Does Any One Care About G-d?

[Traveler]

It has been interesting to me that various groups (even religious groups) and leaders – including religious leaders get upset and demand the removal of some media type for using a derogatory or uncomplimentary reference or use of an racial or cultural name; yet nothing is done at all concerning the over use and derogatory use of the L-rd’s name. Why is there no outcry – is it that no one really cares about G-d? Is no one offended anymore?

I have never heard Al Sharpton fuss over religious slurs – Even Glen Beck has not touch on speech that glamorizes religious bigotry and prejudice yet.

The Traveler

[CrimsonKairos]

Traveler, if you want to spell God without the "o" and Lord without the "o" that's cool with me.

But the entire Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C and PoGP all spell the words out with all letters.

So in what ways do you see the names of God and Lord being overused?

[Dr T]

I have no problem understanding my relationship to the Father, whom I can call Abba (Daddy) without regret and an outcry. That does not take away form my reverence and knowledge of who God is.

[Traveler]

How many gasp when the "N" word is used. You will not hear that on TV or a movie. Yet it has become common place for extra humor for a character to say "Oh my ---!" One time I thought to quit listening to a TV show if it misused references to him that I worship. Within a week there were no programs on TV - even sport casters misuse the reference.

It would appear that we have become so desensitized that no one on the forum even knows what I am talking about. The most sacred reference in all religion - common to all of faith, the 3rd commandment. The sacred name or reference should never be made except in reverence.

We have become so use to saying and hearing non-sacred reference to the divine that it is accepted and expected. At least in our society.

I just thought I would pass on something that does indeed causes my soul discomfort. It is not that I have criticism for references made on this forum – just that I thought someone here might understand and/or share my discomfort.

The Traveler

[Josie]

Traveler,

I agree with you completely. Society is scared of upsetting someone by mentioning God's name infront of them or saying a prayer on the steps of a court house or having a nativity infront of their store or public office. Yet it is okay to use his name in vane or in anger, which is the same.

We cannot even say Merry Christmas from our business for fear of offending someone. But it is fine to curse till the cows come home. It breaks my heart that this world or this country has allowed things to become so twisted from what the country was founded on and why we even have this country.

[Elphaba]

Society is scared of upsetting someone by mentioning God's name infront of them or saying a prayer on the steps of a court house or having a nativity infront of their store or public office.

Hi Josie,

I was wondering who you mean by "society," when you said the above.

Elphaba

[Josie]

The people, as a whole, of this country are allowing this to happen, because we are not doing anything to stop it. We elect and vote for the ones that come up with and pass these laws and sit back and let them do it. The government makes the laws that we break if we put out a nativity at a government office. I said we are afraid, because we put out a nativity or something to do with God at a public business, which does not even have to be government and someone complains and we have to take it down or we are in trouble with the law or are being boycotted by people.

We are not allowed in most businesses to greet people with or wish people a Merry Christmas, we have to say seanson's greetings or happy holidays. We cannot offend someone else, even though that is not our belief.

Elphaba, I am not saying anything against your belief as an atheist. That is your right. I would never take that away from you. But, I think that everyone should have that same right and I think that if I own a business and want to wish people a merry Christmas that should be my right. If a person does not believe in it, I do not understand why a federal case has to be made about it. If a person does not celebrate Christmas, can't what is the harm in realizing the person's good intentions and be thankful for their kindness? I can believe in Christmas and my neighbor not, and we can still be friends and get along, accepting each person for themselves and not what they believe.

This country was founded on freedom of religion, speech, and many other things. But that same freedom that gives someone the right not to believe in God, should also give someone that does, the right to celebrate that belief. It is not a thing of inflicting our beliefs on one another, but living together and allowing each other the freedom to believe as they choose without condemning either.

When our children are not allowed to even carry a Bible to school with them, because someone that does not believe in it might see it and be offended, it seems to me that we have stepped over the line. When Bibles are removed from school libraries and stores are not allowed to post Merry Christmas signs, but they have to say something that does not include the word Christmas, a line has been crossed that should never have been crossed.

jmho

[CrimsonKairos]

Your point makes sense now, Traveler.

I thought you were saying those in the religious world were misusing God's name because we spell it out or something.

As for myself, whenever I buy a movie, I edit out all uses of God's name in vain, as well as sex scenes and excessive violence.

[Elphaba]

(I can't get the quotes to work, so Josie's comments are in italics.)

