Religious freedom being eroded?

[Swiper]

The state university I went to went to great lengths to assure that spring break did not coincide with Easter because someone might then call it "Easter break", and that would "obviously" be a violation of separation of church and state.

One young girl several years ago was expelled from her grade school on "separation of church and state" grounds for wanting to say grace over her food in the lunch room and asking her friend to join her.

I seriously doubt that.

[bytor2112]

I seriously doubt that.

I don't.

Edited July 25, 2013 by bytor2112

[LittleWyvern]

I don't.

Except that suspension never actually happened, and it wasn't for a single student praying at school. Thanks for giving me a chuckle with "alleged Satanist student" though.

[bytor2112]

Except that suspension never actually happened, and it wasn't for a single student praying at school. Thanks for giving me a chuckle with "alleged Satanist student" though.

The broader point is that this stuff does happen, isolated perhaps, but it happens....unlike swiper's doubt.....and as for the chuckle..anytime. Would they have been suspended had it not been for assistance? There are plenty of similar stories to choose from on the net. A football coach was suspended from work for praying in the lunchroom for a team lunch where I live...

Edited July 25, 2013 by bytor2112

[LittleWyvern]

Sure there's isolated incidents, but they usually have a far tamer resolution than assumed (not that many people care) and hardly provides evidence for a vast "PC left" conspiracy, or even a trend, to persecute Christians.

[bytor2112]

Sure there's isolated incidents, but they usually have a far tamer resolution than assumed (not that many people care) and hardly provides evidence for a vast "PC left" conspiracy, or even a trend, to persecute Christians.

The post wasn't provided as evidence of a "PC left" conspiracy, it was in response to Swipers comment.

Think and believe as you will LW. I am probably twice your age and have seen a change in attitude toward Christianity and it has gained traction because of pop culture and media and the left. It is done in the name of tolerance and inclusion or as to not offend and I will even allow that sometimes it may be done with the best of intentions. But to deny that is hasn't been occurring is an act of willful blindness.......

[Finrock]

Good Afternoon bytor2112. I hope you have been doing well! :)

But to deny that is hasn't been occurring is an act of willful blindness.......

For what its worth, I agree.

Regards,

Finrock

[LittleWyvern]

But to deny that is hasn't been occurring is an act of willful blindness.......

Except I'm not denying the things you cite are occurring, and I'm not being "willfully blind." No rational reading of my posts could possibly support that ridiculous assumption. We disagree on magnitude, not existence.

[prisonchaplain]

Except that suspension never actually happened, and it wasn't for a single student praying at school. Thanks for giving me a chuckle with "alleged Satanist student" though.

Except that it did happen! Yes, the suspensions were "reversed." They were purged from the students' records--AFTER THE FACT. The students did miss 10 days of school, were put under a cloud of suspicion--disciplined--for praying!

THIS TIME the anti-Christian actions were reversed...perhaps because a law firm got involved???

So what...no big deal? Forget about the fact that government employees saw individual Christian prayer as worthy of 10-days suspension?

OK...I'll stick my head back in the sand, and pretend that we still have Christmas plays at school (Ban On School Christmas Carols Upheld), Christmas vacations (Why can't we call it Christmas Break?), and still have unfettered baccalureate services (H’heads baccalaureate grad service canceled - Corning, NY - The Corning Leader) and school benedictions and invocations(School Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance: Types of Prayer Banned - FindLaw). Nothings changed at all...we all still believe that the 1st Amendment protects religion from government, and not government from religion(First amendment: What freedom of religion means - Baltimore Sun)...

Edited July 25, 2013 by prisonchaplain

[LittleWyvern]

So what...no big deal? Forget about the fact that government employees saw individual Christian prayer as worthy of 10-days suspension?

OK...I'll stick my head back in the sand, and pretend that we still have Christmas plays at school <snip>

Uh...

Except I'm not denying the things you cite are occurring, and I'm not being "willfully blind." No rational reading of my posts could possibly support that ridiculous assumption. We disagree on magnitude, not existence.

Whoever you and bytor are arguing against, they don't resemble me or my actual arguments at all. If all you're going to do is ignore what I post and argue against some imagined idiot, I'm going to quit responding to this.

[Windseeker]

Uh...

Whoever you and bytor are arguing against, they don't resemble me or my actual arguments at all. If all you're going to do is ignore what I post and argue against some imagined idiot, I'm going to quit responding to this.

..they quoted you dude

didn't happen....did happen

[prisonchaplain]

Sorry LittleWyvern...I was responded to post #52, not the string as a whole. I took you to say that since the suspension was reversed no harm no foul. I responded that a foul indeed occured. You also suggested that there is no grand PC conspiracy. I agree with Bytor that there is a definite trending away from religious liberty. We may disagree on magnitude, but I wonder...do we disagree on the trending? Do you believe these are sporadic, isolated incidences--or do you see the nation moving away from religious liberty, towards increasingly insistent secularism (in the name of pluralism, btw)?

