Does this season always bring out the nutcases?

[Mooseman]

That's weird, I could've sworn I posted a reply this morning on this thread....

Quiet everyone, I think KJ wants to say something............... Go ahead KJ.....

 

[BigBlue]

It's the extremes which give cause for discussion and debate... Moderation is "boring". (/tongue in cheek)

Nativity scenes and other religious icons do not belong on government property.

Whatever you believe a seperation of church from state means, you should acknowledge that the government must not promote one religion above others. When you agree to work for the government, you give up certain rights of expression while on the job. If you don't like it, find other clerical work or whatever and ask if they allow religious icons to be displayed - probably most, not all, will allow it).

I don't have a problem with christians working in the Government. I don't think they should promote that however w/ a nativity scene, angels, etc). I don't advocate any other religious icons either. The basis of Church & State discussions is the freedom of religion and to me this includes not advocating any sort of "state" religion from any majority. How many christians would protest a Menorah at Hanukkah on the capitol building w/ no Christian icons?

How about this article?

http://www.t-g.com/story/1449487.html

Can you imagine if it were more widespread than a single employer, and they swapped out Christmas instead of Labor Day? In point of fact, Christmas should NOT be a paid holiday either. It's the only religious holiday on our calendar with forced "celebration".

It forces me to be a hypocrite and celebrate a day I've no business celebrating... well, I guess I'm celebrating Santa Claus (oh yeah, catholic Saint Nicholas)...

 

[EricBess]

Can you imagine if it were more widespread than a single employer, and they swapped out Christmas instead of Labor Day?

The article specifically states that they are doing this because Eid al-Fitr is just as important to Muslims at Christmas is to Christians, so hypothisizing a removal of Christmas instead of Labor Day is a bit of a stretch.

Personally, I don't see any problem with what they have done. If enough of their employees are Muslim and they are taking the time off anyway, then from a business standpoint, it makes sense. Labor day is rather arbitrary compared to Christmas.

By your logic BigBlue, there shouldn't be any paid holidays. Where I work, they have discovered that a great number of people take vacation days between Christmas and New Years (bridging the holidays), so they decided that the company would shut down for those days. This year, that means 5 extra days. And if I want to get paid for those days, I have to take vacation time. That's an inconvenience for me. Personally, if I could simply work Labor day and have to take one less day of vacation time during the bridge, that would be welcome. I don't think too many people are specifically going to ask for Labor Day off if the company were to institute such a policy.

I think you will find that in general, companies don't open on certain days because it would be impractical to do so. And the fact that they give a certain number of days a year as paid holiday is considered a benefit. So if Tyson decides that in their case, it makes more sense to take Eid al-Fitr, then why not?

To my knowledge, there is not any law against the government employees putting up celebratory holiday decorations and I for one disagree with you about there being "no place".

 

[Mooseman]

Actually, my company added a "floating" holiday that employees can take at anytime during the year..... this alleviates all those "problems" with different religion's celebrations. I think what Tyson did was the wrong way... they should have offered all employees the choice to change one non-federal holiday with another..... like Good Friday for the Eid al-Fitr, or Xmas for some other holiday.... Labor Day is for all workers and is a federal Holiday, so Tyson has no reason to be open that day and religious beliefs have nothing to do with being off that day.

EB: I don't believe anyone is talking about personal decorations in a workspace, but the organized use of public space for religious displays.
I don't see problems with wreaths, Manorahs, Mihrabs, crosses or Bodhi-trees in tastefully small amounts... but the nativity scenes and the like are way to extravagant. Temples, Churches and the like can erect and fund these expressions of their faith on their own property, or the property of their members..... public funds and property are not the correct forum for them.

 

[EricBess]

Moderate strategies tend to produce little change. The payoff for implementing such a strategy isn't likely to be huge. But the potential negative side effects are less likely to be catastrophic. Moderation as a method in government really is "playing it safe." And I don't mean "mostly."

