Ethics in General

[hrmm]

Why is ethics based entirely on Western concepts? There in a universal stance, ethics are nothing. They are just codes. As in, you could say that the holocaust wasn't a bad thing, because you believed it.

Discuss etc.

[Filthy Tugboat]

You seem to have misinterpreted, the teacher is not in a position to dictate ethics to their students. The rest of the post I agree with.

To 'dictate' means to declare something to be true, or to be done; a philosophy or action...with some means of enforcement behind the declaration. Teachers can, and do, dictate ethics to their students all the time. If you don't think so, take a look at your own school's 'academic policy' sometime.

The academic policy is an ethical code that one must agree to in order to gain entry into the institute, dictating that ethical code is more or less reminding the students of what they are required to uphold if they plan to stay with the institute.

When grades are at stake, the person issuing them is absolutely dictating the rules, means and attitudes by which they are obtained.

Yes, they are, this however does not mean that the teachers dictate 'ethics' it means they enforce the agreements that the students have made.

By the way, 'dictate' doesn't mean that the students can't decide not to abide by those dictates. The very existence of punishment for disobeying dictates proves that it's possible to do so...else why bother inventing punishments?

Or, in the case of teachers...why bother assigning grades less than an "A"?

I don't recall suggesting that was the definition of dictate.

Case in point. You've probably heard or read stories about the Ten Commandments being removed from a city court house. Lots of noise and lots of clammor by folks everywhere....especially the religious.

And rightly so, a country that enforces freedom of religion is breaking their own standards by favoring a religion.

I believe that you need to go back and read the first amendment to the US Constitution.

No, I don't think that I do.

Yes, I think that you do; your statement, above, that a 'country that enforces freedom of religion is breaking their own standards by favoring a religion,' shows this. How can one be favoring a religion when one is enforcing freedom of religion?

Exactly, if any government claims freedom of religion and then favor a specific religion they are not correctly upholding the standards they set. My statement above was a demonstration of why having any support for specific religions in official buildings or documents is breaking their own standards.

The first amendment is, arguably, the most important amendment; without it, none of the others work. Freedom of thought, of speech, and of religion MUST be protected and enforced. Not freedom FROM, freedom OF.

In order to have freedom of religion you need freedom from religion.

........because "freedom from" religion is absolutely establishing a state religion..an 'anti-religion,' if you will.

How so? Are you suggesting that allowing people to not adopt religion is establishing a state religion?

What difference does it make whether the government suppresses one belief system--or all of them? The injustice is the same. If the only legally acceptable opinion regarding deity is that there isn't one, I submit that this establishing a state religion in every sense but the literal; it certainly violates the very spirit of the first amendment; every single part of it.

That's not what the opinion is, the opinion of the state has to be 'No comment'.

It is vital that freedom of religion be enforced; every person should be free to believe, to worship, to express his beliefs, and to behave according to those beliefs...whether those beliefs are approved by everybody else or not. In fact, it is those beliefs that are held by the minority that need the most protection.

Agreed and for the protection and acceptance of others the state must withhold support for specific religions. The state has no place within religious communities.

The problem with ethics is...they are uncomfortable. They require (at least, the good systems do) that you allow others to be as free to have opinions as you are, even if you don't agree with them. In fact, they force you to see to it that they can.

.....and the government must enforce freedom of religion...the freedom to be religious in one's chosen way, and the freedom to be not religious at all, and even to be against it altogether.

Agreed.

[dianaiad]

It is vital that freedom of religion be enforced; every person should be free to believe, to worship, to express his beliefs, and to behave according to those beliefs...whether those beliefs are approved by everybody else or not. In fact, it is those beliefs that are held by the minority that need the most protection.

Agreed and for the protection and acceptance of others the state must withhold support for specific religions. The state has no place within religious communities.