[LittleWyvern]

Well, in what I see as a trend away from any combination of church and government, there is a trend toward increased secularism. Schools seem to be the lightning rod for these kind of issues, because it is technically a government operation but it is also viewed as a living breathing part of the local community. So, I can understand the arguments on both sides of incidents similar to bytor's cited event (I think the right solution was reached in the end). Still, this causes a confusion in the role of religion in public life as well, and so some of that force that wants governments to be secular spills over into other areas.

Still, however, I don't see that as justification for terms like anti-religion or anti-liberty. The proper relationship between religion and the general public is a complicated thing, and right now there's a lot of movement to shift the boundary line one way or the other and things can get confusing. That's why I attribute the reason behind bytor's events to misunderstanding, not malice. I think for me to say that religious freedom is being destroyed, I'd have to see a general trend of proven malice that can't be otherwise be explained more charitably by misunderstanding. An increase in secularism doesn't automatically make the case for the destruction of religious freedom, but it does increase the friction between religion and secularism, and I think it's too hasty of a conclusion to take that friction for a destructive force.

[prisonchaplain]

We largely agree then on what is happening. I agree that the teachers, school administrators, judges, even the Freedom from Religion Foundation folks--none of them are bent on malice. We're all patiotic Americans trying to better society. I just disagree with them, and believe that the 200-year tradition of permitting mild and generic expresssions of Judeo-Christian spirituality--a recognition of our 80%+ allegiance to those faiths--should continue.

I noticed that when I lived in Miami all the school "in-service" days happened to fall on Jewish observance days. Very likely a nod to the heavy Jewish presence in South Florida. On the other hand, there are minerets in Dearborne, Michigan--and one congressman swore his oath on a Qur'an.

I much prefer that we err on the side of affirming the super-majority's faith in Christianity, while welcoming minority faith groups. The "nones," and the more active agnostics and atheists are free not to believe, but really should develop a bit of thick skin--even when I meet them on the street, smile, and say, "God bless you."

[applepansy]

As I was browsing this morning around the internet I found the following article. It reminded me of this thread so I came to share.

Unprecedented ordinance bans Christians from serving on city council.

[LittleWyvern]

As I was browsing this morning around the internet I found the following article. It reminded me of this thread so I came to share.

Unprecedented ordinance bans Christians from serving on city council.

Here's the controversial section:

Prior Discriminatory Acts.

No person shall be appointed to a position if the City Council finds that such person

has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated

a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of

race, color, religion, national origin,sex,sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran

status, age, or disability

Let's keep in mind that this is a draft of a proposed ordinance regarding appointments to boards and commissions. Still, this section is ridiculous. It doesn't ban just Christians from serving on city council, or target just Christians at all, but instead targets everybody. I doubt anyone would ever qualify for an appointment with this kind of language. It's as if it's saying "anybody who ever said something mean in their life ever is banned from being an appointment to San Antonio governmental offices." It's a stupid law, but saying it specifically targets Christians only is a bit of a stretch. Luckily, though, this is just a month old draft of a proposed law and I can't find any articles that suggest it went anywhere but the garbage bin (as it should).

Edited July 26, 2013 by LittleWyvern
copy+paste from a PDF is not a good idea

[prisonchaplain]

The article is headlined, not by a religious advocacy group, but by attorneys. They analyze what the passage says, but also how it changes current practice. Basically, they added sexual orientation. The attorneys see this as a direct effort to silence Christians--not some broad effort to bully "everyone." Oh, and lets be clear--not all Christians are targeted--just conservatives.

I guess we can calm ourselves, and try to downplay all these coincidences and incidences. They are just drafts, that don't specifically call us out--each one is isolated, everyone's heart is in the right place. Still...it all seems to roll downhill...and we seem to be at the bottom, just waiting to receive the blessing.

[LittleWyvern]

Don't get me wrong: normally I'd agree with you, but I just can't find any evidence that any of this proposed ordinance was ever seriously considered to be an actual law. From this article (which is the only one I could find that dates prior to ONN's revival of the story), it seems like the city council isn't even in session right now:

San Antonio city council is on summer hiatus. The proposed ordinance will be taken up in August when the council returns.

I'll be interested to see what kind of treatment this proposed change gets. If anybody takes it seriously, then I'll share your concerns. :)

EDIT: I think part of the reason I'm having such a hard time finding original sources is that there appears to be many different proposals for change and some articles conflate them into one solid thing. Maybe somebody with better google skills than me could straighten this all out.

Edited July 26, 2013 by LittleWyvern

[Just_A_Guy]

I've not been following this discussion closely, but here's a recent article from The Economist that may have some bearing. After arguing that religion is essential to a free society, the author concludes that "Swift secularisation was never something Americans could reasonably expect, but neither is it something freedom-lovers should hesitate to cheer."