Subject:
|
Re: Separation of Church and State
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:45:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
269 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz wrote:
> There is a minor problem here about clubs. My inclination is that clubs
> should be allowed so long as the school does not use religion to
> determine if the club is allowed (i.e. a religious club could be
> disallowed if it proposes some activity that is dangerous, but not just
> because it wants to pray to Satan). There is still a danger that a club
> for the majority religion would create an appearance of support. There
> is no way to totally eliminate this. For example, would it be wrong in a
> school where a significant number of students take some religious
> holiday off to not schedule tests for that day, or even make that day a
> non-school day because not enough students will be there? This last
> reason may be a sufficient justification for December 25th being a
> school holidy.
In my slightly rural high school, Thanksgiving vacation included the following
Monday. This was widely considered to be due to the fact that buck hunting
season began on that day, so a great number of kids would skip school anyway.
Your point is good about the implication of endorsement, especially if a
particularly vocal group managed to organize a nominally secular club. A tricky
question, indeed!
> The best solution of course is to privitize the schools...
I think your suggestion would certainly solve the question by eliminating it,
but I have other reservations about privatized schools that are accountable only
to the market. I accept that there have been successful cases of privatized or
partially-privatized schools, but these still seem sufficiently few to qualify
as anecdotal evidence. Maybe with more samples I could form a more broadly
favorable judgment, but I'm still leery of it. Almost every hypothetical model
I've ever seen practically guarantees as many problems as it solves, some of
them less serious, some of them much worse.
> I think a "prayer" during a governmental
> meeting (including sessions of Congress etc.) is a problem. The
> President giving a State of the Union address is different. Such an
> address is a _personal_ statement from the President about their
> perception. It is not law. It is not the government endorsing a
> particular view.
Gosh gosh gosh, I just can't decide. I have trouble separating Dubya-the-man
from Dubya-the-president in such cases. It's especially hard for me when
Dubya-the-man campaigns (for his presidency or for his agenda) by identifying
himself as a man of God (or chosen by God, as some of his supporters seem to
believe!) In that case, Dubya seems to be willingly merging the Office with The
Man, after which all claims of "personal" religious endorsement are void.
> It is a fact that I am a Unitarian Universalist, so
> my wearing a religious symbol when I take the stand isn't a state
> endorsement of my religion (however, the bit about swearing on the bible
> is a real problem, though I understand many courts have sidestepped the
> issue by allowing objectors to supply their own similar document, but it
> would be nice if we just switched to using a copy of the constitution).
Agreed! Or perhaps we could simply swear on The Truth itself.
I'm not trying to be funny, but *is* there a UU religious symbol? My
experience with that faith is extremely limited, so I don't know anything about
its symbology. I will say, however, that within a one-week period last year I
attended a Catholic wedding and a UU wedding. Each included the equivalent of a
mass and a homily. The former was overwhelmingly guilt-ridden, misogynistic,
and generally depressing. The latter was life-affirming, uplifting, and
welcoming. The only criticism (and it's a minor one) that I could even offer,
based on my brief exposure to UU, is that it didn't seem to provide any sort of
definable, solid base. I always thought of that sort of foundation as a main
purpose of religion, so I was interested and surprised to learn otherwise. It
gave a very strong sense of community, however.
In any event, I don't expect that anyone would ever use UU as justification to
fly a jet into a building or to pistol-whip a homosexual to death...
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Separation of Church and State
|
| (...) There is a minor problem here about clubs. My inclination is that clubs should be allowed so long as the school does not use religion to determine if the club is allowed (i.e. a religious club could be disallowed if it proposes some activity (...) (21 years ago, 10-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
