Nira

Knowledge is a dangerous ting.

Buffman

Just in case some folks are wondering what on earth I'm talking about on this string:

<a href="http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord2000/euro2000/vol2/norwayecri.htm" target="_blank">http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord2000/euro2000/vol2/norwayecri.htm</a>

Nira

I guess the initial questions are rhetorical, so I’ll concentrate on the main point.

The point I’m trying to make is that a conflict has two sides. Having the 10 commandments on a government building is undesirable, but by making it a juridical offence and suing left, right and centre what do you achieve?

It becomes a conflict of principles, and that is seldom good. As I said we have the abomination of a state religion in Norway, and we are going in the secular direction slowly but surly. The ones having faith is more of “weak” Christians.

By going on a frontal attack, I fear that the Christian power base would increase in the matters that count until it would be possible for a man like Ashcroft to take office.

I guess I like evolution better than revolution, as a heightened level of aggression have consequences of it’s own and in the end you might achieve the opposite of what you are out to do.

If I have gotten it right, the fundie Christians are getting stronger in the US (politically), and they have the ACLU to bounce of and thus attract the far right.

Jewel

I understand the point you are trying to make, however I think, like many things, it works better on paper.

If we say nothing and allow the government to favor those with their religion over those with another religion or no religion at all, what do we achieve? Nothing. Silence accomplishes nothing. Atheists are vilified in the puplic sector here. Unless we speak up and demand that the Constitution be upheld for everyone the government will continue to ignore us.

That is how change happens here. It is sad that it has to be done through lawsuits, but some things are worth fighting for.


Yes, Norway is a Church State and yes it has gotten more secular over time. How long did it take your country to get this far? Our country has come a long way, too, and I think things are getting better. But we still have a ways to go.

The framers of this country had high hopes when they drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They saw the dangers of religion and government entanglement and they sought to prevent that here.

</strong>

What made it possible for Ashcroft to take office is a topic for another thread.

Revolution has it's place. And sometimes it is nessessary. The fundy Americans are not nessessarily getting stronger politically. It wavers a bit. During election times polititions tend to focuse on a few core 'issues' to get the conservative vote. Also the fundy organizations have a lot of money that the polititions want, so they pander. Our current administration is more religious than most and we must keep them in check.

We have people of every (or nearly) political and religious background here. This is a diverse nation. For the most part we get along, but sometimes we don't. That's to be expected in a country of this size.

It isn't just a matter of us pushing and them pushing back. Even if we did stay silent, our opposition would not. They are in the business to preach and convert.

-Jewel

Bialar Crais

Well.Of course I know this is the fringe (I happen to know a few yanks IRL so I have no illusion of them all beeing, how did you put it: "Racists, homophobes and nutcases"?

What I meant was that there seems to be a lot larger fundamentalist christian fringe in the US than in Europe. I know we have our fundy YEC kooks (I happened to work with two such ppl) as well. But I never encountered that level of hostility wich seems to be aimed at atheists in the US. Not from the fundies who visits places like this but from athiests describing their own encounters when "coming out" (an expression I only heard in conjunction with homosexuals before, never among agnostic/atheists).

I do not take BBS and similar thinges for the real world, rest assured.
We recently kicked ours out. I think the swedish state church become a non-state church as late as 2000. OTOH, that church hadn't really wielded any real power for several decades.

What consequences would it be if the church was separated from the state? Sure, they might turn homophobes again but as long as they don't wield any power within the government I don't frankly care.

</strong>

In what way would it empower such people? If a majority of the people (as seems to be the case in the scanuck countries) is agnostic/atheist in reality (I count 'habitual christans' agnostics, you know the kind who baptize their kids becuase it is a tradition, the sqame for confirmations, weddings, etc..) I can't really see where their power would come from.

That I can agree with to a cerain degree.

Vorkosigan

It?s not a given that a battle organisation like the ACLU (?) in the US is all that positive, as it tends to create an equally battle happy opposition. As I said, it creates it?s own self-fulfilling prophesies.

You have this backwards. The ACLU was created to fight idiocy. The ACLU is the result of idiocy; the idiocy is not the result of the ACLU.

The reason we sue, Nira, is that other options are ineffective, and we do not want to indulge in the violence and intimidation tactics that our opponents use (in prayer cases it is common for the plaintiffs, who are always other Christians, to get death threats from Christians. In Oklahoma in 1980 or so, the plaintiffs had their house burnt down by the pro-prayer crowd in town). Remember that filing suit is not the only tactic we use, but it is the one that the media notices. We also write letters, talk, form associations, lobby, publish press releases, and a hundred other things. But lawsuits are the only ones the media picks up on.

You are fortunate to live in a country where irreligion is secure. We are not.

Vorkosigan

AspenMama

Off you go to Church/State separation.

hezekiah jones

Believe it or not, Ashcroft is a member of the national cabinet right now because he lost a local election to a dead person.

enrious

I think you have him confused with Tom Ridge. Or did they both lose to dead opponents?

hezekiah jones

Ashcroft lost his Senate seat to the even-then-late Mel Carnahan. (To be fair, Ashcroft lost to Carnahan's widow, Jean.)

To which stiff did Tom Ridge lose?