Writer's Block: Church & State
Sunday, 28 September 2008 09:03![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
preussisch_blau[Error: unknown template qotd]
Heh, now here's something I've been thinking a lot about.
First, I don't think that such a fuss should be made about things like "In God We Trust" and the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance. The one, you don't ever really encounter except on currency and some official seals; the other, well, no one's forcing you to say it. There were a few atheists at my high school who, when we said the Pledge, simply said "...one nation, indivisible...". It's not that hard. If you're the sort of person who gets all ferhoodled when someone else believes in God... well, you need to get over yourself. Plain and simple. Stop stepping on my right to have faith in a higher power of my choosing. Most Americans believe in some form of God. It's not like we're saying "In Jesus We Trust" or "...one nation, under Jesus...". Yes, the general implication is of the Judeo-Christian God, but there's no reason why you can't choose to interpret the mentions of God differently in accordance with your personal beliefs, or just disregard them entirely.
I'm sorry, it just really annoys me when people decide that their beliefs are more important than those of others. Especially when you're in the minority. I'll accomodate, I'll respect, but I don't think I need to totally change just because of someone else.
Case in point: The year before my brother graduated, there was a very actively and outspoken non-Christian girl in that year's senior class. I had a class with her, and let me tell you, she had an entitlement complex that wasn't helped by the fact that no teacher wanted to stop her from talking about her religion and her holidays in class because the last time a teacher did that, she claimed that they were discriminating against her. (Religion not mentioned to protect the reasonable followers of that faith.)
So, she got pissy that there was a baccalaureate at a Christian church that was aimed towards the Protestant Christian students (given that this area is primarily Methodist and Baptist, the majority of students who would attend a baccalaureate would be Protestant). She also got upset that they were announcing it with the other school events, like Prom and Graduation, because it was religious in nature, and, more specifically, not really for her religion. She never attended the baccalaureate, so I don't see what the issue is.
Keep in mind, she was such a religious minority in this area that there wasn't even a place of worship for her religion in this county, so what does she expect? It is pretty non-sensical to expect accomodation in everything when you're THAT underrepresented. (Not that she should be discriminated against, but there's a difference between discrimination and going entirely out of your way for ONE person in a class of FOUR HUNDRED.)
So, she gripes about it. She graduates. After she has her diploma in hand, she lodges a complaint against the school district for religious discrimination because of the baccalaureate and the fact that there was a Christian prayer at graduation (because, you know, the fact that most of the class is Christian shouldn't matter in deciding a prayer). She actually ends up sueing the district. I don't know how it turned out.
Well, the next year, when my brother graduated, they couldn't announce the baccalaureate or put up flyers or anything. They were forbidden to. They weren't allowed to have even a non-denominational prayer at Graduation. Any mention of religion? Verboten. All because one girl decided she'd rather play the victim instead of being as respectful of others as she demanded they be of her.
The worst thing is? The pastor who did the baccalaureate and the prayer at graduation said that if she'd spoken up beforehand, he'd have gladly adjusted the prayers he had planned to accomodate her beliefs.
It just speaks horribly of entitlement. We all must kowtow to her beliefs at the expense of our own. Ticks me off. Almost as much as the people who fight beforehand for no prayer at graduation, and then don't attend because they weren't planning on it anyways, they just wanted to prove some stupid point.
Okay, tangent done. Now, where was I? Oh, yes, as far as the whole Ten Commandments at the courthouse thing in Alabama... Well, I don't really have a problem with it, but I can understand why a non-Christian wouldn't want that to be there. So I'm not all outraged that they were told to take that statue down. I'd not be comfortable going into a courthouse where they display Islamic religious strictures, for example, because I want a fair trial based on actual law, not religious dictates, and it's a bit easier for that to happen when there aren't blatant reminders of one religion. (Actually, I wouldn't want to be judged on Judeo-Christian religious strictures either. I just thought it was more pertinent to understanding why someone wouldn't want the Ten Commandments displayed if I looked at it from the perspective of a person going to court and seeing a display of something related to a belief system other than their own.)