Hi Josie,

Thank you for your well-thought out reply. I appreciate the time you put into it, and can understand where much of your frustration is coming from. You probably won’t be surprised there are a few issues where I disagree with you, but you’ll probably be surprised there are others where I do.

The people, as a whole, of this country are allowing this to happen, because we are not doing anything to stop it. We elect and vote for the ones that come up with and pass these laws and sit back and let them do it. The government makes the laws that we break if we put out a nativity at a government office.

I would argue the laws are already in place in the form of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. iHowever, I think there is a significant misunderstanding about how these laws are interpreted, i.e., what is allowed in the ‘public square,’ and who is allowed to put it there.

To explain, let me back up and provide an expert from Mitt Romney’s speech where he makes Secularists, of which I am one, the enemy. Bear with me, because I promise it ties into the discussion. Romney states:

“They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.”

In fact, it is Romney who is wrong. Secularists do not call for the elimination of religion from the public square at all; they support it. Secularists do not oppose public expressions of faith at all. In fact, every secularist I know would defend your right to preach in the public square. I am a Secularist, and I should know.

Just like Latter-day Saints often contend if one want to know what a Mormon believe, ask a Mormon, I contend if you want to know what a Secularist believes, ask a Secularist--ask me!

Somehow, to Romney, and the Christian right he was pandering to, my inability to believe in Christianity triggers a belief that I want to destroy the faith of all of those who do. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What Secularists do oppose is government support for public or private expressions of faith. If a public park is also a public forum, then religious groups have the same right as non-religious groups to make speeches, hold rallies, or mount displays, like crèches, in them - so long as their activities are not funded or otherwise endorsed by government.

So, in other words, if a group of private people want to put up a nativity scene in a public park, Secularists would support this group of people in doing so. However, if the government, in the case the city, wants to put up a nativity scene in the public park, that is a violation of the separation of church and state, and Secularists would be opposed to this. Do you see the difference?

I said we are afraid, because we put out a nativity or something to do with God at a public business, which does not even have to be government and someone complains and we have to take it down or we are in trouble with the law or are being boycotted by people.

In this scenario you would never be in trouble with the law because it is a private business (you said public, but it‘s actually private), and as such, the private business can put whatever it wants to on its property (assuming it’s not violating zoning laws). I’ve heard a number of people say they are afraid of the law in this kind of situation--I assure you, you’re breaking no law, so there are no legal ramifications whatssoever.

A far as being boycotted, I searched for about an hour, and in 2007 the only boycotting I could find was being conducted by conservative organizations against stores who used generic greetings, such as “Happy Holidays,” NOT against stores that included “Christmas” in their greetings. This is NOT what you are in fear of, and is a complete turnaround from 2004 and 2005.

For examples, from the Sioux City Journal:

“The conservative American Family Association (AFA) launched a boycott of Target and Sears for not using the phrase "Merry Christmas" in their advertising. The AFA recently agreed to drop its boycott against Sears and Target, after the corporations agreed to include Christmas in their advertising.

“The California based "Committee to Save Merry Christmas," which boycotted Macy's department store earlier this month, also agreed to drop its boycott after Macy's agreed to return "Merry Christmas" to their store signs and advertisements.

“The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights threatened to boycott Wal-Mart stores early in November after an employee told a customer that company policy requires employees to greet customers with "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas." Wal-Mart stood by it's all-inclusive greeting, issued a public apology and fired the employee.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, while I keep hearing that stores are being boycotted for putting “Merry Christmas” greetings up, I could could not find ONE newspaper article saying so. There were many for 2004 and 2005, but not in 2007. Yet someone is still perpetuating the belief that it is.

In this thread I have addressed this issue. In your remaining comments about this issue, I’m just going to reference you back to this comment, as I think its important. There is a reason everyone believes there are still boycotts going on when there are not. Everyone still believes Christians are being discriminated against when they are not. Everyone believes non-Christians are rising up and boycotting when they are not. In fact, the opposite of all of these things is what’s really happening.

Elphaba, I am not saying anything against your belief as an atheist. That is your right. I would never take that away from you.

I know you do, Josie. I have never had any reason to think otherwise. :)

But, I think that everyone should have that same right and I think that if I own a business and want to wish people a merry Christmas that should be my right.

It absolutely is your right, and while somebody is perpetuating a myth that it is not, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

If a person does not believe in it, I do not understand why a federal case has to be made about it. If a person does not celebrate Christmas, can't what is the harm in realizing the person's good intentions and be thankful for their kindness? I can believe in Christmas and my neighbor not, and we can still be friends and get along, accepting each person for themselves and not what they believe.