Absolutely. Which of course means that it cannot discriminate against religious groups BECAUSE they are religious groups. The attitude of the government should be, not 'no comment,' but rather; "so what?" As in...if the local homeless shelter can advertise a fund raiser on the City Hall bulletin board, then so can the local Knights of Columbus also advertise a fundraiser for their work at the local children's center.

As it stands, though, only those groups not affiliated with religion may so advertise, or use public services, for such things.

It took a lawsuit to force a school to allow religious "after school clubs" to use classrooms and school facilities that were open to clubs and organizations of all OTHER types.

I think you can understand that this is not keeping the state out of religious communities. Quite the opposite. In fact, it is exactly the sort of segregation that would be unconscionable if it were based upon race or ethnicity.

there are two ways to handle the 'don't advocate any specific religion' problem. One is to prohibit any religious expression in public places. The problems with that are, well, the freedom of speech abrogation that MUST be done in order to accomplish this, and of course the fact that doing so IS establishing a religion..or rather, an 'anti-religion.'

It's like...going to the local animal shelter and being told that because the workers there cannot recommend any ONE of the animals for adopting, they are simply going to kill 'em all to make it fair--thus enforcing a 'no animal' policy. A "no -religion" policy IS establishing a policy--and absolutely abrogating the part about inhibiting the 'free expression thereof."

The other way is simply to...ignore the fact that there is a theistic belief involved in any group. If someone wants to post a fund-raising poster, the only question that should be asked is...is this fundraiser for charitable purposes, with the money going where you claim it is? Ok then, fine....it doesn't matter whether you are Habitat for Humanity or Catholic Charities, post ahead. You want to post the Ten Commandments in the Courthouse? No problem. Post away...right next to the Code of Hammurabi and all the other codes of justice that humans have used throughout history.

You know, like they do at the US Supreme Court building.

You want to have a religious display in the city park? Fine. There's the area over there. You have a space 5 x 5 x 10 (or something) and you can have it for this many days. It looks like we have a space free right next to the Christian Scientists, across from American Atheists, and kitty-corner from the local recycling center display. The only thing that matters is that your display is of the correct size, stays the number of days you pay for, and doesn't display stuff that would shock a kid's parents. (Nothing shocks kids.) Leave out the F word, and everybody should be dressed. Like that. The second you start caring whether a group is religious or not, or treating religious groups differently than others in matters like this, you are abrogating the establishment clause. One way or another.

The problem with ethics is...they are uncomfortable. They require (at least, the good systems do) that you allow others to be as free to have opinions as you are, even if you don't agree with them. In fact, they force you to see to it that they can.

.....and the government must enforce freedom of religion...the freedom to be religious in one's chosen way, and the freedom to be not religious at all, and even to be against it altogether.

Agreed.[/quote]

Yep. Perhaps we were talking past each other.

[Filthy Tugboat]

It is vital that freedom of religion be enforced; every person should be free to believe, to worship, to express his beliefs, and to behave according to those beliefs...whether those beliefs are approved by everybody else or not. In fact, it is those beliefs that are held by the minority that need the most protection.

Agreed and for the protection and acceptance of others the state must withhold support for specific religions. The state has no place within religious communities.

Absolutely. Which of course means that it cannot discriminate against religious groups BECAUSE they are religious groups. The attitude of the government should be, not 'no comment,' but rather; "so what?" As in...if the local homeless shelter can advertise a fund raiser on the City Hall bulletin board, then so can the local Knights of Columbus also advertise a fundraiser for their work at the local children's center.

What do you mean by "children's center"? Just double checking on what it actually is that you're referring to.

As it stands, though, only those groups not affiliated with religion may so advertise, or use public services, for such things.