As far as marriage... Marriage is, in my opinion, a religious institution and should remain a religious institution. The government should nose out. This is why I'm not for gay marriage, unless the couple is of a religion that allows it. I'm not for straight marriage either when religion isn't involved. Marriage, in every sense of the word, is a religious institution, designed solely for perpetuation of both the human race and the ideology of the religion behind the marriage. That's it. It's not about love. There's a reason that, while love has always been oft spoken of as the true reason to marry, many successful marriages start off more like two people negotiating a business contract. In fact, it used to be that you found a suitable future spouse who would be an asset to your future household and courted them with the intent of making sure they would be a suitable spouse. Then you married, and if the match was good and both partners followed and believed what their religion said about marriage, love would develop, and even if it didn't, the marriage would still be a comfortable arrangement for both parties.
I'm all for civil unions, though. Anyone should be able to get one, gay or straight. There should be no difference in rights and privileges between gay and straight couples. Essentially, what I'd like to see is the government change the legal term "marriage" to "civil union", as it relates to non-religious partnership, and end the kerfuffle. Of course, there'd be no change to the fact that if you have a religious ceremony you should also register it legally. So, someone could potentially have a marriage and a civil union, or just a civil union. I'm not in agreement with the idea that a marriage shouldn't also be made a civil union because recognising the marriage in accordance with the laws confers benefits upon the spouse and possible children that otherwise wouldn't be available, and it is not in the spirit of marriage to not do something that can only benefit your family.
I know I haven't answered the question exactly. Honestly, it's a hard thing to answer. I think there should still be some level of acknowledgement that we, as a nation, have our roots in religion. However, we shouldn't force religion on anyone, force anyone to hide their own religious beliefs because of someone else's, or try and smush together religious institutions with secular ones.
Heh, now here's something I've been thinking a lot about.
First, I don't think that such a fuss should be made about things like "In God We Trust" and the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance. The one, you don't ever really encounter except on currency and some official seals; the other, well, no one's forcing you to say it. There were a few atheists at my high school who, when we said the Pledge, simply said "...one nation, indivisible...". It's not that hard. If you're the sort of person who gets all ferhoodled when someone else believes in God... well, you need to get over yourself. Plain and simple. Stop stepping on my right to have faith in a higher power of my choosing. Most Americans believe in some form of God. It's not like we're saying "In Jesus We Trust" or "...one nation, under Jesus...". Yes, the general implication is of the Judeo-Christian God, but there's no reason why you can't choose to interpret the mentions of God differently in accordance with your personal beliefs, or just disregard them entirely.
I'm sorry, it just really annoys me when people decide that their beliefs are more important than those of others. Especially when you're in the minority. I'll accomodate, I'll respect, but I don't think I need to totally change just because of someone else.
Case in point: The year before my brother graduated, there was a very actively and outspoken non-Christian girl in that year's senior class. I had a class with her, and let me tell you, she had an entitlement complex that wasn't helped by the fact that no teacher wanted to stop her from talking about her religion and her holidays in class because the last time a teacher did that, she claimed that they were discriminating against her. (Religion not mentioned to protect the reasonable followers of that faith.)
So, she got pissy that there was a baccalaureate at a Christian church that was aimed towards the Protestant Christian students (given that this area is primarily Methodist and Baptist, the majority of students who would attend a baccalaureate would be Protestant). She also got upset that they were announcing it with the other school events, like Prom and Graduation, because it was religious in nature, and, more specifically, not really for her religion. She never attended the baccalaureate, so I don't see what the issue is.
Keep in mind, she was such a religious minority in this area that there wasn't even a place of worship for her religion in this county, so what does she expect? It is pretty non-sensical to expect accomodation in everything when you're THAT underrepresented. (Not that she should be discriminated against, but there's a difference between discrimination and going entirely out of your way for ONE person in a class of FOUR HUNDRED.)
So, she gripes about it. She graduates. After she has her diploma in hand, she lodges a complaint against the school district for religious discrimination because of the baccalaureate and the fact that there was a Christian prayer at graduation (because, you know, the fact that most of the class is Christian shouldn't matter in deciding a prayer). She actually ends up sueing the district. I don't know how it turned out.