I completely agree with this paragraph. However, you seem to imply (and I could just be reading this in where it isn't there) that you personally prefer a less moderate strategy. Personally, I think there is a lot of change for change sake going on. I don't disagree that some things could do with a change, but I feel that in a lot of areas where some people would like to see change, I would prefer a moderate strategy. If it's not broken, don't fix it. If it is broken, don't just mess with it, but give some thought about consequences and have a backup plan or a fallback in case things don't work. The whole $700 billion bailout is a decent example of this. There was a rash reaction to circumstances and a hope that things would happen a certain way. Another example might be our original "plans" for Iraq. We started a war with no follow-up plan and it became very apparent. Was the war necessary? That's debatable, but I think it is clear at this point that it was not a moderate strategy - just a call for action. Just like completely pulling troups out without considering consequences at this point would be.

I don't agree that the Freedom from Religion Foundation's sign is extreme. It seems kind bland. I suppose it's a subjective value judgment for anyone to make that call, but that's how I call it...

What is interesting about this is that people tend to feel that if something coincides with the way they feel, then it isn't necessary extream. Or at least, not as extream. Personally, I think both signs were intended as attacks and both were extream in that sense. I don't agree with either sign, but neither sign really bothers me.

How is the First Amendment used to attack religions? It specifically addresses government endorsement of religions. It also protects them from the government (the free exercise clause). What's all this about attacks?

Because it is so easy for someone to assert that a public expression of religion is offensive to them.

I respect your arguments about government buildings, I just don't agree with you. But it does seem that more and more of these cases are being ruled in favor of simply removing the religious expression because it is easier than dealing with the vocal few that are claiming offense.

Don't get me wrong - I certainly agree that there are cases where religion isn't appropriate and I'm not trying to say that every case of this is a problem. I'll give an example. Prayer was removed from school classrooms. I think that if the entire class wants to pray, then why not, but I also understand that it is uncomfortable to be the one that wants to speak up, so I'm okay with not putting people in that position (though I don't think having to listen to someone's prayer is tantamount to endocrination). There is a middle ground and prayer groups have been common on many campuses where students who want to can meet before class. The problem comes when you have groups trying to shut down the prayer groups, just because they are happening on the school grounds.

My point - The first amendment was put in place to ensure that everyone could worship however they felt appropriate. It seems that more and more, it is being used as an excuse to say that people shouldn't be allowed to worship publically at all.

But they want to because it gets a message out. They're trying to use this as a forum. And I say, on principle, that they should take their causes somewhere else.

Okay, but what message is being sent? I think that even most non-christians see the nativity as a symbol of peace. Is that such a bad message to be sending? I fail to see how putting up a nativity is requiring anyone to be Christian or even to awknowledge Christ.

 

[Oversoul]

I completely agree with this paragraph. However, you seem to imply (and I could just be reading this in where it isn't there) that you personally prefer a less moderate strategy. Personally, I think there is a lot of change for change sake going on. I don't disagree that some things could do with a change, but I feel that in a lot of areas where some people would like to see change, I would prefer a moderate strategy. If it's not broken, don't fix it. If it is broken, don't just mess with it, but give some thought about consequences and have a backup plan or a fallback in case things don't work. The whole $700 billion bailout is a decent example of this. There was a rash reaction to circumstances and a hope that things would happen a certain way.

Whether I prefer a more or less moderate strategy depends on the situation. Like I said earlier, when I have a great deal of understanding (or even think I do) about an issue, I'm pretty much always an extremist (can't think of a single counterexample right now). When I don't know enough or am ambivalent or worried about the consequences of implementing any strategy, I'm moderate.

The bailout, though, I'm not sure I'd say was extreme. Like I said earlier, moderate positions are typically thought of as something between far-left and far-right positions. The far-left position in this case seemed to be nationalization. The far right position seemed to be letting things fail if they were going to fail. On the other hand, the bailout, from what details I saw, was at least borderline supply-side economics (and I hope that's not what's considered moderate now). So I guess it's a bit complicated because it's extreme in some ways and moderate in others. However you call it, I was against the bailout from the beginning, in case you were wondering...

Another example might be our original "plans" for Iraq. We started a war with no follow-up plan and it became very apparent. Was the war necessary? That's debatable, but I think it is clear at this point that it was not a moderate strategy - just a call for action. Just like completely pulling troups out without considering consequences at this point would be.

I agree.

What is interesting about this is that people tend to feel that if something coincides with the way they feel, then it isn't necessary extream. Or at least, not as extream. Personally, I think both signs were intended as attacks and both were extream in that sense. I don't agree with either sign, but neither sign really bothers me.

Neither sign coincides with the way I feel. I don't really think of either sign as an attack either. The WBC sign is just attention-seeking and the Freedom from Religion Foundation sign is trying to send a message, but not an attack on anyone. An "attack" on "religion" maybe, but no one is a religion. And if attacking a concept as broad as that counts, then a lot of things are attacks. A nativity scene is an attack on good taste.

I was discussing this affair with a very religious friend of mine and he considered the sign to be an attack on "everyone of religion." I actually found it difficult to explain why I thought that was ridiculous, but I do. And that line of thinking wouldn't really be used with anything else. One would never take a person complaining about obesity in America to be an attack on fat people.

Because it is so easy for someone to assert that a public expression of religion is offensive to them.

But that has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

I respect your arguments about government buildings, I just don't agree with you. But it does seem that more and more of these cases are being ruled in favor of simply removing the religious expression because it is easier than dealing with the vocal few that are claiming offense.

Since we're talking about so many things at once, there might have been some confusion here. Understand that my inclination to get rid of all the displays has nothing to do with the First Amendment. The displays are constitutional and probably no court in the country would say otherwise. They aren't the state endorsing a religion. What's happening is that the state is letting non-profits use the Capitol as a forum. No separation clause issues here. The issue is that I believe the Capitol shouldn't be such a forum. I see no real value in it and several problems.

Don't get me wrong - I certainly agree that there are cases where religion isn't appropriate and I'm not trying to say that every case of this is a problem. I'll give an example. Prayer was removed from school classrooms.

No, it wasn't. STATE-LED prayer was removed from school classrooms. Any student can pray at any time if it doesn't cause a disruption. But the teacher leading a prayer in class is obviously a very different issue.

I think that if the entire class wants to pray, then why not, but I also understand that it is uncomfortable to be the one that wants to speak up, so I'm okay with not putting people in that position (though I don't think having to listen to someone's prayer is tantamount to endocrination).

If they want to pray, out loud, during class, then it's probably a disruption, right? Surely you're against disruptions in schools. If they want to pray when it would be appropriate, like between classes or whatever, then they absolutely can. The only prayer that was removed from schools was the kind where the teacher led the prayer.

There is a middle ground and prayer groups have been common on many campuses where students who want to can meet before class. The problem comes when you have groups trying to shut down the prayer groups, just because they are happening on the school grounds.

Those groups tend to be considered constitutional. While I can see a potential separation clause argument there, they aren't receiving any funds from the school or any preferential treatment over secular clubs, so I personally don't see it as a problem. I'm not aware of any landmark cases dealing with prayer groups though. I'm sure suits have come up, just not ones I ever read about.

My point - The first amendment was put in place to ensure that everyone could worship however they felt appropriate. It seems that more and more, it is being used as an excuse to say that people shouldn't be allowed to worship publically at all.

You say it seems that way, but I'm not seeing it.

Okay, but what message is being sent? I think that even most non-christians see the nativity as a symbol of peace. Is that such a bad message to be sending? I fail to see how putting up a nativity is requiring anyone to be Christian or even to awknowledge Christ.

See above. My reasoning for saying that the nativity thing should be taken down isn't based on the First Amendment. It's based on the principle that the Capitol shouldn't be a forum for non-profit groups.

 

[DarthFerret]

Ok, this is going to sound really weird (Even to myself), but I find myself kind of agreeing with most of what Oversoul stated.