I disagree with the notion that religious groups should be able to host fund raisers in all public forums, I also disagree with the notion that all non-religious groups can host fundraisers in all public forums. The content of the message is what should prevent such an occurrence. Say if a group is trying to advertise for the legality of cannabis or trying to promote their porn company, of course they shouldn't be doing these in a children's center, and the same goes for religion, it is unfair to place children in a position where they have to confront something that they do not necessarily need to or want to confront and the parents of those children have the right to prevent such an occurrence. As was stated before, in order to have freedom of religion and of religious expression, we need to have freedom from religion and this can only be achieved by disallowing religious expression in areas that others inhabit, a community center would be ok assuming that it has it's own time slot and does not interrupt other events. SO I'm not suggesting religion should be completely neglected by the government, I'm just suggesting there is a time and a place.

It took a lawsuit to force a school to allow religious "after school clubs" to use classrooms and school facilities that were open to clubs and organizations of all OTHER types.

This I agree with, this isn't using public property to promote their religion this is a gathering between people who willfully join the club to, I'm sure, discuss and embrace their religion.

I think you can understand that this is not keeping the state out of religious communities. Quite the opposite. In fact, it is exactly the sort of segregation that would be unconscionable if it were based upon race or ethnicity.

If the state embraces any religion or religious practice it creates segregation. Politics and religion are the most divisive forces I can think of, if the government endorses a religion publicly, it can make it's employees or inhabitants of the forum used uncomfortable and if they discuss the topic and disagree with it, others might jump in and begin arguing. Basically, the government should have absolutely no religious endorsement at all, not just accept all kinds of religious endorsement. Yes, but this is not about race or ethnicity, this is based upon promoting certain lifestyles and religious ideals, there is a big difference.

there are two ways to handle the 'don't advocate any specific religion' problem. One is to prohibit any religious expression in public places. The problems with that are, well, the freedom of speech abrogation that MUST be done in order to accomplish this, and of course the fact that doing so IS establishing a religion..or rather, an 'anti-religion.'

An anti-religion would be something that actively opposes religion rather than one that does not permit the use of certain public areas for religious promotion.

It's like...going to the local animal shelter and being told that because the workers there cannot recommend any ONE of the animals for adopting, they are simply going to kill 'em all to make it fair--thus enforcing a 'no animal' policy. A "no -religion" policy IS establishing a policy--and absolutely abrogating the part about inhibiting the 'free expression thereof."

It is not a 'no-religion' policy though, the state simply has no right to endorse any religion and by doing so they create division, even if they permit the promotion of many religions. People should be able to go about their day without having religion shoved down their throat, that is freedom from religion and it is vital to maintain freedom of religion.

The other way is simply to...ignore the fact that there is a theistic belief involved in any group. If someone wants to post a fund-raising poster, the only question that should be asked is...is this fundraiser for charitable purposes, with the money going where you claim it is? Ok then, fine....it doesn't matter whether you are Habitat for Humanity or Catholic Charities, post ahead. You want to post the Ten Commandments in the Courthouse? No problem. Post away...right next to the Code of Hammurabi and all the other codes of justice that humans have used throughout history.

I disagree, the government should have no religious endorsement, especially not in places where people have to work and/or live.

You know, like they do at the US Supreme Court building.

That is unconstitutional though as it does not meet any expectation of 'freedom from religion'.

You want to have a religious display in the city park? Fine. There's the area over there. You have a space 5 x 5 x 10 (or something) and you can have it for this many days. It looks like we have a space free right next to the Christian Scientists, across from American Atheists, and kitty-corner from the local recycling center display. The only thing that matters is that your display is of the correct size, stays the number of days you pay for, and doesn't display stuff that would shock a kid's parents. (Nothing shocks kids.) Leave out the F word, and everybody should be dressed. Like that. The second you start caring whether a group is religious or not, or treating religious groups differently than others in matters like this, you are abrogating the establishment clause. One way or another.

"Leave out anything that shocks kids parents", you would know about the bus sign that caused all that controversy, "THERE'S PROBABLY NO GOD. NOW STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE." This would be considered shocking to many kids' parents and many don't want their kids to be forced to see it. Some religious or non-religious codes are considered shocking, so off the bat you have excluded many. This is the problem, the state should stay the hell out of religious matters and should not promote any religion because of the divisive nature of religion.

