Freethought & Rationalism Archive

SLD · 04-30-2003, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NYCparalegal
So, if the majority is of the same religion I guess this justifies having the President of a supposedly secular nation basically satisfying the whims of the majority at the expense of the minority? Doesn't this really make the President really the President of the Christian majority, rather than the US of A?

My point is simply this. Because this nation of over 250 milliion people with varying faiths, beliefs, etc. is governed by a republican form of government, not a theocracy, its leader should refrain from selecting one of these varying beliefs, even if it is the belief of the majority, when making public addresses, speeches, etc.

I think we as freethinkers, need to get over is this notion of being "offended." Let me state at the outset that I didn't vote for Bush, nor any Republican for the last 10 years, and I do not support any of his other theocratic ideas. But I am not offended by Christianity or Christian messages and even if I were, tough. There is no right to not to be offended. By emphasizing this approach, I think we risk alienating others who do not take the time to study the issue more in depth.

Madison did not view the separation of church and state as something to protect us from being offended, but because he recognized that establishing churches ultimately led to religious repression. When government officials are allowed to use the power of their office to compel worship we are in serious trouble. That is what happens in school prayer - even if it is only "voluntary." But to many Christians, the issue is that non-Christians will be offended by school prayer. Bovine Scat!!! All government officials, especially those we can't vote out of office, have power over us. Perhaps it is something as trivial as grading our papers (which actually isn't trivial considering the price of college admissions these days), or as powerful as arresting us or determining whether to accept our tax deduction that we innocently claimed on our 1040 last year. Using a prayer or religious reference in such a context is a clear violation of church - and state, and has nothing to do with whether I am offended, but directly impacts my freedoms.

But Bush isn't really doing this - he is simply acknowledging that Christians celebrate Easter. whoop tee doo. And muslims celebrate ramadan. whoop tee doo. Now Bush may ignore us heathen scum but since we don't have a day to celebrate (or at least not one that is universally celebrated by freethinkers), he can't make a statement for us in any event, so I really don't care. But now if he said that all of the rest of us who don't celebrate a pagan mystery cults rites are going to hell and aren't real Americans, etc., then we'd have a real problem. Then he would be using his power as a President to say that I am not a real American and that I should not enjoy the same rights as other Americans. That's beyond "offensive" - that creates a serious danger to me personally and to my liberties.

But Bush, to his credit, hasn't said anything of the sort, and I don't think we should take him to task unless he does say something that implies that we don't enjoy the same rights as others. As far as I know, only one President has ever done so (correct me guys if I'm wrong about this), and that was Bush the Elder who stated that Atheists can't be citizens because we are one nation under god. That was a scary statement.

To close it out, one simple point that Madison's biographer makes: In this country we have separation of church and state, but religion and politics are inextricably intertwined.

Political figures will always use religious rhetoric for votes. It's been going on for over 200 years and it ain't gonna stop anytime soon.

SLD

Nickle · 05-01-2003, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pariahSS
is it that bad? every president has been protestant except for kennedy...

source?

Nickle · 05-01-2003, 12:40 PM

oops

Oresta · 05-01-2003, 01:29 PM

SLD
But Bush isn't really doing this - he is simply acknowledging that Christians celebrate Easter.

To me, his message reads more like proselytizing than a simple holiday greeting from his family to yours. If, as the message says, he is sending greetings "to those observing Easter," why all the explanation about the resurrection that follows? I would give my last nickle that this was written by Franklin Graham. It's got his syntax all over it.

Quote:

I send greetings to those observing Easter. Easter is the most important event of the Christian faith, when people around the world join together with family and friends to celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the hope of life to come.

For Christians, the life and death of Jesus are the ultimate expressions of love, and the supreme demonstrations of God's mercy, faithfulness, and redemption. Since Christ's miraculous Resurrection on Easter, more than 2,000 years ago, Christians have expressed joy and gratitude for this wondrous sacrifice and for God's promise of freedom for the oppressed, healing for the brokenhearted, and salvation.

john_v_h · 05-01-2003, 03:01 PM

I agree with Oresta. The President's Eid and Passover greetings treat "their" practices from a cultural perspective. The Easter greeting, on the other hand, frequently refers to "we" and "us" and invokes "Christ" rather than just sending "best wishes." The purpose is clear.

