that saying the Pledge "exhorted to make statements that neither he, she or anyone else is expecting them to mean"?
    There are other statements I'd also seriously question, but it was pledging to put all your worldly goods at the state's disposal that I was referencing.
    IME, we were supposed to mean at least the general gist, and it was a reminder of (supposed) founding principles. Saying it daily could become monotonous, as Red's teacher said. But it did tend to get us geared for the day--which could also have been done in other ways.
    But do children gear themselves up to live each day for the state or a flag? Is it good for them to be encouraged to think like that? What's the difference between that and say the Young Pioneers?

    Even if you disapprove of religion in schools, I'd have thought starting the school day with a hymn and some prayers, as was normal 'when I were a lad', is more wholesome.

  • @Golden Key
    The Pledge of Allegiance, or any similar screed in any country, is indoctrination. This is its purpose.
    Prayer, as a regimen, is much the same.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    “Prayer in schools” isn’t banned; school-mandated prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.

    Someone always quips, "As long as there are tests, there will be prayer in schools."
  • Wikipedia says courts have ruled that "anyone is allowed to pray in schools in the United States, as long as it is not officially sponsored by the school and it does not disrupt others from doing their work."

    So a silent prayer before a math quiz is OK, but you can't stand up in class and start inveighing against every demonic confederacy.

  • Ruth wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    “Prayer in schools” isn’t banned; school-mandated prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.

    Someone always quips, "As long as there are tests, there will be prayer in schools."

    I see what you did there.
  • Dave W--
    Dave W wrote: »
    “Prayer in schools” isn’t banned; school-mandated prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.

    The Supremes' ruling was commonly described as "a ban on school prayer" (Duck Duck Go). Including the NY Times and LA Times. (Links in first two pages of hits.)

    Sure, students can always pray silently. And people eventually figured out students could pray on campus in private groups at lunch or outside school hours--though there was disagreement about that, too.

    I'm not in favor of "official" prayer in public schools. But I'm also a pragmatist, and have heard many news stories over the years about school districts and parents who strongly want it. OTOH, there are kids who aren't religious; don't want to pray in front of other kids; who are of other faiths; etc. So, on that basis, I've sometimes wondered if a compromise could be made to have a few minutes of silence in each home room at the beginning of each school day. It could be used for anything quiet: silent, individual prayer; getting your head together; homework; reading; waking up... ;) And then there's how the students might use it... ;)

    This may all seem weird to you who are reading. But I grew up when these were all active issues. By the time I got to high school, the "ok-ness" of private prayer clubs at school was still an issue--and has periodically been in the news since.

    The combination of America and religion ain't ever "un-fraught".
  • lb--
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    @Golden Key
    The Pledge of Allegiance, or any similar screed in any country, is indoctrination. This is its purpose.
    Prayer, as a regimen, is much the same.

    That's partly true, sure. (I presume you're thinking of indoctrination as a wholly bad, undesirable thing.) Could also be seen as teaching, reminding, uniting, etc.
  • The whole "moment of silence" thing is still a rub-it-in-your-face for the Evangelical Right. Some people don't pray silently. Will Muslim children be allowed to unroll their prayer rugs and do their prayer ritual? Will Orthodox kids be allowed to get out their icons and light candles? It's not about prayer and it's not about God. It's about showing who's boss.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Dave W--
    Dave W wrote: »
    “Prayer in schools” isn’t banned; school-mandated prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.

    The Supremes' ruling was commonly described as "a ban on school prayer" (Duck Duck Go). Including the NY Times and LA Times. (Links in first two pages of hits.)
    We, however, are not writing headlines, and so are not pressed for space and have no need to be inaccurate.
    I've sometimes wondered if a compromise could be made to have a few minutes of silence in each home room at the beginning of each school day.
    That’s hardly a compromise - any school district could do that right now without a problem. But it wouldn’t satisfy prayer advocates, since what the constitution forbids is precisely the thing they want: the ability to use state power to force people to recognize their god.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Golden Key wrote: »
    lb--
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    @Golden Key
    The Pledge of Allegiance, or any similar screed in any country, is indoctrination. This is its purpose.
    Prayer, as a regimen, is much the same.

    That's partly true, sure. (I presume you're thinking of indoctrination as a wholly bad, undesirable thing.) Could also be seen as teaching, reminding, uniting, etc.
    No, it cannot. Prayer without a lesson discussing the prayer is not teaching.
    Indoctrination is a bad thing, Unfortunately it is not completely avoidable. It is pretty much impossible to raise and/or teach children without instilling something of our values. This is not inherently a bad thing, but easily becomes less than good.
    I've mentioned before that my early childhood was in a ethnically mixed environment where no value was place on the differences between ethnicities or colour. But most children are not so raised and that is a huge reason racism is so entrenched.
    Religion is no different. This is Right and that is Wrong, whether it is wrong or WRONG, has lasting consequence in the way the future adult thinks.

    And what mt said.
  • By the time I got to middle school, I began to wonder why I was pledging allegiance to a flag. I also thought it was idolatry.

    The American Civil Liberties once had a pamphlet that talked about the freedom of religion in US Public Schools. I tried to find it online but it does not seem to be there.
    In any case, as I recall, here are some points:

    1. Students may pray individually as long as it does not disrupt the class.
    2. Bible clubs are allowed during periods set aside for extracurricular activities as long as school staff are not involved in any leadership capacity.
    3. Children may be allowed to sing their favorite hymn in an open student talent show.
    4. Prosyliting is not allowed during school hours or on public school campuses.
    5. The Bible or any other religious text can be studied as literature.
    6. Studies of history and culture may include religious backgrounds (for instance, how can you study India without mentioning the religious bodies that are part of that culture).
    7. Music programs may include religious music for educational purposes--ie learning Gregorian Chant.
    8. Religious articles worn by students are permitted as long as they do not proselytize.