[dianaiad]

It is vital that freedom of religion be enforced; every person should be free to believe, to worship, to express his beliefs, and to behave according to those beliefs...whether those beliefs are approved by everybody else or not. In fact, it is those beliefs that are held by the minority that need the most protection.

Agreed and for the protection and acceptance of others the state must withhold support for specific religions. The state has no place within religious communities.

Absolutely. Which of course means that it cannot discriminate against religious groups BECAUSE they are religious groups. The attitude of the government should be, not 'no comment,' but rather; "so what?" As in...if the local homeless shelter can advertise a fund raiser on the City Hall bulletin board, then so can the local Knights of Columbus also advertise a fundraiser for their work at the local children's center.

What do you mean by "children's center"? Just double checking on what it actually is that you're referring to.

Does it matter? The point is, a charity that supports children..supports children. Is it the role of the government to decide that religions have no right to hold fundraisers for children...unless the 'center' is not associated in any way with a religion? That's rather my point, sir...that it shouldn't MATTER.

As it stands, though, only those groups not affiliated with religion may so advertise, or use public services, for such things.

I disagree with the notion that religious groups should be able to host fund raisers in all public forums, I also disagree with the notion that all non-religious groups can host fundraisers in all public forums. The content of the message is what should prevent such an occurrence. Say if a group is trying to advertise for the legality of cannabis or trying to promote their porn company, of course they shouldn't be doing these in a children's center, and the same goes for religion, it is unfair to place children in a position where they have to confront something that they do not necessarily need to or want to confront and the parents of those children have the right to prevent such an occurrence. As was stated before, in order to have freedom of religion and of religious expression, we need to have freedom from religion and this can only be achieved by disallowing religious expression in areas that others inhabit, a community center would be ok assuming that it has it's own time slot and does not interrupt other events. SO I'm not suggesting religion should be completely neglected by the government, I'm just suggesting there is a time and a place.

Freedom FROM religion is not freedom at all. It means only that the non-religious may be free to speak. In fact, it is downright Orwellian. Why, for instance, isn't it just as important for the religious to be 'free of atheism?" Think about it.

It took a lawsuit to force a school to allow religious "after school clubs" to use classrooms and school facilities that were open to clubs and organizations of all OTHER types.

This I agree with, this isn't using public property to promote their religion this is a gathering between people who willfully join the club to, I'm sure, discuss and embrace their religion.

Yes...but they had to sue; and such lawsuits are still being filed. Theists, especially those thiests who belong to churches, are second class citizens and are very definitely being treated as such; everybody has freedom to speak....as long as you don't mention God where anybody can actually HEAR you, and everybody has freedom to worship as you wish...as long as you hide it behind closed doors and make sure that nobody SEES you. This has gone too far the 'other' way.

I think you can understand that this is not keeping the state out of religious communities. Quite the opposite. In fact, it is exactly the sort of segregation that would be unconscionable if it were based upon race or ethnicity.

If the state embraces any religion or religious practice it creates segregation.

No, if it prohibits any, it creates segregation. It was not, after all, the INCLUSION of all races that caused 'separate but equal' stupidity and separate drinking fountains, was it?

Politics and religion are the most divisive forces I can think of, if the government endorses a religion publicly, it can make it's employees or inhabitants of the forum used uncomfortable and if they discuss the topic and disagree with it, others might jump in and begin arguing.

.........and this is bad, why?

Basically, the government should have absolutely no religious endorsement at all, not just accept all kinds of religious endorsement. Yes, but this is not about race or ethnicity, this is based upon promoting certain lifestyles and religious ideals, there is a big difference.

No. Allowing all to use public facilities equally is NOT 'endorsing' anything. If I stock every sort of soda that asked to be included in the 'store,' how is that endorsing any particular brand of soda? On the other hand, if I forbade soda shelf room, on account of their all being fizzy, how is that NOT endorsing a stance on soda?

