|
Grex > Agora46 > #135: What you always wanted to know about the USA and its citizens <-- For Non-US grexers | |
|
| Author |
Message |
sj2
|
|
What you always wanted to know about the USA and its citizens <-- For Non-US grexers
| 
Jul 31 09:10 UTC 2003 |
Who goes first?
|
| 79 responses total. |
mynxcat
|
|
response 1 of 79:
|
Jul 31 13:05 UTC 2003 |
Me first...
Why do people fight about a religious monument on public property, but
don't bat an eye when the president spouts religion, quoting the bible
and in essence calls gays sinners?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 2 of 79:
|
Jul 31 13:24 UTC 2003 |
The First Amendment has two clauses about religion: one saying the government
can't promote it (the "Establishment" clause), and one saying the
government can't interfere with individuals' rights to practice it ("Free
Exercise"). They frequently lead to results that look contradictory on the
surface, but actually aren't.
Here, the monument in a public park gets dinged for promoting religion --
while Bush's Bible quotes are protected by his right to free exercise of
his personal beliefs. I wouldn't say people aren't batting an eye,
though; many find his remarks deeply offensive and will hold them against
him come election time. They just know there's no point in trying to do
anything about the fact that our president is a bigot.
Side issue:
There's also some argument over the meaning of the Establishment clause,
with some taking the position that it only forbids the government to
promote specific religions (the extremists in that direction claim all it
forbids is the establishment of an official state church like in England),
and others -- like me -- arguing that it bars the promotion of religion
even in the general sense.
People may be comfortable with the use of the word "God" in places like
the Plege of Allegiance (it promotes "religion as a concept"), but may
still be uncomfortable with actual New Testament quotes on public property
because they're specifically Christian.
|
janc
|
|
response 3 of 79:
|
Jul 31 13:48 UTC 2003 |
In theory, I think the president has two voices. One where he speaks as the
mouthpiece of the nation, and one where he speaks his personal opinions. I
certainly have no problem with the president saying religious things in his
personal voice. He's allowed to be as religious as the next man, to worship
the God of his own choice. He's allowed to talk about his faith in public,
and the role it has in the choices he makes.
But religion should not be a factor when speaking as the mouthpiece of the
nation.
That really is a hard line to draw though. Even when the president
understands it, the media and the nation often don't. Once Bush Sr remarked
that he didn't like broccoli. There was a huge uproar from the broccoli
lobby. He had to issue an apology and broccoli was prominent on the white
house menu for a while. This is silly. The man is allowed to not like
broccoli, without it becoming a matter of national debate.
However, a lot of our current political leaders, including our president, blur
the line pretty fiercely. God is in almost all of his speeches. He invokes
religion in support of particular policies. There are still limits. He
doesn't say "we should attack Iraq because God said we should". But his
penchant for invoking God at every opportunity is certainly one of the many
things I don't like about him.
Why does America tolerate it? The fact remains that Americans are still
mostly Christian. We do fairly well at tolerating other faiths, but I think
for most Americans tolerating Christianity in Government isn't really a matter
of toleration at all. They hardly notice it, and take it for granted.
Talking this way still gains Baby Bush more votes than it costs him.
The people opposing religious monuments in parks are a vocal minority, opposed
by another vocal minority. Most people don't care one way or the other.
Because of the complexity introduced by Bush's right to be religious as a
person, if not as the representative of the nation, attacking his right to
say such things would be a great deal harder than attacking a monument in
the park. I have a great deal more respect for politicians who do not use
their faith as a cheap trick to win voters. But I'd be very reluctant to
try to formally restrict their right to do so.
|
janc
|
|
response 4 of 79:
|
Jul 31 13:49 UTC 2003 |
Joe slipped in with a somewhat similar opinion.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 5 of 79:
|
Jul 31 14:19 UTC 2003 |
Why does it have to be a cheap trick? If the man truly believes, which is my
impression, why does his mention of God and his beliefs have to be anything
but his own need to speak about it? (After all, one of our, ah,
responsibilities as Christians is to bear witness to our faith. A lot of
people forget that, but it's still a part of Christianity.)
Speaking as someone who sometimes wonders just what's WRONG with being a
Christian...
|
micklpkl
|
|
response 6 of 79:
|
Jul 31 14:40 UTC 2003 |
Nothing is WRONG with either being a Christian or even bearing witness
to your Christian faith, of course. I'm not trying to invalidate your
impression of "the man" either, but *my* impression is somewhat
different. Is one of his Responsibilites as a Christian to criminialise
the lives of others because he has judged us to be immoral?
I really tire of this argument, that Christians are persecuted in this
country. Believe what you want, but don't keep insisting on legislating
your concept of morality for the rest of us.
|
other
|
|
response 7 of 79:
|
Jul 31 14:49 UTC 2003 |
There is a fine distinction, and it is even a question as to whether it
still exists in the political arena, between the expression of personal
religious beliefs, and playing to an audience of people who relate to
those beliefs.
If it is the latter, then it is a device (I wouldn't use the phrase cheap
trick in this context) being used for political gain and the result IS
the cheapening of religious belief. There is a proper "place" for even
public testimony of belief in the context of a diverse society, and many
would legitimately argue that the official activities of the President
are not it, if only because even the appearance of official expression of
a particular (and exclusive) religious belief denies a measure of public
legitimacy to all others.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 8 of 79:
|
Jul 31 15:07 UTC 2003 |
I understand what jmsaul and janc are saying. The president has a
right to free speech and to say what he wants. However, like janc
said, when he acts as mouth-piece for the nation, or represents the
government (as he was doing on this occasion, with his comments of
codifying a law), he shouldn't bring religion into it, and one
particular religion at that. I agree with janc, it's not comfortable
listening to a president using God in all his speeches. Sure, the
majority is christian, but by invoking God, he's excluding people with
other beliefs. A very subtle form of discrimination, in my opinion.
When you talk about keeping religion out of the governemnt, it should
include the president. I'm not saying he should stop praying, or going
to work. But he shouldn't be using religious concepts in all his
speeches. His job is not to preach. If that's what he wanted to do, he
should have become a preacher
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 9 of 79:
|
Jul 31 15:08 UTC 2003 |
In the last para, I meant gong to "church". Sorry.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 10 of 79:
|
Jul 31 15:10 UTC 2003 |
Oh, I'm not saying I *agree* with what he said, btw. I'm just annoyed that
every time someone may be actually just expressing something they honestly
believe (in this case, at least, I get the impression that it's something he
does believe, agree with it or not) it's dismissed as playing politics or a
"cheap trick". Not everyone plays politics all the time, not even politicians.
Mick, sweetie, have I *ever* tried to say I want to legislate your morality?
I don't. I have my own morality, as you know, and I may not always *agree*
with choices some people have made (including my own children, which jmsaul
will bring up, even if I don't -- hi Joe!), but I figure it's your life, and
your own choice. I ain't God, and I figure I've got enough trouble trying to
keep my own life in some kind of semblance of moral behavior to go trying to
legislate what anyone else does. But that's ME. It just annoys me when some
people try to say that all Christians are alike and we all want X. We all
don't. Everyone is different, and everyone has his or her own ideas on what's
right or wrong. Capisce?
|