I couldn’t agree more. Again, I don’t believe it’s people not recognizing your good intentions.

I do believe, however, that the kind thing to do is to recognize fifteen percent of the population is not Christian, and allow for those who choose not to say Merry Christmas without thinking they are being forced into it somehow. Personally I believe it is a generous gesture to all Americans to say Happy Holidays, and while you ask that non-Christians not be so offended, I would ask that Christians not be so offended, either.

However, in order to do this, we’d have to realize that when we’re blaming each other, I.e., Christians vs., non-Christians, we’re pointing our fingers at the wrong people. Neither one of us is to blame for this contentiousness. But someone wants us to think we are. If we don’t buy into that, and just recognize the best of intentions on each side, we’d both be fine.

This country was founded on freedom of religion, speech, and many other things. But that same freedom that gives someone the right not to believe in God, should also give someone that does, the right to celebrate that belief. It is not a thing of inflicting our beliefs on one another, but living together and allowing each other the freedom to believe as they choose without condemning either.

Well said!

When our children are not allowed to even carry a Bible to school with them, because someone that does not believe in it might see it and be offended, it seems to me that we have stepped over the line.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to here, but a child has a First Amendment right to carry a Bible to school. If you know of a child who was denied that right, then there are some phone calls to be made.

Many people erroneously believe that students are not allowed to bring their Bibles into public schools. Others believe that they can have a Bible, but are not allowed to read it. In fact, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that:

Students can carry Bibles on the school bus;

They carry Bibles with them while in school;

They can read Bibles on school property, even in the classroom, if it is not during actual instruction time;

They can freely read and use their Bible in a Christian club, if one or more secular, non-curriculum related clubs are also permitted in the same school.

Having said that, I was intrigued by your comment, so I did some searching, and came up with this case of a student who was denied the ability to use his Bible in an assignment, and was frankly, appalled.

In the case of the Busch v. Marple Newtown Sch. Dist., No. 05-2094 (E.D. Pa. May 31, 2007) :

A kindergartener named Wesley Busch was given an assignment to bring his parent to school to “share a talent, short game, small craft, or story with the class.” Wesley’s mother, Donna Busch, planed to read the Bible. The principle told Ms Busch she would not be allowed to read to the class from the Bible because this would be “against the law . . . Of separation of church and state” and asked her to read from another book.

Wesley’s parents sued, and lost, with the Pennsylvania federal district court ruling school officials did not violate a student’s or his parents' free speech or equal protection rights, or the Establishment Clause. . . . “

I find this astonishing that the court ruled Wesley was not protected by the Establishment Claus. He was a private citizen and therefore, IMO, had the right to read from the Bible as part of his assignment. This is clearly not a case where the teacher, as a representative of the government, was reading the Bible to the students. Wesley’s mother was going to do so to complete Wesley’s assignment “All About Me.“

Additionally, other students had brought materials discussing Hanukah and Passover. Yet the court ruled Wesley’s reading from the Bible violated the Establishment Claus.

I don’t even know what to say to this. I’ve read the ruling, and completely disagree with it. Neither the school, nor the teacher, both representing the government, were doing the reading. The private citizen (mother) was, as part of the child’s assignment.

I agree with you Josie. That is just wrong.

Thanks again for responding. Hopefully instead of letting some phantom "others" tell us we're all angry with each other because we're not saying the right words, we'll ask each other whether that's true or not.

Merry Christmas!

Elphaba

[Josie]

Elphaba,

My dear, I gain more respect for you each time I read a post like this. Let me explain a couple things.

There are many schools in this country, where the Bible has been banned from their libraries and students can be expelled if they are caught bringing a Bible to school with them. Bibles are not allowed on the school property at all. I know that for a fact, because I had family that were absolutely irrate that their child could not even take a Bible to school to read in their own free time. Because it could be an offense to someone else.

Many businesses do not allow their employees to wish customers a "Merry or Happy Christmas" because it might offend someone. It is considered not the business thing to do at this point.

I am blaming the people of this country, as a whole, including myself, for allowing these things to happen and not do more to change it.

I agree with you totally on your right and everyone else's right to believe as they choose. When we start taking those rights away, we are leaning in the direction of dictatorship and the loss of all of our rights.

Elphaba, I appreciate the time you put into your posts and the thought and effort. It is obvious to me that you are a good person and have many opinions worth listening too. I am glad you are here. We can all have our opinions and express them, without offense, if we put alittle effort into it.