Same thing with religions. If one allows all who wish the same access to public facilities as any other group, under the same rules, then how is that endorsing a religion? On the other hand, if one allows everybody BUT religions this same access, how is that NOT endorsing a stance on religion? One that says 'the religious have no right to participate in society?"

there are two ways to handle the 'don't advocate any specific religion' problem. One is to prohibit any religious expression in public places. The problems with that are, well, the freedom of speech abrogation that MUST be done in order to accomplish this, and of course the fact that doing so IS establishing a religion..or rather, an 'anti-religion.'

An anti-religion would be something that actively opposes religion rather than one that does not permit the use of certain public areas for religious promotion.

Don't look now, but not permitting the use of certain public areas for religious promotion IS actively opposing religion...especially if other groups are allowed to use those areas for essentially the same things; for instance, allowing an advertisement for a Future Farmer's bake sale so that some of their members can purchase lambs to raise for the fair, but NOT allowing the local Baptists to advertise a bake sale where the proceeds go to,. oh...buying Harcourt 'StoryTown" reading books for their first grade students.

It's like...going to the local animal shelter and being told that because the workers there cannot recommend any ONE of the animals for adopting, they are simply going to kill 'em all to make it fair--thus enforcing a 'no animal' policy. A "no -religion" policy IS establishing a policy--and absolutely abrogating the part about inhibiting the 'free expression thereof."

It is not a 'no-religion' policy though, the state simply has no right to endorse any religion and by doing so they create division, even if they permit the promotion of many religions. People should be able to go about their day without having religion shoved down their throat, that is freedom from religion and it is vital to maintain freedom of religion.

WHY should people 'be able to go about their day without having religion shoved down their throat?" What's so horrific about religion that it is so politically correct to deny first amendment rights to...especially when the first amendment specifically mentions how important it is to allow people to be free to express their opinions?

I have news; it is NOT your right to be free of religion...or rather, it is not your right to force theists to not be theists around you. It is your right to tell them what you think of them, to tell them to buzz off, to tell them they are idiots--or to completely ignore them. It is NOT your right to force them to be elsewhere. Just as it is not their right to force you to come to their church, or display their religious icons and symbols, it is NOT your right to forbid them to display theirs...or to keep them out of public venues to which you have access.

Very bad things happen when people are allowed to decide that others may not worship as they please. Trust me. I know this. Boy, do I know this. First hand, and second hand, and....well, there is a REASON that I don't have clear title to two miles of Mississippi river land in the middle of St. Luis, and it ain't because the folks around were exactly tolerant of people who believed differently.

The other way is simply to...ignore the fact that there is a theistic belief involved in any group. If someone wants to post a fund-raising poster, the only question that should be asked is...is this fundraiser for charitable purposes, with the money going where you claim it is? Ok then, fine....it doesn't matter whether you are Habitat for Humanity or Catholic Charities, post ahead. You want to post the Ten Commandments in the Courthouse? No problem. Post away...right next to the Code of Hammurabi and all the other codes of justice that humans have used throughout history.

I disagree, the government should have no religious endorsement, especially not in places where people have to work and/or live.

That's the point. The above is NOT a 'religious endorsement." Denying any group because it is religious, however, IS a religious endorsement; it is an endorsement of the opposite of theism. It is telling people that theists have no rights, no business expressing themselves, no freedom of speech, and no place in society.

You know, like they do at the US Supreme Court building.

That is unconstitutional though as it does not meet any expectation of 'freedom from religion'.

There is no constitutional requirement of 'freedom FROM religion.' Freedom OF, yes. Not 'freedom from." Freedom OF includes those opinions that there is no deity. Freedom FROM includes ONLY that. As such, it is establishing a state religious stance....and that is very unconstitutional.