I agree that the Capitol should not be a forum for non-profit groups, however keep in mind that someone will probably try to warp that into not allowing those same said groups to peacably assemble in those locations, which is a constituionally guaranteed right.

I personally do not see any reason why anyone should specifically desire to place thier religious ornamentation in any place that is not "thiers" to place it in. Church lawn....fine (we don't because the neighborhood is pretty sticky-fingered), Personal office spaces/cubicles/whatnot, fine (as long as it does not violate company policy). In your home...sure (got the nativity scene up in my house, with Santa stockings hanging over it...am I bad?). In your neighbors yard....not so much. In front of the courthouse...again, probably not the right place for it.

BTW, just to point out, there is more prayer in schools than you probably believe is happening (especially right before a final exam)!

 

[Mooseman]

I agree that the Capitol should not be a forum for non-profit groups, however keep in mind that someone will probably try to warp that into not allowing those same said groups to peacably assemble in those locations, which is a constituionally guaranteed right.

Shouldn't you include all groups? Why just "non-profit"?

I personally do not see any reason why anyone should specifically desire to place thier religious ornamentation in any place that is not "thiers" to place it in. Church lawn....fine (we don't because the neighborhood is pretty sticky-fingered), Personal office spaces/cubicles/whatnot, fine (as long as it does not violate company policy). In your home...sure (got the nativity scene up in my house, with Santa stockings hanging over it...am I bad?). In your neighbors yard....not so much. In front of the courthouse...again, probably not the right place for it.

I'd even say public parks are OK , as long as all the requisite fees are paid and permits issued.

BTW, just to point out, there is more prayer in schools than you probably believe is happening (especially right before a final exam)!

I have no problem for a moment of silence for students and teachers to do what they want.... just as long as it's not disruptive....

 

[Oversoul]

Shouldn't you include all groups? Why just "non-profit"?

Because right now, those are the ones who can put displays up at the Capitol in Olympia. Other groups are already disallowed from doing so.

 

[DarthFerret]

Right. I used the words "non-profit" simply because they were the groups that were refered to earlier. Basically was trying to stay on-topic as it were.

 

[Killer Joe]

Basically was trying to stay on-topic as it were.

Yeah because Heaven forbid you go off-topic your post gets whacked!

 

[Spiderman]

No one's post got whacked, simply because I wasn't even here for most of last week. Ithink you just forgot to hit the Reply button

 

[EricBess]

I haven't been on for a while. My Grandmother (who was getting on in years and had been diagnosed with Cancer, so this wasn't necessarily unexpected or even sad...) passed away on the 17th and I was out attending the funeral and away from the internet for about a week.

In response to Oversoul's last post however...I appreciate that you clarified and I am in complete agreement. I have less problem with people putting up a traditional nativity, however, but I concede that there may be better, more appropriate places. If there are no conflicts and other groups who want to put things up are also allowed to, I also don't see any harm it it, though...

In general, I would say that most people who put up a nativity are not trying to push an agenda, though. I think they simply want to share the spirit of Christmas. Though specific cases may vary on that, so it is imposible to completely generalize the intent.

 

[Oversoul]

In general, I would say that most people who put up a nativity are not trying to push an agenda, though. I think they simply want to share the spirit of Christmas. Though specific cases may vary on that, so it is imposible to completely generalize the intent.

I think we agree here. I don't remember actually putting it in those terms (pushing an agenda), but it's something I might have said. Sharing the spirit of Christmas IS an agenda of sorts, but the word "agenda" often seems to connote, to some people at least, that there's something sinister. That need not be the case. "Push" could seem kinda strong though, for something as innocuous as a simple display.

So basically I agree that they probably do simply want to share Christmas spirit, rather than something more sinister or belligerent, whatever that might be. I ALSO think that it's technically correct that they're trying to "push an agenda," although I'm not sure about the word choice of that. Did I phrase it that way earlier in this thread? Oh well.

 

[EricBess]

Looking back, turgy was the one that equated it with "furthering a political agenda" and an apology to turgy if I misunderstood his context.