Thank you,

Josie

[sixpacktr]

How many gasp when the "N" word is used. You will not hear that on TV or a movie. Yet it has become common place for extra humor for a character to say "Oh my ---!" One time I thought to quit listening to a TV show if it misused references to him that I worship. Within a week there were no programs on TV - even sport casters misuse the reference.

It would appear that we have become so desensitized that no one on the forum even knows what I am talking about. The most sacred reference in all religion - common to all of faith, the 3rd commandment. The sacred name or reference should never be made except in reverence.

We have become so use to saying and hearing non-sacred reference to the divine that it is accepted and expected. At least in our society.

I just thought I would pass on something that does indeed causes my soul discomfort. It is not that I have criticism for references made on this forum – just that I thought someone here might understand and/or share my discomfort.

The Traveler

This last week in Sacrament meeting one of the Sisters in the branch gave an excellent talk on reverencing the name of God, and I was very glad to hear this given. We have a lot of converts in our branch (mainly ex Catholic, since Buffalo is heavily Catholic) and I have heard OMG dropped with regularity. I think for most converts it is a leftover from past practices, something that has become so engrained in the vernacular it is almost like saying 'what's for dinner?', etc.

I agree with you. This sister brought up a point I have thought of many times: we don't understand the power that these names carry, and once we do, we'll hang our heads in shame if we defiled them thru casual or (worse yet) angry usage. We as Saints and Christians should regard the name of diety with reverence, and although we are swimming in the mud of disrespect, those things should never cross our lips except in the most loving tones and with great reverence.

[Josie]

Well said Six.

[the_jason]

What offends me almost as much as the Lord's name being taken in vain is when people write L-ord or G-d. I understand, Traveler, that your intent is to allow others in countries where spelling the names of Deity is forbidden to use this site, but if it's forbidden then what are they doing here to begin with? It is disrespectful to use the Lord's name inappropriately. Just as using His name in vain is wrong, belittling Him by typing G-d is wrong as well. His name is God.

[Elphaba]

Hi Josie, thank you for the kind words.

There are many schools in this country, where the Bible has been banned from their libraries and students can be expelled if they are caught bringing a Bible to school with them. Bibles are not allowed on the school property at all. I know that for a fact, because I had family that were absolutely irrate that their child could not even take a Bible to school to read in their own free time. Because it could be an offense to someone else.

This concerns me because it is a very clear violation of the First Amendment as well as the Department of Education's "Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools," from which I have posted an excerpt below. This is taken directly from the Department of Education's website:

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: As required by section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of

2001 (NCLB), the Secretary of Education on February 7, 2003, issued

guidance on constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and

secondary schools. . . . .

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanette Lim, Office of Elementary and

Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC 20202-2241. Telephone: (202) 401-0113. Information

on this guidance is available on the Internet through the Department of

Education's Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/inits/religionandschools/.

. . . .

The guidance clarifies the rights of students to pray in public

schools. As stated in the guidance, ``* * * the First Amendment forbids

religious activity that is sponsored by the government but protects

religious activity that is initiated by private individuals'' such as

students. Therefore, ``[a]mong other things, students may read their

Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray or study

religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour,

or other noninstructional time to the same extent that they may engage

in nonreligious activities.'' Public schools should not be hostile to

the religious rights of their students and their families.

[[Page 9646]] (emphasis mine)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am not saying I don't believe you, Josie. I am saying whoever is telling you that their children are now allowed to bring their Bible's to school needs to take action, because it is against the law to prohibit them from doing so. As you can see, it is clearly spelled out in the DoE's guidelines.

I want to emphasize, that as a Secularist, it is important to me that any child be allowed to take a religious text to school, because it IS a First Amendment right. It bothers me greatly that people don't understand this about Secularists, including Mitt Romney, who misled everyone in his speech. In addition, Secularists are concerned with the Separation of church and state aspect of the First Amendment, and to illustrate that here is the continuation of the DoE's guidelines:

"At the same time, school officials may not ``compel students to

participate in prayer or other religious activities.'' Nor may

teachers, school administrators, and other school employees, when

acting in their official capacities as representatives of the State,

encourage or discourage prayer or actively participate in those

activities with students. (emphasis mine)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So to clarify, (and you probably got this the first time), I am absolutely in support of children taking their Bibles, or other religious canon, to school, and reading it at school except when the teacher is instructing class. I also support children's rights to say prayers any time they want, except when the instructor is teaching the class. And even then, the child can say silent prayers--who's going to stop him/her.