You want to have a religious display in the city park? Fine. There's the area over there. You have a space 5 x 5 x 10 (or something) and you can have it for this many days. It looks like we have a space free right next to the Christian Scientists, across from American Atheists, and kitty-corner from the local recycling center display. The only thing that matters is that your display is of the correct size, stays the number of days you pay for, and doesn't display stuff that would shock a kid's parents. (Nothing shocks kids.) Leave out the F word, and everybody should be dressed. Like that. The second you start caring whether a group is religious or not, or treating religious groups differently than others in matters like this, you are abrogating the establishment clause. One way or another.

"Leave out anything that shocks kids parents", you would know about the bus sign that caused all that controversy, "THERE'S PROBABLY NO GOD. NOW STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE."

I liked that sign. Disagreed with it, but I liked it. The problem is this....that sign caused controversy...not because of what it said, but because the company that allowed THAT sign would never in the world have allowed a pro-theist message to occupy that space...and would have been sued by the ACLU and the American Atheists before the glue dried. The problem was the hypocrisy.

At least, for me it was. That's what I thought the first time I saw the sign, because for every sign like THAT, which causes controversy, the lawsuits have ruined people who put up "John 3:5" signs. Heaven help us. The upshot is, I thought that the sign should stay...and that someone should put up a reference to Pascall's wager right next to it.

This would be considered shocking to many kids' parents and many don't want their kids to be forced to see it. Some religious or non-religious codes are considered shocking, so off the bat you have excluded many. This is the problem, the state should stay the hell out of religious matters and should not promote any religion because of the divisive nature of religion.

Everything is divisive. STAMP collecting is divisive. Comic books are. STar Trek is...and if you don't think so, ask a geek which Captain is better, Kirk or Picard. Politics are FAR more divisive than religion. Foot ball is divisive.

The solution is not to destroy it. The solution is to understand each other....and you don't do that by forcing everybody into the catacombs, my friend.

[Filthy Tugboat]

It is vital that freedom of religion be enforced; every person should be free to believe, to worship, to express his beliefs, and to behave according to those beliefs...whether those beliefs are approved by everybody else or not. In fact, it is those beliefs that are held by the minority that need the most protection.

Agreed and for the protection and acceptance of others the state must withhold support for specific religions. The state has no place within religious communities.

Absolutely. Which of course means that it cannot discriminate against religious groups BECAUSE they are religious groups. The attitude of the government should be, not 'no comment,' but rather; "so what?" As in...if the local homeless shelter can advertise a fund raiser on the City Hall bulletin board, then so can the local Knights of Columbus also advertise a fundraiser for their work at the local children's center.

What do you mean by "children's center"? Just double checking on what it actually is that you're referring to.

Does it matter?

Well yes, why are the children there?

The point is, a charity that supports children..supports children. Is it the role of the government to decide that religions have no right to hold fundraisers for children...unless the 'center' is not associated in any way with a religion? That's rather my point, sir...that it shouldn't MATTER.

You misinterpreted my point, the fundraiser being held at a children's center is different for a fundraiser being held for a children's center. My point was that if religious people plan to hold a fundraiser for their religion/church at a local children's center, they violate the children's rights to 'freedom of religion'.

As it stands, though, only those groups not affiliated with religion may so advertise, or use public services, for such things.

I disagree with the notion that religious groups should be able to host fund raisers in all public forums, I also disagree with the notion that all non-religious groups can host fundraisers in all public forums. The content of the message is what should prevent such an occurrence. Say if a group is trying to advertise for the legality of cannabis or trying to promote their porn company, of course they shouldn't be doing these in a children's center, and the same goes for religion, it is unfair to place children in a position where they have to confront something that they do not necessarily need to or want to confront and the parents of those children have the right to prevent such an occurrence. As was stated before, in order to have freedom of religion and of religious expression, we need to have freedom from religion and this can only be achieved by disallowing religious expression in areas that others inhabit, a community center would be ok assuming that it has it's own time slot and does not interrupt other events. SO I'm not suggesting religion should be completely neglected by the government, I'm just suggesting there is a time and a place.