    The United States does try to find a middle ground respecting the religious freedom of the student.
  • mt--
    mousethief wrote: »
    The whole "moment of silence" thing is still a rub-it-in-your-face for the Evangelical Right. Some people don't pray silently. Will Muslim children be allowed to unroll their prayer rugs and do their prayer ritual? Will Orthodox kids be allowed to get out their icons and light candles? It's not about prayer and it's not about God. It's about showing who's boss.

    I was thinking in terms of praying silently inside themselves, and that anyone who prayed would have that available, regardless of circumstance or belief. There are all sorts of ways to pray; but I may have had an underlying assumption that anyone who prays does sometimes pray inwardly--even if it's just "Help me get through the day"--whatever their outward practices are.

    As I said, I'm not in favor of any kind of forced prayer in school. But--given that some people adamantly *are*, I hate those battles, and I'm a pragmatist--I figured the option I described might be less awful and cool things down.

    FWIW.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    AIUI, anyone who wants to pray before class starts is free to do so with their parents at home or even their friends in the playground. The formally designated minute-of-silence is simply about telling everyone else: "See? The state approves of our prayer so much, they even give us a special time to do it during class hours."

    And while the MOS might appease a few of the people who ARE sincerely interested in praying right before class, I don't think it would do much to dissuade the hardcore theocrats from pursuing their agenda further. Any more than telling them that they don't have to marry someone of the same sex will dissuade them from trying to stop others from doing so.
  • The minute before class is stupid anyway. If one feels the need to have a moment of prayer, they can do it before leaving their homes. Prayer in schools is completely, and purely, a power play.
  • The point of this thread was to discuss how secularism in French public schools may be feeding into the Islamic attacks the French recently experience.

    Which is better absolute secularism as practiced in France, or respect for individual religious liberty as practiced in USA?

    Late last night SCOTUS ruled that the curbs on religious worship attendance due to Covid New York State violated the first amendment clause against government prohibition of religious practices.

    So that means 15,000 Hasidic Jews can cram into an NYC synagogue for a wedding, and the government was out of line for penalizing the community?

    As much as I am for respecting religious liberty there does come a point will the public health of the community takes precedence.

  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    The point of this thread was to discuss how secularism in French public schools may be feeding into the Islamic attacks the French recently experience.

    Which is better absolute secularism as practiced in France, or respect for individual religious liberty as practiced in USA?

    Late last night SCOTUS ruled that the curbs on religious worship attendance due to Covid New York State violated the first amendment clause against government prohibition of religious practices.

    So that means 15,000 Hasidic Jews can cram into an NYC synagogue for a wedding, and the government was out of line for penalizing the community?

    As much as I am for respecting religious liberty there does come a point will the public health of the community takes precedence.
    The Supreme Court decision illustrates the hypocrisy in the way the US deals with the supposed separation of church and state. Religion is given preferential treatment in defiance of the original intent of the Constitution.
    The US does not have respect for individual religious liberty, it has a preference towards Protestant Christianity. If the US actually practised what it preached, there might be a basis for comparison.

  • Re Supreme Court and religious services during Covid:

    (Focusing primarily on Christian churches and Jewish services, 'cause I'm not sure what anyone else is doing.)

    I think the reported behavior is dangerous, unwise, and embarrassing. It assumes persecution where none is intended. It ignores the health of both the people of the religious communities, and also everyone else. It screams "we're the most important; other people don't matter; of COURSE God will protect us (if there's even really anything to protect us from); and we're seriously out of touch with reality". Basically, the childhood taunt "nyah-nyah nyah-nyah NYAH-nyah".

    I also think much of it is one of the many ways of totally freaking out about the pandemic. For the Christians involved, there's probably a big dose of End Times apocalyptic thinking, fed and strengthened by the not-for-much-longer president. And realizing, however unconsciously, that a lot of things in the past several years seem to resonate with certain interpretations of End Times prophecy. (I'm not endorsing those views.)

    tl;dr: They're out of their minds, over the edge, and somewhere in the next county past "The Outer Limits" TV series.

    As to the Jewish wedding: Before that hit the news, there was another story about a leader in the NYC Hassidic or Orthodox Jewish community telling his people not to get tested for Covid, because possible high numbers might convince the authorities to interfere and keep them from doing things. Given all that Jews have been through, that makes some sense--except in a pandemic.

    And I can't imagine wanting thousands (or even hundreds) of people at your wedding, let alone inviting them.
    :shudder:
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    The minute before class is stupid anyway. If one feels the need to have a moment of prayer, they can do it before leaving their homes. Prayer in schools is completely, and purely, a power play.
    My apologies for saying this @lilbuddha but adding "is completely, and purely," turns what might be an interesting comment into no more than factious rhetoric.

    It may be that in your own culture this has become solely a matter of power politics, though if things have reached that state, then it will follow that not having prayer in schools is also "completely, and purely, a power play". I suspect that in France, which as @Gramps49 is the culture this thread started as being about, this may be so. If so, in any culture, that is sad. But there have been and are plenty of other places and other cultures where this is not so, and other where there may be elements of this, but there are other elements and other issues involved as well.

Sign In or Register to comment.