Well, the next year, when my brother graduated, they couldn't announce the baccalaureate or put up flyers or anything. They were forbidden to. They weren't allowed to have even a non-denominational prayer at Graduation. Any mention of religion? Verboten. All because one girl decided she'd rather play the victim instead of being as respectful of others as she demanded they be of her.
The worst thing is? The pastor who did the baccalaureate and the prayer at graduation said that if she'd spoken up beforehand, he'd have gladly adjusted the prayers he had planned to accomodate her beliefs.
It just speaks horribly of entitlement. We all must kowtow to her beliefs at the expense of our own. Ticks me off. Almost as much as the people who fight beforehand for no prayer at graduation, and then don't attend because they weren't planning on it anyways, they just wanted to prove some stupid point.
Okay, tangent done. Now, where was I? Oh, yes, as far as the whole Ten Commandments at the courthouse thing in Alabama... Well, I don't really have a problem with it, but I can understand why a non-Christian wouldn't want that to be there. So I'm not all outraged that they were told to take that statue down. I'd not be comfortable going into a courthouse where they display Islamic religious strictures, for example, because I want a fair trial based on actual law, not religious dictates, and it's a bit easier for that to happen when there aren't blatant reminders of one religion. (Actually, I wouldn't want to be judged on Judeo-Christian religious strictures either. I just thought it was more pertinent to understanding why someone wouldn't want the Ten Commandments displayed if I looked at it from the perspective of a person going to court and seeing a display of something related to a belief system other than their own.)
As far as marriage... Marriage is, in my opinion, a religious institution and should remain a religious institution. The government should nose out. This is why I'm not for gay marriage, unless the couple is of a religion that allows it. I'm not for straight marriage either when religion isn't involved. Marriage, in every sense of the word, is a religious institution, designed solely for perpetuation of both the human race and the ideology of the religion behind the marriage. That's it. It's not about love. There's a reason that, while love has always been oft spoken of as the true reason to marry, many successful marriages start off more like two people negotiating a business contract. In fact, it used to be that you found a suitable future spouse who would be an asset to your future household and courted them with the intent of making sure they would be a suitable spouse. Then you married, and if the match was good and both partners followed and believed what their religion said about marriage, love would develop, and even if it didn't, the marriage would still be a comfortable arrangement for both parties.
I'm all for civil unions, though. Anyone should be able to get one, gay or straight. There should be no difference in rights and privileges between gay and straight couples. Essentially, what I'd like to see is the government change the legal term "marriage" to "civil union", as it relates to non-religious partnership, and end the kerfuffle. Of course, there'd be no change to the fact that if you have a religious ceremony you should also register it legally. So, someone could potentially have a marriage and a civil union, or just a civil union. I'm not in agreement with the idea that a marriage shouldn't also be made a civil union because recognising the marriage in accordance with the laws confers benefits upon the spouse and possible children that otherwise wouldn't be available, and it is not in the spirit of marriage to not do something that can only benefit your family.
I know I haven't answered the question exactly. Honestly, it's a hard thing to answer. I think there should still be some level of acknowledgement that we, as a nation, have our roots in religion. However, we shouldn't force religion on anyone, force anyone to hide their own religious beliefs because of someone else's, or try and smush together religious institutions with secular ones.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Pt 1.
Date: 28 September 2008 14:23 (UTC)You're rather young yet, but I don't expect you to remember this if it happened in your school. As children, we would stand up in the morning every day and one student would lead the class in the Pledge of Allegiance. The problem wasn't so much Atheists, it was children who come from different ethnic and religious backgrounds who had know idea what they were saying, but were only saying it so they would "fit in."
An example of a child really not knowing what they were saying when it came to the Pledge is me. For the longest time I thought it said, "I pledge Elysian to the flag / of the United States of America." Elysian was a town close to where I lived. Secondly, kids find great fun in picking on other kids who don't participate in group events. One child who stays seated will be the aim of all ridicule.
For parents who don't believe in God, are Muslim, etc, they should not feel as though they need to participate in the Pledge if they are not of that religion. It's immoral to force people to do such a thing and knock it off as "that's just how America is." Rather close-minded thought from the world's leading power who is supposed to be setting a good example.
