atheists going too far?

I agree, Gregg......and there is a HUGE difference between that high school student thanking his/her god for helping them through those years, just as they would thank parents, teachers, etc., and say, an elected official coming to that graduation in a public school and saying something like, "only with the help of Jesus Christ (or "only by the goodness of Allah", or "only with the intervention of the divine Goddess", etc), have these students been able to get through their school years, and unless they continue to follow (name of god here), they will not meet with success in life."

One is a heartfelt admission from an individual person of their belief, and inappropriate for a government official. It doesn't seem all that hard to me. Government officials, as their own private person, can hold whatever beliefs they like, and govern their lives according to that belief, but in their official capacity as a government official can simply not elevate one religion over all others or over no religion at all, because this country is not a theological country, it is a pluralistic secular country with freedom of religion for all people, and freedom FROM religion for all people as well, in any official government capacity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

Government officials, as their own private person, can hold whatever beliefs they like, and govern their lives according to that belief, but in their official capacity as a government official can simply not elevate one religion over all others or over no religion at all, because this country is not a theological country, it is a pluralistic secular country with freedom of religion for all people, and freedom FROM religion for all people as well, in any official government capacity.

---

That's where I disagree with you. There is no prohibition against anyone in government expressing their religious beliefs.

Well, it won't be the first time we disagree, Alan, ;-) And, to me, there is a world of difference between a person in government expressing their personal beliefs, and a person in government in their official role as a government official, bringing religion into their official duties at all. Not that it doesn't happen, but when it does, many people are going to object.

And when said official is part of a religion that is dominant in the country, with a large percentage of citizens sharing the same belief, they'll probably get away with it, and were the official to be a member of a minority religion, or an atheist, there would (literally) be H*ll to pay).

I wonder how Fox News would have felt if the road sign had been put up by some fringe Muslim group, and was called something like "Our Firefighters, Now Rewarded with 72 Virgins Way". The atheists would still be p*ssed off, either way, but Fox News....probably not covering the presence of the sign quite so positively.

This is so much just one of the ways that a small group manages to get a lot of publicity for their views, a media organization manages to gin up a big controversy about it, the little group gets publicity, the media organization makes money......the firefighters are still dead (regardless of their own religious philosophies), and the dance goes on.

I think there's a difference between expressing belief and sculpting policy to the tune of that belief, potentially creating laws which favor one sect/group over another. But it's hard for me to assume that someone who is so fervent in the expression of their religious beliefs wouldn't take that extra step to making them into public policy, which is why I shy away from voting for anyone who is vehemently vocal about beliefs I don't share.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

Well, it won't be the first time we disagree, Alan, ;-) And, to me, there is a world of difference between a person in government expressing their personal beliefs, and a person in government in their official role as a government official, bringing religion into their official duties at all. Not that it doesn't happen, but when it does, many people are going to object.

---

That's the problem with looking at the world through the lens of moral relativity and trying to justify it with talk of separation of church and state hyperbole. Sometimes we just need to acknowledge that people are allowed to object, whether it's justified or not.

Quote:

---

And when said official is part of a religion that is dominant in the country, with a large percentage of citizens sharing the same belief, they'll probably get away with it, and were the official to be a member of a minority religion, or an atheist, there would (literally) be H*ll to pay).

---

There's no legal hell to pay, just public opinion. That's the way things work in a representative democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kib

I think there's a difference between expressing belief and sculpting policy to the tune of that belief, potentially creating laws which favor one sect/group over another. But it's hard for me to assume that someone who is so fervent in the expression of their religious beliefs wouldn't take that extra step to making them into public policy, which is why I shy away from voting for anyone who is vehemently vocal about beliefs I don't share.

---

That's why there are checks and balances built into the governmental structure, to prevent abuses.

I think you should shy away from voting for anyone who is vehemently vocal about beliefs you don't share, and if you are in the minority, it may not do you any good. Again, that's the way a representative democracy works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

That's why there are checks and balances built into the governmental structure, to prevent abuses.

I think you should shy away from voting for anyone who is vehemently vocal about beliefs you don't share, and if you are in the minority, it may not do you any good. Again, that's the way a representative democracy works.

---

True, very true. I think it's the startling rightward shift of politics in the past few decades that have me more vocal and frustrated as I find myself closer and closer to a fringe position. It just seems hard to believe that the center is now all the way "over there" and I am, indeed, in the minority.

OK, here's another case study that might provoke good discussion. This happened very recently in my great State of New Jersey.

There is a little mile-square beach community of Neptune Township called Ocean Grove. It was founded in the mid-1800s by the Methodists. They still "own" the town from a legal perspective (not sure what the legal terms would be). The centerpiece of this town is the Great Auditorium, which is a historic landmark. It was primarily built as a house of worship, but they have other events there, too--like music concerts and stuff.

The Neptune Township high school has, for YEARS, held their HS graduation there because it holds everybody. Well, last year someone complained because their son was "exposed" to religious symbols during the graduation--there are crosses inside and out, as well the oldest continuously-lit neon sign--with a Biblical passage.

So this year the ACLU got involved and sued the Methodist Camp Meeting Association (the governing board) to cover the crosses and turn off the neon light during the ceremony, citing separation of church and state. At first the town leaders said "no way--those symbols represent who we are and you are free to take the graduation elsewhere, but we won't cover up the crosses."

Well, eventually they buckled, and they decided to cover the crosses. They can't cover one outside cross, so the students will process into the building using a side door, to avoid walking in front of the cross.

As you can imagine, there was a lot of controversy about this whole incident. You can guess how I feel about it. If my kids had to graduate in the local synagogue or mosque or durgha temple, I swear to God I would never in a million years expect them to cover up their religious icons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

As you can imagine, there was a lot of controversy about this whole incident. You can guess how I feel about it. If my kids had to graduate in the local synagogue or mosque or durgha temple, I swear to God I would never in a million years expect them to cover up their religious icons.

---

+1

Really, really ridiculous. Is someone going to follow their child around for life, covering up any religious icons wherever they might appear so their sensitive little eyeballs won't have to behold them (and heaven forbid make their own judgment calls about it all)? Seriously, I'd kick people like this off the island.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

Well, eventually they buckled, and they decided to cover the crosses. They can't cover one outside cross, so the students will process into the building using a side door, to avoid walking in front of the cross.

---

It is nothing more than lowering a religious symbol to the same level as pornography (which I would generally oppose my kids walking by). I am pretty much the poster child of agnostics everywhere, but I mean really; doesn't the ACLU have ANY bigger battles to fight than to stop kids from WALKING BY a religious symbol??? There is plenty of proof that porn can be damaging, but I've never seen any study that says that simply walking by a cross/menorah/pentagram/Stonehenge/etc. is harmful to our youth. The only two words that come to mind are... ****ing stupid. Not to mention breeding intolerance. Just my opinion.