Religion in public

Some may have noticed I've been extremely critical of Christianity in some of my posts. This is primarily because Christianity is the majority religion category in the nation and many in the Christian community (definitely not all and I would not even say a majority of the Christian community) take advantage of this status to seek government funding of their belief system.

As I see it with religion, there are legalities and then there is common courtesy.

Legally, the government cannot prefer one religion over another by funding it. This is clearly set in the first and fourteenth amendments to the constitution. Religion cannot be imposed by the government on a captive audience, such as in a school. By the same token, government cannot restrain religion either.

So some general principals of law with respect to religion in the public sphere are easily drawn:

1) A local government paying for and placing a nativity creche on public lands entwines the state with religion and establishes religion, thus it is unconstitutional.

2) A local government that allows the local Lion's club to put up a nativity creche on public lands, but also allows all groups and individuals to use those public lands, has not entwined itself with religion and is serving the purpose of management of the public lands. Those who disagree with the nativity scene are free to place their displays alongside the scene. Should the local government allow the private nativity scene but ban a menorah or a banner reading "Celebrate the real reason for the season, the Solstice" or another religion's display, the local government has established religion and is violating the constitution.

3) A public school teacher who leads a prayer in class is acting as an agent of the state and thus has established religion.

4) A public school official who denies a student or group of students the right to pray on their own time while on school grounds is also acting as an agent of the state and has violated the free exercise clause.

Really, when you come down to it, the legalities of religion within the public sphere are pretty much common sense.

Common courtesy dictates some other things. Christians are called upon to evangelize and proselytize. I find this rude behavior, but I understand that Christians feel compelled to do this. Generally, when first approached, I nicely state I am not interested. Common courtesy dictates that the attempt at proselytizing end there an then. Those who ignore common courtesy deserve any rude behavior directed at them in answer to their own rudeness, and believe me, you do not want to see how I react to somebody who refuses to give it up when I am nice about not being interested.

So common courtesy is also all about common sense and really, this is the way religion in the public sphere should be presented. Just be sensible about it. I'm not terribly impressed with Christian beliefs, but I can respect a person's right to believe that way so long as that respect is reciprocated. Unfortunately, in our society, coarseness and bullying seem to outweigh common courtesy, especially online. I'm as guilty as the next person, but it's very easy for somebody to not realize that I might hold religious beliefs that are not anywhere near what the mainstream believes and that puts me on the defensive a lot.

Overall, nearly all of the Christians I've met on DU fall into the sensible category and I would suspect they would never display some of the rude behavior in real life I've been exposed to by Christians in real life. Of course, most of those experiences were in an area of the country where fundamentalism is the rule rather than the exception.

(What a radical idea)
Seriously, I suspect that this reflects the views of the majority of Americans.
It's just that the minority is so damn "in yer face" that their effect is all out of proportion to their number.

Where have I heard that before?

I'm well aware of the fact that an insignificant but vocal minority is responsible for the current "wild eyed" view of Christiainty many have.

and not be bragged on, flaunted, or shoved in others faces.

My good friend, a director on the local Lutheran board is completely a believer in this concept of a personal and private relationship with the Lord. Celebration of the faith should be with those who voluntarily meet with each other.

One caveat, though. The idea of opening the common up for all displays sometimes breaks down when one group or another "goes too far" -- then the government is dragged in to decide what is "too far" and what is not. Can get messy. Courtesy and common sense ought to kick in at this point, but... :)

"... 1) A local government paying for and placing a nativity creche on public lands entwines the state with religion and establishes religion, thus it is unconstitutional.

2) A local government that allows the local Lion's club to put up a nativity creche on public lands, but also allows all groups and individuals to use those public lands, has not entwined itself with religion and is serving the purpose of management of the public lands. Those who disagree with the nativity scene are free to place their displays alongside the scene. Should the local government allow the private nativity scene but ban a menorah or a banner reading "Celebrate the real reason for the season, the Solstice" or another religion's display, the local government has established religion and is violating the constitution."

A tactic both sides will use--someone who doesn't like such displays puts up one that is deliberately offensive--or else some christian pushs the display as far as possible to creat a conflict. The later is happening a lot this season, as some Conservatives see this holiday season as a time to wipe out liberals, apparently.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

:shrug:

:kick: