~ Bush: "I'm God's Delivery Boy" ~

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:47:24 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote:

WalterM140 wrote:

Separation of church and state, anyone?

The president doesn't speak for the state in the same way that the Queen of
England does, for instance.

Lincoln quotes snipped

The framers wanted Americans to have freedom -of- religion, not freedom -from-
religion.

In order to have freedom -of- religion, one must also have the option of freedom
-from- religion, or no freedom exists.

Guy (a life-long agnostic)

That's akin to saying that freedom doesn't exist unless everyone
is free to do whatever they wish. I don't think that I'd like to
live in a country where that was the case, would you?.

Time for the ol' Political Science professor to drop in and point out
some things.

First, the president speaks for the state in a much greater way than
the Queen. The US President is both head of state and head of
government. That being said, however, when a President professes his
own faith and trust in divine providence, he isn't speaking for the
state. And, when an historic presidential statement is made it
reflects more on the sociology of the time than the politics. It
definitely does not speak to Constitutional interpretation.

Then, the oft-quoted conundrum of "freedom-of" versus "freedom from"
is found nowhere in Constitutional law. The religion guarantees in the
First Amendment are in two clauses--separate and not contradictory.

First, the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion"--that means not only that the Congress shall not establish a
religion, i.e. a governmentally endorsed faith. But goes a step
further in specifiying that the law shall not "respect" a particular
establishment of religion. In other words, no favoritism for one
religion over another. This is a restriction on the government, not
the citizens. And, by virtue of the 14th Amendment's "equal
protection" provisions it applies to the lesser levels of government
in our federal system as well.

Second, the sentence goes on, "...or restricting the free exercise
thereof." That part applies to the citizens. Citizens are free to
practice the rituals of their individual faiths without governmental
interference. (Of course if that practice interferes with the rights
of others, or the 'general welfare" of society, we can constrain the
practice of religion--hence no more virgins in the volcanoes.)

As for the God-fearing attributes of the Framers, they were
politicians of the time and the custom was to express a level of
civility and piety in their public discourse.

And very little has changed in that regard today, when even the most secular pols feel
a need to make a fetish of religious belief and piety (prayer breakfasts, well-covered
church attendance, etc.), at least when they're up for (re)election or involved in
some scandal.


Many belonged to
Protestant denomination churches, but many were also agnostic or (as
in the case of Thomas Jefferson,) deists--believers in a Supreme Being
without espousal of a particular liturgy. There's little evidence to
link anything in the Constitution to Christianity.

Speaking of TJ, here's the text of his "Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom," which
he got adopted into that state's constitution (actually, Jefferson wrote it but
Madison handled the political maneuvering):

"Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all
attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil
incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness,
and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion,
who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by
coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the
impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as
ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men
have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own
opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as
such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and
maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and
through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money
for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and
tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his
own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of
giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would
make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to
righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal
rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal
conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors
for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence
on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or
geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the
public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to
offices of trust and emolument unless he profess or renounce this or that
religious opinion is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and
advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural
right.; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is
meant to encourage, by bribing, with emoluments, those who will
externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are
criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those
innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate
to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the
profession and propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill
tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious
liberty , because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his
opinions the rule of judgement, and approve or condemn the sentiments
of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is
time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers
to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and
good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to
herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has
nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition
disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors
ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

"Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be
compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or
ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or
burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of
his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess,
and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and
that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil
capacities.

"And though we all know this Assembly, elected by the people for the
ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts
of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with the powers equal to our
own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no
effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights
hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act
shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation,
such act will be an infringement of natural right."

The bill was introduced in 1779, and becamepart of Virginia's consitution on January
16, 1786, i.e. three years before the Constitution went into effect. The 1st
Amendment was based on the view expressed in it. Jefferson considered it one of his
three greatest accomplishments, and made sure his epitaph read:

"Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of American Independence,
of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, And Father of the University of
Virginia."

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

As for the God-fearing attributes of the Framers, they were
politicians of the time and the custom was to express a level of
civility and piety in their public discourse.

And very little has changed in that regard today, when even the most secular pols feel
a need to make a fetish of religious belief and piety (prayer breakfasts, well-covered
church attendance, etc.), at least when they're up for (re)election or involved in
some scandal.

I think it's interesting that any politician publicly embracing
religion seems always portrayed as either partaking in demagoguery
or attempting to create a state religion.

Seems secularists want religion strictly confined within the walls
of church, temple, mosque, whatever, not be seen in public on pain
of "promoting religion".

Allowing nativity scenes on public commons is NOT "promoting
religion", and is actually suppressing it! The founding fathers
were keenly aware of all the problems that resulted from government
promoting religion. On the other hand, they were deeply religious
and were not prone to create an agnostic or atheist US either.

Bush has every right as an individual to make the religious based
statements he has. He apparently is sort of "born again" and his
words more than likely aren't pandering to a religious audience.

Until he starts giving a particular religious group tax breaks or
government funding, I'm not too concerned that the important
Constitutional principle of church/state separation is being
violated.


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

As for the God-fearing attributes of the Framers, they were
politicians of the time and the custom was to express a level of
civility and piety in their public discourse.

And very little has changed in that regard today, when even the most secular pols feel
a need to make a fetish of religious belief and piety (prayer breakfasts, well-covered
church attendance, etc.), at least when they're up for (re)election or involved in
some scandal.

I think it's interesting that any politician publicly embracing
religion seems always portrayed as either partaking in demagoguery
or attempting to create a state religion.

I'm unaware of that being the case. I think I can tell the difference between political
humbug and true belief. I have no doubt about, say, the sincerity of Senator Lieberman's
beliefs, nor do I (generally) doubt the sincerity of President Bush's. But when they start
making a big public deal out of it and mentioning God at every (politically) opportune
moment, it starts to smell.

Seems secularists want religion strictly confined within the walls
of church, temple, mosque, whatever, not be seen in public on pain
of "promoting religion".

How do you figure that? You can decorate your house, you car, or yourself with Crosses,
Stars of David, Crescents, Ankhs, Prayer wheels or Pentagrams all you want. You can spend
every waking minute of every day praising your god(s) as much as you chose. Just don't try
and force me to agree with you, and don't try to force me to listen to you in a public
building/space that I'm constrained to be in. You want to stand on your soapbox in the
park and tell everyone _who wants to listen_ about the wonders of your religion, knock
yourself out. But don't do it at the top of your lungs to people who have no interest in
what you're saying, and who can't move out of earshot while still enjoying the location.

Allowing nativity scenes on public commons is NOT "promoting
religion", and is actually suppressing it!

No, it's saying that government can not favor one religion over another, nor can they
sponsor one or many. You want a nativity scene, feel free to pay for it (or get like-minded
individiuals to do so) and put it up on your lawn. Which is pretty much what happens
around here. You want to have a stone sculpture monument of the Ten Commandments? Be my
guest, and mount it in your yard, home or (in some cases) business. But it doesn't belong
in the Courthouse.

The founding fathers
were keenly aware of all the problems that resulted from government
promoting religion. On the other hand, they were deeply religious
and were not prone to create an agnostic or atheist US either.

Some were deeply religious, some went through the motions because it was expected, some were
agnostic or atheist. You'd be pretty hard-pressed to describe Benjamin Franklin as "deeply
religious." The important thing is that they all had the legal right to be of whatever
religion they chose (including no religion) without any effect on their rights (well, in
theory; practice was obviously often different, if you were Catholic, Jewish, etc.), after
the passage of the 1st Amendment

Bush has every right as an individual to make the religious based
statements he has.

Sure does, if he's speaking for himself and not for me.

He apparently is sort of "born again" and his
words more than likely aren't pandering to a religious audience.

He has pandered to his religious base quite a lot, in the last election and now this one.
Sometimes he's sincere, but in some cases he's throwing them a bone after making a political
calculation. The hesitation about coming out and saying he'd support a constitutional
amendment banning gay marriage being a case in point. The decision itself, and the timing
of it, was a political calculation through and through.

Until he starts giving a particular religious group tax breaks or
government funding, I'm not too concerned that the important
Constitutional principle of church/state separation is being
violated.

And fortunately the Supreme Court has just found against the guy who sued the state of
Washington (IIRR), because they refused to pay the scholarship they had awarded him when he
wanted to use it to attend theology school. He seemed like a decent sort, but I certainly
don't want my taxes to pay to support his particular faith (or any other). If his
denomination needs ministers and he can't afford it himself, they can pay his way if they
choose, but it shouldn't be coming out of my pocket.

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote:

I'm unaware of that being the case. I think I can tell the difference between political humbug
and true belief. I have no doubt about, say, the sincerity of Senator Lieberman's beliefs, nor
do I (generally) doubt the sincerity of President Bush's. But when they start making a big
public deal out of it and mentioning God at every (politically) opportune moment, it starts to
smell.

Well if you're at a convention of xylophonists, you tend to talk
about xylophones, so I don't think it's terribly smelly to have
Bush talk religion at a religious convention (I believe that was
the context of his "God's delivery boy" statement).

Yet at least around here, there seems to be a belief he's promoting
born-again christianity, and the division between church and state
is being narrowed.

How do you figure that? You can decorate your house, you car, or yourself with Crosses, Stars of
David, Crescents, Ankhs, Prayer wheels or Pentagrams all you want. You can spend every waking
minute of every day praising your god(s) as much as you chose. Just don't try and force me to
agree with you, and don't try to force me to listen to you in a public building/space that I'm
constrained to be in. You want to stand on your soapbox in the park and tell everyone _who wants
to listen_ about the wonders of your religion, knock yourself out. But don't do it at the top of
your lungs to people who have no interest in what you're saying, and who can't move out of
earshot while still enjoying the location.

"Public space" is supposed to be for the public. You can't get a
more "public space" in New England than a town common. In Amherst,
the town common is the location for all sorts of stuff people put
up to display.

Try and put up a nativity scene there. You can't. "Separation of
church and state" ya know. But the UMass pagans can put up their
wooden whatever commemorating various spirits of "Mother Earth".

Christians should be able to put up their nativity scene. Jews
should be able to (and somehow do) put up their menorah or star of
David, Islam...

Placing these symbols in town space is NOT promoting religion.
It's allowing public expression. It's not "forcing" views on people
any more than having a flag waving on a flag pole (which I might add,
have also been objected to).

No, it's saying that government can not favor one religion over another, nor can they sponsor one
or many. You want a nativity scene, feel free to pay for it (or get like-minded individiuals to
do so) and put it up on your lawn. Which is pretty much what happens around here. You want to
have a stone sculpture monument of the Ten Commandments? Be my guest, and mount it in your yard,
home or (in some cases) business. But it doesn't belong in the Courthouse.

It most certainly can belong on the courthouse lawn, if that is a
convenient public place. Religion is a part of national life. It
should not be excluded from the courthouse any more than "In God
we Trust" removed from coinage. It's a cultural expression as well
as religious.

Separation of church and state simply means you can not say OK to
the nativity scene while excluding a Menorah during Chanukha.

Some were deeply religious, some went through the motions because it was expected, some were
agnostic or atheist. You'd be pretty hard-pressed to describe Benjamin Franklin as "deeply
religious." The important thing is that they all had the legal right to be of whatever religion

Actually, I'd call Ben and Thomas Jefferson quite religious
individuals, just not in an "organized" way.

[I like the "Jefferson Bible" where he went through the King
James cutting out passages that he liked, pasting them all
together to form his own "bible". I've only just started the
Ben Franklin bio, so I'm not up to speed on details of his
religious thinking beyond general knowledge that he was not
atheist.]

He has pandered to his religious base quite a lot, in the last election and now this one.
Sometimes he's sincere, but in some cases he's throwing them a bone after making a political
calculation. The hesitation about coming out and saying he'd support a constitutional amendment
banning gay marriage being a case in point. The decision itself, and the timing of it, was a
political calculation through and through.

I don't think that's entirely the case. Bush is President so
there is going to be political context in whatever he does or says.
"Calculation" for me implies a sort of insincerity that may not
always be the case. Virtually any political action can be labeled
"calculating" I suppose.

Fundamentalist, and sometimes non-fundamentalist Christians such
as myself, don't particularly like the idea of gay marriage.
I live in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, so my right
wing thinking on this has been moderated into a willingness to
accept "civil union" for gays...or polygamists...or almost whatever.

Whether you believe an amendment to obtain "correct" constitutional
interpretation of the issue on the part of judges, or some other
way, may or may not be a pandering to a political group.

I personally don't like adding constitutional amendments whenever
a new "interpretation" of something comes up, but, what else can
you do besides be careful about the judges you appoint?

And fortunately the Supreme Court has just found against the guy who sued the state of Washington
(IIRR), because they refused to pay the scholarship they had awarded him when he wanted to use it
to attend theology school. He seemed like a decent sort, but I certainly don't want my taxes to
pay to support his particular faith (or any other). If his denomination needs ministers and he
can't afford it himself, they can pay his way if they choose, but it shouldn't be coming out of
my pocket.

I'm torn on this example. I don't want government funding the
development of religious "professionals". Yet education is a
primary and just use of government funds, and discrimination on
the type of professional perhaps isn't warranted. Biology,
electrical engineering, Italian Renaissance art, theology?
Perhaps shouldn't rally matter.

Producing an actual minister? A bit shaky, but as long as
the government isn't promoting the production of only Episcopal
ministers, perhaps not entirely wrong.

For a slightly more benign example (IMO), I have no problem
with public vouchers for Catholic schools of choice, as long
as students who wish can opt out of any of the religious
components of such education. This is not be promoting
religion. It's promoting education!


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote:

I'm unaware of that being the case. I think I can tell the difference between political humbug
and true belief. I have no doubt about, say, the sincerity of Senator Lieberman's beliefs, nor
do I (generally) doubt the sincerity of President Bush's. But when they start making a big
public deal out of it and mentioning God at every (politically) opportune moment, it starts to
smell.

Well if you're at a convention of xylophonists, you tend to talk
about xylophones, so I don't think it's terribly smelly to have
Bush talk religion at a religious convention (I believe that was
the context of his "God's delivery boy" statement).



Yet at least around here, there seems to be a belief he's promoting
born-again christianity, and the division between church and state
is being narrowed.

His religious base certainly is trying to do that, and at the very least, he's pandering to them.

How do you figure that? You can decorate your house, you car, or yourself with Crosses, Stars of
David, Crescents, Ankhs, Prayer wheels or Pentagrams all you want. You can spend every waking
minute of every day praising your god(s) as much as you chose. Just don't try and force me to
agree with you, and don't try to force me to listen to you in a public building/space that I'm
constrained to be in. You want to stand on your soapbox in the park and tell everyone _who wants
to listen_ about the wonders of your religion, knock yourself out. But don't do it at the top of
your lungs to people who have no interest in what you're saying, and who can't move out of
earshot while still enjoying the location.

"Public space" is supposed to be for the public. You can't get a
more "public space" in New England than a town common. In Amherst,
the town common is the location for all sorts of stuff people put
up to display.

Try and put up a nativity scene there. You can't. "Separation of
church and state" ya know. But the UMass pagans can put up their
wooden whatever commemorating various spirits of "Mother Earth".

And shouldn't be able to, for the same reason you can't put up a nativity scene. Alternatively,
anything goes, and anyone can put up anything they want, provided they pay for it. The problem is, at
some point someone is going to object to something that's there or say that there's not enough space
for something new, a public official will try to decide what's okay and what isn't or what is more
worthy of space, and the line has been crossed. Can Satan worshippers put up what they want? How
about followers of Santeria; nothing like a nice animal sacrifice to help you solve big problems.

Christians should be able to put up their nativity scene. Jews
should be able to (and somehow do) put up their menorah or star of
David, Islam...

And they are able to do so on their own property, just as much as they wish.

Placing these symbols in town space is NOT promoting religion.
It's allowing public expression. It's not "forcing" views on people
any more than having a flag waving on a flag pole (which I might add,
have also been objected to).

As long as anything goes, no problem. But anything _doesn't_ go, now does it?


No, it's saying that government can not favor one religion over another, nor can they sponsor one
or many. You want a nativity scene, feel free to pay for it (or get like-minded individiuals to
do so) and put it up on your lawn. Which is pretty much what happens around here. You want to
have a stone sculpture monument of the Ten Commandments? Be my guest, and mount it in your yard,
home or (in some cases) business. But it doesn't belong in the Courthouse.

It most certainly can belong on the courthouse lawn, if that is a
convenient public place. Religion is a part of national life.

For some (most), at the moment. It's no part of my life, and it has no business in civil, secular
government.

It
should not be excluded from the courthouse any more than "In God
we Trust" removed from coinage. It's a cultural expression as well
as religious.

"In God We Trust" may be part of your culture, but it's no part of mine since I'm not religious. Are
you saying that your culture is officially approved? And no, it doesn't belong on the money, any more
than the Masonic symbols do.

Separation of church and state simply means you can not say OK to
the nativity scene while excluding a Menorah during Chanukha.

The problem is, someone always wants to exclude something, and as soon as you start picking and
choosing, you're over the line.

Some were deeply religious, some went through the motions because it was expected, some were
agnostic or atheist. You'd be pretty hard-pressed to describe Benjamin Franklin as "deeply
religious." The important thing is that they all had the legal right to be of whatever religion

Actually, I'd call Ben and Thomas Jefferson quite religious
individuals, just not in an "organized" way.

It's a bit hard to say about Jefferson. I'm not sure how much of his supposed deism was just an
acceptable eccentricity for a politician, and how much of it was real. Franklin, no, I don't think
so. He felt religion could be useful and supported many churches across the spectrum, but his personal
beliefs seem to bepretty agnostic.

[I like the "Jefferson Bible" where he went through the King
James cutting out passages that he liked, pasting them all
together to form his own "bible". I've only just started the
Ben Franklin bio, so I'm not up to speed on details of his
religious thinking beyond general knowledge that he was not
atheist.]

He has pandered to his religious base quite a lot, in the last election and now this one.
Sometimes he's sincere, but in some cases he's throwing them a bone after making a political
calculation. The hesitation about coming out and saying he'd support a constitutional amendment
banning gay marriage being a case in point. The decision itself, and the timing of it, was a
political calculation through and through.

I don't think that's entirely the case. Bush is President so
there is going to be political context in whatever he does or says.
"Calculation" for me implies a sort of insincerity that may not
always be the case. Virtually any political action can be labeled
"calculating" I suppose.

If the timing of the decision, and whther to make it at al, is made primarily for political
considerations, you bet it's calculating. Do I think Bush's speech at Ground Zero, when he said, off
the cuff, "the people who brought down these buildings will be hearing from us all real soon," was
calculating? Nope, that was what he felt.

Fundamentalist, and sometimes non-fundamentalist Christians such
as myself, don't particularly like the idea of gay marriage.
I live in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, so my right
wing thinking on this has been moderated into a willingness to
accept "civil union" for gays...or polygamists...or almost whatever.

Living in the SF Bay Area, and having spent a lot of time (while growing up) in the People's Republic
of Berkeley, I early came to the conclusion that what consenting adults wish to do is their business,
provided I'm not forced to participate. I dislike many things that my fellow human beings choose to
do, but if it doesn't injure me, what business is it of mine? I've got gay friends, relatives of
friends, co-workers, acquaintances, etc. I judge them on what kind of human being they are; why should
I care what gender they sleep with?

Personally, I think the simplest solution would be for government to get out of the marriage business
altogether, and just perform civil unions for everyone. The civil benefits of 'marriage' should apply
to all who wish to take it on, regardless of what it's called. If marriage is primarily a religious
exercise, then religions should be the ones to conduct them, and they can set any standards for what is
and is not a marriage that they choose, as they do now; parishioners will vote with their feet to find
a religion that suits them best, just as they always have (when not forced to adhere to a particular
one).


Whether you believe an amendment to obtain "correct" constitutional
interpretation of the issue on the part of judges, or some other
way, may or may not be a pandering to a political group.

That wasn't the pandering. The pandering was making a political calculation about whether to come out
and openly support such an amendment, or whether to just continue to make vague statements that could
be interpreted to mean anything or nothing, because it was felt the latter was politically safer.
Given the catalyst of the marriages in SF, and their clear understanding that the equal protection
clauses of both the California and Federal Constitutions will toss out defense of marriage acts (as
happened in Mass.), His religious base really put the pressure on for Bush to take an unequivocal
stand. The political calculation was clearly made that he'd lose a lot of his base if he didn't do so,
and not gain many converts on the other side, so he did it despite his obvious wish to finesse the
whole issue (much as the democratic leadership also wished to do). That is totally separate from his
personal beliefs on the subject, which seem to be fairly live and let live.

I personally don't like adding constitutional amendments whenever
a new "interpretation" of something comes up, but, what else can
you do besides be careful about the judges you appoint?

Avoid trying to legislate purely personal behavior, no matter how much the majority may disapprove of
it.


And fortunately the Supreme Court has just found against the guy who sued the state of Washington
(IIRR), because they refused to pay the scholarship they had awarded him when he wanted to use it
to attend theology school. He seemed like a decent sort, but I certainly don't want my taxes to
pay to support his particular faith (or any other). If his denomination needs ministers and he
can't afford it himself, they can pay his way if they choose, but it shouldn't be coming out of
my pocket.

I'm torn on this example. I don't want government funding the
development of religious "professionals". Yet education is a
primary and just use of government funds, and discrimination on
the type of professional perhaps isn't warranted. Biology,
electrical engineering, Italian Renaissance art, theology?
Perhaps shouldn't rally matter.

Producing an actual minister? A bit shaky, but as long as
the government isn't promoting the production of only Episcopal
ministers, perhaps not entirely wrong.

I had to think about this one for some time myself. Originally, I felt that it should be up to the
student to spend their scholarship money on any education they chose. But after further thought, I
decided that civil government has no business paying for a purely _religious_ education. I also felt
that sooner or later the civil government would find itself involved by having to make value judgements
of what is or is not an acceptable_religious_ education, and government just doesn't belong in that
arena. If cult X decides that the appropriate eligious training for their prospective ministers is to
send their students on a three year binge in Paris, is the government going to say, "whoa, we don't
think that's religious enough"? An extreme example, I agree, but it illustrates the problem.

For a slightly more benign example (IMO), I have no problem
with public vouchers for Catholic schools of choice, as long
as students who wish can opt out of any of the religious
components of such education. This is not be promoting
religion. It's promoting education!

I feel the same way myself, but try and find a Catholic school that lets you to opt out. A friend of
mine's parents sent him to a Catholic high school instead of a public one, despite them being
protestant, so he could get a better education. But opting out most definitely wasn't an option. Even
if it was, I tend to doubt that it would be practical to do so, as the whole environment is saturated
by the prevailing dogma. That could possibly be fixed, although it would tend to remove the religious
from religious schools, turning them into just another private school, and that's unlikely to be
acceptable to the parents who send their children their for that precise purpose.

Nevertheless, I'm a cautious fan of vouchers, provided that admittance and participation is completely
non-discriminatory, and the only other qualification for a school being acceptable for vouchers is its
educational standards. In other words, I don't want public funds going to support, say, Bob Jones'
University. This brings me back to the same dilemma as in the case of the theological grad school
above, but for whatever reason it seems more acceptable to me. I'm not saying that my drawing of the
line there can be defended on any strictly logical basis, because you really are splitting hairs.

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote:

A few final responses to your comments.

And shouldn't be able to, for the same reason you can't put up a nativity scene. Alternatively,
anything goes, and anyone can put up anything they want, provided they pay for it. The problem
is, at some point someone is going to object to something that's there or say that there's not
enough space for something new, a public official will try to decide what's okay and what isn't
or what is more worthy of space, and the line has been crossed. Can Satan worshippers put up
what they want? How about followers of Santeria; nothing like a nice animal sacrifice to help
you solve big problems.

Neonazi's can put up their flags and go goose stepping through
neighborhoods in Milwaukee. KKK types have their little public
exercises. Why not satan worshipers (if they don't already)?

Sacrifices? Well I'm not in favor of such a thing, but I'm
apparently not allowed to think poorly of gays on a religious
basis, and the social basis is currently under modification from
its previous definition. Perhaps sacrifice will gain social
acceptance too with proper argument and effort?

Every group pushes its rights. I personally feel any of the above
are not good things for society, both on a social basis, and on a
religious one. The "rights" issue in justifying behavior, or
promoting it, is a slippery slope environment. But it has always
been so, and the dynamics of pro and con are part of the political
discourse of the nation. Nothing to be feared or avoided.

"In God We Trust" may be part of your culture, but it's no part of mine since I'm not religious.
Are you saying that your culture is officially approved? And no, it doesn't belong on the money,
any more than the Masonic symbols do.

You do not have the constitutional right to be free of offense.
"In God We Trust" has gone beyond pure religious meaning. It's
now cultural, just like no one should prohibit Christmas trees or
Santa Claus images simply because they have christian origins or
bindings. It's like a cross on top of a church. It's in the
public space, but anyone who doesn't like christianity (or religion)
and is offended by the symbol just has to live with it.
(Personally, anyone "offended" by any of the major religious
symbols of the world is in need of a civility or diversity course!)

Living in the SF Bay Area, and having spent a lot of time (while growing up) in the People's
Republic of Berkeley, I early came to the conclusion that what consenting adults wish to do is
their business, provided I'm not forced to participate. I dislike many things that my fellow
human beings choose to do, but if it doesn't injure me, what business is it of mine? I've got
gay friends, relatives of friends, co-workers, acquaintances, etc. I judge them on what kind of
human being they are; why should I care what gender they sleep with?

Well we all judge people by different criteria. If you are seriously
religious, homosexuality is abomination and not to be tolerated.

How do you feel about polygamy? How do you feel about sex between
a 14 year old girl and a 30 year old man (or two 14 year olds for
that matter)? Are they bad humans? Is their behavior bothering
you? Why limit them on your definition of social appropriateness
any more than a religious one? In much of the world, humans are
adults at 13-15 and can marry. Our 18 and 21 year old definitions
are wholly arbitrary and artificial.

Personally, I think the simplest solution would be for government to get out of the marriage
business altogether, and just perform civil unions for everyone. The civil benefits of
'marriage' should apply to all who wish to take it on, regardless of what it's called. If
marriage is primarily a religious exercise, then religions should be the ones to conduct them,
and they can set any standards for what is and is not a marriage that they choose, as they do
now; parishioners will vote with their feet to find a religion that suits them best, just as they
always have (when not forced to adhere to a particular one).

My views are similar. I feel "marriage" is already "copyrighted",
if you will, by religion. City Hall should only give out civil union
licenses (perhaps to polygamists as well???). However a certificate
of union should not be easy to undo. It should take all the legal
effort and expense of a divorce.

That wasn't the pandering. The pandering was making a political calculation about whether to
come out and openly support such an amendment, or whether to just continue to make vague
statements that could be interpreted to mean anything or nothing, because it was felt the latter
was politically safer. Given the catalyst of the marriages in SF, and their clear understanding
that the equal protection clauses of both the California and Federal Constitutions will toss out
defense of marriage acts (as happened in Mass.), His religious base really put the pressure on
for Bush to take an unequivocal stand. The political calculation was clearly made that he'd lose
a lot of his base if he didn't do so, and not gain many converts on the other side, so he did it
despite his obvious wish to finesse the whole issue (much as the democratic leadership also
wished to do). That is totally separate from his personal beliefs on the subject, which seem to
be fairly live and let live.

Nothing the democrats aren't doing. This is treacherous political
stuff, especially for dems. You need to pay lip service to gay
rights, but polls tell you majorities aren't in favor of it and
feel rather strongly about it. What to do?

I define pandering as a sort of demagoguery, waiting to figure out
what direction is politically best for you before acting. No
personal beliefs or ideals involved whatsoever. Just telling
people what they want to hear.

I just checked the Webster definition of "pander". It's catering
to or exploiting the weaknesses of others, so I feel confident
that Bush isn't doing this, on this particular issue, as it is
truly his own personal conviction AFAICT.

Avoid trying to legislate purely personal behavior, no matter how much the majority may
disapprove of it.

We legislate personal behavior *all the time*. In fact that's
pretty much what our body of laws is all about!

Guess I've overstayed my welcome on this issue here at r.a.m, so
I'll close by saying I've enjoyed reading your comments. You've
made me think a bit, even though my attitudes haven't really
changed. Thanks for the comments.


SMH