Another thing is that the Pledge didn't always have "under God" in it's lyrics. In 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower had those words added to the Pledge--they weren't originally there.
But it's okay for you to? The simplest way is to remain neutral in public areas. If you think the "God" aspect should just widely be accepted (and you believe in him strongly, as well) then I suggest you go to a close-minded school that accepts and teaches those opinions as well: Christian School. This country needs to change--religion was not supposed to play such a key role in the state/government/Congress, but it does. Look at McCain/Palin. No same-sex marriage, no abortions for people who have been raped or incest. I'm sorry, but the last thing I want is to have the baby of the man who raped me. And if America bans abortion we will move backward in the world. It would be as though we decided to go back to being racist and sexist. The rest of the world will look down upon us and our approval will drop significantly.
Re: Pt 1.
Date: 28 September 2008 14:23 (UTC)I do believe religious people should be able to be religious. There should not be a moment of silence given during graduation for the religious people to pray--but I don't see why they should not be allowed to pray at the graduation in their own times at the location. I don't see the problem in putting up flyers that are informing people about a bible study, or what have you, as long as they aren't pieces of paper reminding non-believers that they're going to Hell.
Re: Pt 1.
Date: 28 September 2008 14:24 (UTC)Our roots was getting away from religion. We separated from Britain because we no longer wanted to be forced to be religious anymore, yet in the end we suffered the same fate. People didn't want to be forced to believe in God, yet in the end we forced our people into believing through ridicule and social banishment. We were so hopped up on religion that we killed people who had open beliefs as witches--innocent people we killed because they spoke up. They were considered to have the devil in them and they were drowned, hung; killed.
I live in the town that carries the national record for the most people simultaneously hung: Native American Indians. Because they were savages, nonreligious, barbarians. This country was not meant to have religion in it's roots and even John Adams, who was a religious man, wrote about the difficulty of keeping his religious beliefs out of the government because he didn't believe people should be forced to believe in God.
But you're right, we shouldn't force religion on anyone or force people to hide their own beliefs. But not having prayer in school or not saying the pledge of allegiance because of "under God" doesn't force people to hide their religion. If it's that big of a deal, to you, and you feel that you're being oppressed religiously, then slap a huge sticker on you that says, "I BELIEVE IN GOD."
no subject
Date: 28 September 2008 19:27 (UTC)Caveat before reading onwards - I'm almost certainly not as well-versed in the American political system as you are.
But anyway. I find the entire concept of a Pledge of Allegiance wholly bizarre, religious or not. I often wonder why the debate centres over the 'under God' aspect and not why you're making schoolkids stand up every day and talk to a fucking flag. I also wonder why, given that teenagers often like to be deliberately awkward, that there's not more people who refuse to say it at all.
The marriage thing makes sense, though. We have civil partnerships for gay couples in the UK, conferring all the same rights as a marriage, and I think straight people should be allowed to get them too. And that Christian weddings shouldn't be given legal status when all other religious ceremonies aren't. It's a really stupid situation at the moment, all inconsistent and awkward. They should sever the ties between the legal ceremony of union and the religious ceremony of marriage.
Definitely an interesting post from you. Also, given all the nutbags we keep hearing about over here, it is so refreshing to know there's conservative Christian Americans who are sane.
no subject
Date: 28 September 2008 20:22 (UTC)I haven't read the above commenter, as they are someone I am not familiar with (and now I remember I meant to f-lock this), but it appears they disagree with my ideas of the legal institution of union and the religious one of marriage. I don't know why they were even tied together in the States in the first place. It's just like you said, inconsistent and awkward. Especially since the Christian definition of marriage seems to be the favoured one. So, it would just make more sense to have a civil ceremony to make things legal, and a religious one if you're so inclined. And if you have the religious one, you don't need to go and then have a civil ceremony, you can just get a certificate saying that you are legally partnered with someone (sort of like the marriage license we have right now, only not with the word "marriage").
Really, most conservative Christian Americans are sane. You just hear about the vocally crazy fundamentalist Christians. Just like all you hear about are the vocally crazy fundamentalist Muslims. Fundamentalism is quite possibly the root of all evil.