05-02-2003, 05:37 PM

Alright, admittedly, Bush is a nutjob and the speech is indirect prosetylization, but, I don't think acknowledging Easter is bad for separation of church and state. Acknowledging a majority opinion in a democracy isn't always a bad thing. When the majority opresses, the minorities must speak up, but, to me, this isn't too offensive, and I'm a strong proponent of separation.

Sorry, but acknowledging the culture of the majority(and do not read into this like I know many of you are), isn't always the worst thing in the world. Bushes motives are messed up, and he's an idiot, and all that, but I cannot see how this letter violates separation.

05-02-2003, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Pardon my disgust, I gag when I see posts in this forum from "the Majority Rules" morons. These half-wits need to read Madison's writings of the tyranny of the majority. That is, after having developed some talent for critical thinking.

Maybe you should read our history....

We are a republic. The majority does rule(theoretically). he majority SHOULD rule. However, there is a need for protections against tyranny of the majority, and that would be the Supreme Court. That doesn't change the fact that the majority should say how they are governed. When the minority starts telling people how they are governed, guess what thats called? Totalitarianism.

Oresta · 05-03-2003, 04:57 PM

himynameisPyn:
We are a republic. The majority does rule(theoretically). he majority SHOULD rule. However, there is a need for protections against tyranny of the majority, and that would be the Supreme Court. That doesn't change the fact that the majority should say how they are governed. When the minority starts telling people how they are governed, guess what thats called? Totalitarianism.

The Bill of Rights was conceived to protect the minority. Specifically, as to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendement, that's what it's all about.

In 1782, this is Jefferson's account of the terrible consequences to religious minorities where religious majority ruled.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...mentprint=291.

Quote:

The first settlers in this country were emigrants from England, of the English church, just at a point of time when it was flushed with complete victory over the religious of all other persuasions. Possessed, as they became, of the powers of making, administering, and executing the laws, they shewed equal intolerance in this country with their Presbyterian brethren, who had emigrated to the northern government. The poor Quakers were flying from persecution in England. They cast their eyes on these new countries as asylums of civil and religious freedom; but they found them free only for the reigning sect. Several acts of the Virginia assembly of 1659, 1662, and 1693, had made it penal in parents to refuse to have their children baptized; had prohibited the unlawful assembling of Quakers; had made it penal for any master of a vessel to bring a Quaker into the state; had ordered those already here, and such as should come thereafter, to be imprisoned till they should abjure the country; provided a milder punishment for their first and second return, but death for their third; had inhibited all persons from suffering their meetings in or near their houses, entertaining them individually, or disposing of books which supported their tenets. If no capital execution took place here, as did in New-England, it was not owing to the moderation of the church, or spirit of the legislature, as may be inferred from the law itself; but to historical circumstances which have not been handed down to us. The Anglicans retained full possession of the country about a century. Other opinions began then to creep in, and the great care of the government to support their own church, having begotten an equal degree of indolence in its clergy, two-thirds of the people had become dissenters at the commencement of the present revolution. The laws indeed were still oppressive on them, but the spirit of the one party had subsided into moderation, and of the other had risen to a degree of determination which commanded respect.

If Jefferson were posting here today (He would have loved this forum.) This undoubtedly would have been his response to Bush's use of his government role to promote a religion. (Emphasis mine.):

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jeffer...s/jeff1650.htm

"I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429

.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-01-2003, 12:40 PM	#33
Nickle Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 385	oops

05-01-2003, 03:01 PM	#35
john_v_h Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: San Francisco, California Posts: 1,760	I agree with Oresta. The President's Eid and Passover greetings treat "their" practices from a cultural perspective. The Easter greeting, on the other hand, frequently refers to "we" and "us" and invokes "Christ" rather than just sending "best wishes." The purpose is clear.

05-02-2003, 05:37 PM	#36
himynameisPwn Guest Posts: n/a	Alright, admittedly, Bush is a nutjob and the speech is indirect prosetylization, but, I don't think acknowledging Easter is bad for separation of church and state. Acknowledging a majority opinion in a democracy isn't always a bad thing. When the majority opresses, the minorities must speak up, but, to me, this isn't too offensive, and I'm a strong proponent of separation. Sorry, but acknowledging the culture of the majority(and do not read into this like I know many of you are), isn't always the worst thing in the world. Bushes motives are messed up, and he's an idiot, and all that, but I cannot see how this letter violates separation.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.