However, I am adamantly opposed to the instructor, as an official representative of the government, leading the children in an religious activity, including reading any religious literature (other than for educational purposes) or prayer.

Many businesses do not allow their employees to wish customers a "Merry or Happy Christmas" because it might offend someone. It is considered not the business thing to do at this point.

I agree with you. However, I look at it as the businesses are trying to be more inclusive, not exclusive. Personally, I don't see it as offensive, but then I'm not a Christian. To me it seems like a solution that includes all Americans.

However, I seriously question who is truly being "offended" by Merry Christmas. I do not believe it is the fifteen percent of non-Christians in this country, as the Christian right would have us believe. I've done a lot of research into this, and there just is no evidence that it is non-Christians. I provided some evidence of this in my last post. I believe that is a myth being perpetuated to keep Christians angry about this, and I find that offensive.

I am blaming the people of this country, as a whole, including myself, for allowing these things to happen and not do more to change it.

I'm not sure which part of the post you're referring to, but I'm curious what you would do to make changes. I'm not being sarcastic at all. I'd really like to know what changes you'd like made, and what you would do.

I agree with you totally on your right and everyone else's right to believe as they choose. When we start taking those rights away, we are leaning in the direction of dictatorship and the loss of all of our rights.

Well, since you mention it, you might want to remind Mitt Romney that Secularists are not out to remove religion from the public square, and that atheists and agnostics have rights in America too. He sort of forgot to mention them in his speech.

Elphaba, I appreciate the time you put into your posts and the thought and effort. It is obvious to me that you are a good person and have many opinions worth listening too. I am glad you are here. We can all have our opinions and express them, without offense, if we put alittle effort into it.

I agree. To be honest, it's refreshing to have a converation where we might fundamentally disagree but I don't feel like I'm embattled. You are very respectful as well, and I enjoy it very much.

Most of all, I've noticed you actually read my posts. That right there deserves my huge thanks!

Elphaba

[Josie]

I appreciate you explaining many of your beliefs in this area Elphaba. You have helped me to understand your position much better.

What would I do? Well, speaking for what I think all of us need to do, for what it is worth. We need to make sure we get out and vote and write our government officials and let them know how we feel and write presidents of companies even, maybe, and let them know how we feel. We can write letters to the editor of our newspapers. I think there are lots of things we can do, but we seldom take the time to do more than talk about it or maybe go to the polls to vote [speaking for myself].

[Traveler]

Well, since you mention it, you might want to remind Mitt Romney that Secularists are not out to remove religion from the public square, and that atheists and agnostics have rights in America too. He sort of forgot to mention them in his speech.

Elphaba

I find this interesting since the Secularists I know all want to remove any reference to religion from education. How can we teach any subject and understand its context in human society without the twist that was given in the time and place by religion: Even Math has roots in religion. For example why is time given in numbers base 60?

From history many import things are not correctly understood becaus all reference to religion has been removed - leaving histor flat and without meaning - some examples:

Why did Hitler call his movement the 3rd Reich? And what was the 1st and 2nd Reich?

Why did Robin Hood have 11 men which formed a “Priest – Hood” (Druid circle or quorum) and why was the first priest (making the number 12) called “Robin”.

What Christian doctrine was being opposed by the resources in the library of Alexandria that forced Theodosius to burn everything to the ground – beginning the “Dark Ages”?

Why did Charlemagne kill more Europeans than the Black Plague, making him one of the most successful mass murders of all time and yet he is honored as one of the greatest “Christians” of all time. And why is the city he founded – Frankfort – a divided city to this day.

Of the three great gifts of Allah to the Arabic people – What it the “gift tree” What is the color of it fruit – why is the fruit so critical to the Arabic peoples and where does this tree come from and how does this play in international relationships?

The Traveler

[a-train]

OK,

So if it isn't the 'secularists' who are trying to ban kids from taking Bibles to school and so forth, who is it?

-a-train

[Elphaba]

I find this interesting since the Secularists I know

What Secularists do you know? I ask because I am highly skeptical that you actually "know" any Secularists at all. In fact, I'm willing to go out on a limb, and say I'm pretty certain about that.

I will even go so far as to say your only information on Secularists is what you have heard from the Religious Right, the Republican Right, or some organization of that kind. Whichever, I have no doubt whatsoever that you do not personally "know" any Secularists at all, or you would not have made that statement.

all want to remove any reference to religion from education.

Do you have a reference for this? Any proof? Because your statement is hogwash.

How can we teach any subject and understand its context in human society without the twist that was given in the time and place by religion: Even Math has roots in religion. For example why is time given in numbers base 60?

From history many import things are not correctly understood becaus all reference to religion has been removed - leaving histor flat and without meaning - some examples:

Why did Hitler call his movement the 3rd Reich? And what was the 1st and 2nd Reich?

Why did Robin Hood have 11 men which formed a “Priest – Hood” (Druid circle or quorum) and why was the first priest (making the number 12) called “Robin”.

What Christian doctrine was being opposed by the resources in the library of Alexandria that forced Theodosius to burn everything to the ground – beginning the “Dark Ages”?

Why did Charlemagne kill more Europeans than the Black Plague, making him one of the most successful mass murders of all time and yet he is honored as one of the greatest “Christians” of all time. And why is the city he founded – Frankfort – a divided city to this day.

Of the three great gifts of Allah to the Arabic people – What it the “gift tree” What is the color of it fruit – why is the fruit so critical to the Arabic peoples and where does this tree come from and how does this play in international relationships?

Your assertion that Secularists, as a whole, would actively engage in a fight to have any of the above mentioned items removed from a public curriculum is preposterous.

Traeveler, please provide proof of your claims or don't post them. Show me where an instructor has been told he/she cannot include any of the above items in the curriculum because of Secularist intervention.

I am not opposed to being proved wrong, and if you have the information I would be glad to have it.

However, I am opposed to your wont to write these one-time zingers full of nonsense, and when I rebut them you never come around to either acknowledge you were wrong or to provide more information to substantiate your claims.

And by the way, it can't be an anecdotal story or something you heard from a friend or family member; rather, it must be a substantiated case that I can verify and address.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

OK,

So if it isn't the 'secularists' who are trying to ban kids from taking Bibles to school and so forth, who is it?

-a-train

I have no idea. I have spent the last three hours searching for anything, any case, any activity, any organization, any one who wants to ban the Bible, and the only thing I could find was this:

This was a propaganda flyer sent to citizens of Arkansas by the Republican National Committee during the 2004 Presidential campaign. It used a scare tactic implying that if Bush and Republicans weren't re-elected, Democrats were going to ban the Bible.

Democracts have never tried to ban the Bible, and even if they did, which is nonsense, they never could. It would never pass the Establishment Clause.

If anyone can find me a case where a Secularist organization has tried to ban the Bible, I would be glad to have the information. I cannot say for certainty no one has done it. I know that the Secularist organizations I have researched are opposed to banning the Bible. In fact, they are opposed to banning any book, which cannot be said for some of the Christian Right.

But the truth is I am tired of searching. People on this site have made the claim Secularists want to ban the Bible. Show me--I'm all eyes.

Elphaba

[a-train]

Perhaps Ben Stein can shed light: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

Perhaps Ben Stein can shed light: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

-a-train

I have read so many nod, wink, "yeah right" dismissals of "Intelligent Design," so many insistances that Darwinism is fact, that the debate is closed, that I.D. is Young Earth Creationism repackaged (it's not)...yes, when it comes to science education, literalist Christianity, as well as any other religion that argues for divine creation of the world, is treated as a despised minority superstition.

In fact, the argument goes, that since the contention has a religious element (maybe God made it), it cannot be considered science, from the get-go. That's the whole argument against ID--since it hints at God it can't be science.

But...what if it's true? Then it's the only true science.

[sixpacktr]

<div class='quotemain'>

Well, since you mention it, you might want to remind Mitt Romney that Secularists are not out to remove religion from the public square, and that atheists and agnostics have rights in America too. He sort of forgot to mention them in his speech.

Elphaba

I find this interesting since the Secularists I know all want to remove any reference to religion from education. How can we teach any subject and understand its context in human society without the twist that was given in the time and place by religion: Even Math has roots in religion. For example why is time given in numbers base 60?

From history many import things are not correctly understood becaus all reference to religion has been removed - leaving histor flat and without meaning - some examples:

Why did Hitler call his movement the 3rd Reich? And what was the 1st and 2nd Reich?

Why did Robin Hood have 11 men which formed a “Priest – Hood” (Druid circle or quorum) and why was the first priest (making the number 12) called “Robin”.

What Christian doctrine was being opposed by the resources in the library of Alexandria that forced Theodosius to burn everything to the ground – beginning the “Dark Ages”?

Why did Charlemagne kill more Europeans than the Black Plague, making him one of the most successful mass murders of all time and yet he is honored as one of the greatest “Christians” of all time. And why is the city he founded – Frankfort – a divided city to this day.

Of the three great gifts of Allah to the Arabic people – What it the “gift tree” What is the color of it fruit – why is the fruit so critical to the Arabic peoples and where does this tree come from and how does this play in international relationships?

The Traveler

Traveler,

I'd be interested in the answers to these questions you posed.

Even if there is no God, and he/she/it was completely made up, the force of religion on history is enormous. And you are right, they want to remove all mention of any type of religious influence on history and/or peoples that it does make history almost ridiculous, for fear of 'offending' someone, or because mentioning God is 'wrong'. It makes it equivalent to trying to explain how an airplane flies without talking about vacuum and lift: it can't be explained.

[sgallan]

I have read so many nod, wink, "yeah right" dismissals of "Intelligent Design," so many insistances that Darwinism is fact, that the debate is closed, that I.D. is Young Earth Creationism repackaged (it's not)...yes, when it comes to science education, literalist Christianity, as well as any other religion that argues for divine creation of the world, is treated as a despised minority superstition.

I know of at least ten different creationalist theories. Including the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Which one would you suggest we teach? How about this one.....

Zoroastrianism, the Religion of Ancient Persia

The Bundahishn of the Middle Persian era tells of the world created by the deity Ahura Mazda. The great mountain, Alburz, grew for 800 years until it touched the sky. From that point, rain fell, forming the Vourukasha sea and two great rivers. The first animal, the white bull, lived on the bank of the river Veh Rod. However, the evil spirit, Angra Mainyu, killed it. Its seed was carried to the moon and purified, creating many animals and plants. Across the river lived the first man, Gayomard, bright as the sun. Angra Mainyu also killed him. Ouch! The sun purified his seed for forty years, which then sprouted a rhubarb plant. This plant grew into Mashya and Mashyanag, the first mortals. Instead of killing them, Angra Mainyu deceived them into worshipping him. After 50 years they bore twins, but they ate the twins, owing to their sin. After a very long time, two more twins were born, and from them came all humans (but specifically Persians).

Having briefly addressed religion in science..... I have no issues with the Christian religion being taught in schools. Even with a Bible involved. The religion has obviously been a HUGE influence in our society. It demands study. As a home school parent I can assure you my kid is aware of it... both good and bad.

Oh, FWIW I have no problem with nativity scenes. I say Merry Christmas and not Happy Hollidays. And my Junior High wrestling team does a little prayer circle thing before every meet. I think it is a great team bonding thing and have no issues with it at all. And I am about as secular as one can get.

[Elphaba]

And you are right, they want to remove all mention of any type of religious influence on history and/or peoples. . . .

Who is "they"?Where are "they" fighting to remove any type of religious influence on history and/or peoples in the schools?

I've just spent another couple of hours looking at random high school curriculum guidelines, a I believe that is the lowest age group Traveler's examples would be taught, and to a one there is always a policy similar to the following:

A First Amendment guide

Knowledge about religions is not only a characteristic of an educated person, but it is also absolutely necessary for understanding and living in a world of diversity. Knowledge of religious differences and the role of religion in the contemporary world can help promote understanding and alleviate prejudice. Since the purpose of the social studies is to provide students with a knowledge of the world that has been, the world that is, and the world of the future, studying about religions should be an essential part of the social studies curriculum. Omitting study about religions gives students the impression that religions have not been and are not now part of the human experience. Study about religions may be dealt with in special courses and units or wherever and whenever knowledge of the religious dimension of human history and culture is needed for a balanced and comprehensive understanding.— from the “Position Statement and Guidelines of the National Council for the Social Studies”

Growing numbers of educators throughout the United States recognize that study about religion in social studies, literature, art and music is an essential part of a complete public school education. States and school districts are issuing new mandates and guidelines for the inclusion of teaching about religion in the curriculum. As a result, textbooks are expanding discussions of religion's role in history and culture, and many new supplementary materials concerning religion in history are being developed.

In light of this national trend to include more about religion in the curriculum, the question for teachers is no longer "Should I teach about religion?," but rather, "What should I teach, and how should I do it?" This essay is designed to provide the civic and academic framework for answering the questions of "what" and "how." The aim of the guidelines and suggestions that follow is to help classroom teachers meet the challenges of teaching about religion in ways that are constitutionally permissible, educationally sound and sensitive to the beliefs of students and parents.

Why study about religion is important

Teaching about religion is important and necessary if public schools are to provide students with a complete education. Much of history, art, music, literature and contemporary life is unintelligible without an understanding of the major religious ideas and influences that have shaped history and culture throughout the world. Even teaching religious liberty, the civic foundation that sustains the United States as one nation of many faiths, requires teaching about the role of religion in history and culture. A recent report by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development described the place of religion in the curriculum:

“The proper role of religion in the school is the study of religion for its educational value. The task is to teach about religions and their impact in history, literature, art, music, and morality. It seems natural that the art curriculum, for example, must pay attention to the impact of Christianity on the work of Michelangelo, just as a history class focusing on the colonization of America must pay attention to the religious upheaval in sixteenth-century Europe that fueled that colonization.”

Understanding the role religion plays in history and culture is of special importance in our increasingly diverse society. Expanding religious pluralism in the United States confronts our schools and our nation with unprecedented challenges. America has shifted from the largely Protestant pluralism of the 18th century to a pluralism that now includes people of all faiths and a growing number of people who indicate no religious preference. New populations of Muslims, Buddhists and many other religious and ethnic groups are entering schools throughout the nation.

If we are to live with our differences, we must attempt through education to replace stereotypes and prejudices with understanding and respect. Students need to recognize that religious and philosophical beliefs and practices are of deep significance to much of our citizenry. Omission of discussion about the religious and philosophical roots of developments in history can give students the false impression that the religious and ethical traditions of humankind are insignificant or unimportant.

A civic framework for teaching about religion

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

The religious-liberty clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution provide the civic framework for teaching about religion in the public schools. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to mean that public schools may neither promote nor inhibit religious belief or nonbelief. The public school curriculum may not, therefore, include religious indoctrination in any form (including hostility to religions or religion in general). Such teaching would constitute state sponsorship of religion and would violate the freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment.

Religious indoctrination, however, is not the same as teaching about religion. In the 1960s school-prayer cases (that prompted rulings against state-sponsored school prayer and devotional Bible-reading), the Supreme Court indicated that public school education may include teaching about religion. In Abington v. Schempp (1963), the Court stated:

“t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.”

All public school teachers must have a clear understanding of the crucial difference between the teaching of religion (religious education) and teaching about religion. In 1988, a broad coalition of 17 religious and educational organizations published guidelines that distinguish between teaching about religion and religious indoctrination. The guidelines state, in part:

\

The school's approach to religion is academic, not devotional.

The school strives for student awareness of religions, but does not press for student acceptance of any one religion.

The school sponsors study about religion, not the practice of religion.

The school exposes students to a diversity of religious views; it does not impose any particular view.

The school educates about all religions; it does not promote or denigrate any religion.

The school informs students about various beliefs; it does not seek to conform students to any particular belief.

In addition to these baseline distinctions, the religious-liberty clauses provide guiding principles for how teaching about religion may best be carried out in the classroom. Charles Haynes, the First Amendment Center’s senior scholar, calls these principles the civic values at the heart of American citizenship: “They are so fundamental and enduring that they may be called the ‘Three Rs’ of religious liberty”:

Rights: Religious liberty, or freedom of conscience, is a basic and inalienable right founded on the inviolable dignity of the person. In a society as religiously diverse as the United States, it is essential that schools emphasize that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are for citizens of all faiths and none.

Responsibilities: Religious liberty is not only a universal right, but it also depends upon a universal responsibility to respect that right for others, treating others as we ourselves desire to be treated. All citizens must recognize the inseparable link between the preservation of their own constitutional rights and their responsibility as citizens to defend those rights for all others. This is what the Williamsburg Charter calls the "Golden Rule for civic life."

Respect: Debate and disagreement are vital to classroom discussion and a key element of preparation for citizenship in a democracy. Yet, if we are to live with our differences, particularly our religious differences, how we debate, and not only what we debate, is critical. At the heart of good citizenship is a strong commitment to the civic values that enable people with diverse religious and philosophical perspectives to treat one another with respect and civility.

Rights, responsibilities and respect, then, Haynes says, are the civic ground rules for teaching about religion in the public schools, just as they are the ground rules of American citizenship. When we teach about the many cultures and religions of our nation and the world, we must simultaneously teach our common ground — the civic values and responsibilities that we share as American citizens. If this is done, teaching about religion becomes an excellent opportunity to teach respect for universal rights and mutual responsibilities, within which the deep differences of belief can be negotiated.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't really expect anyone to read this, but I came across policies like this again and again and again. A Secularist organization would SUPPORT this policy.

Elphaba

[sixpacktr]

I know of at least ten different creationalist theories. Including the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Which one would you suggest we teach? How about this one.....

I'd like to hear the tale of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!