Freedom FROM religion is not freedom at all. It means only that the non-religious may be free to speak.

No, it ensures that the religious are free from other religions a well as that atheists are free from theists.

In fact, it is downright Orwellian. Why, for instance, isn't it just as important for the religious to be 'free of atheism?"

Atheism, being by nature a description of what someone is not, is not something that can be forced on people and being 'free' of it seems to be a pointless statement. Perhaps you mean anti-theism?

It took a lawsuit to force a school to allow religious "after school clubs" to use classrooms and school facilities that were open to clubs and organizations of all OTHER types.

This I agree with, this isn't using public property to promote their religion this is a gathering between people who willfully join the club to, I'm sure, discuss and embrace their religion.

Yes...but they had to sue; and such lawsuits are still being filed.

I don't think such actions should need to be taken and clearly the courts are in favor of the theists in this case.

Theists, especially those thiests who belong to churches, are second class citizens and are very definitely being treated as such

So majority of the nation? Simply because they're preaching is being limited? I disagree with your conclusion.

everybody has freedom to speak....as long as you don't mention God where anybody can actually HEAR you, and everybody has freedom to worship as you wish...as long as you hide it behind closed doors and make sure that nobody SEES you. This has gone too far the 'other' way.

You are welcome to talk openly about it but don't expect that everybody will be receptive of your views. When requesting a time and a place to gather support for your religion and preach, then you need to expect that some areas such actions are unacceptable. This is similar to the example before, should people advocating the porn industry be allowed to advertise and convince people anywhere or should certain areas be disallowed, like hospitals and children's centers? The two are of a very different nature but people do not want children being exposed to porn and many don't want them being exposed to any and all religions that enjoy preaching.

I think you can understand that this is not keeping the state out of religious communities. Quite the opposite. In fact, it is exactly the sort of segregation that would be unconscionable if it were based upon race or ethnicity.

If the state embraces any religion or religious practice it creates segregation.

No, if it prohibits any, it creates segregation.

Segregation by religion exists whether the government endorses those religions or not. By choosing to endorse any or all religions they merely influence division among the society, if the government just stays out of the whole thing then everybody is free to make up their own minds about the religions.

It was not, after all, the INCLUSION of all races that caused 'separate but equal' stupidity and separate drinking fountains, was it?

This doesn't really make sense, there is either inclusion or segregation in a society, you're rhetoric is suggesting that inclusion did not cause segregation? That is pretty damn straight forward as both inclusion and segregation are not causes of inclusion or segregation.

Politics and religion are the most divisive forces I can think of, if the government endorses a religion publicly, it can make it's employees or inhabitants of the forum used uncomfortable and if they discuss the topic and disagree with it, others might jump in and begin arguing.

.........and this is bad, why?

Of course it's bad, people that do not want to listen to or read about religion when they go to work shouldn't have to, this is forcing religion on people. When it causes divisiveness in the workplace, it can make jobs lost, cause rivalries and in general cause it's own form of segregation. Without the influence of the religious endorsement, many of the arguments wouldn't have occurred and much of the division would remain minimal. Such things bring to light issues that people do not want bothering them at work and they shouldn't have to put up with it.

Basically, the government should have absolutely no religious endorsement at all, not just accept all kinds of religious endorsement. Yes, but this is not about race or ethnicity, this is based upon promoting certain lifestyles and religious ideals, there is a big difference.

No. Allowing all to use public facilities equally is NOT 'endorsing' anything.

So should we allow promotion for porn in public hospitals and community centers? Allowing everybody to use facilities equally is a horrible idea, it has to be judged on the content on what is being promoted.

If I stock every sort of soda that asked to be included in the 'store,' how is that endorsing any particular brand of soda? On the other hand, if I forbade soda shelf room, on account of their all being fizzy, how is that NOT endorsing a stance on soda?

Same thing with religions. If one allows all who wish the same access to public facilities as any other group, under the same rules, then how is that endorsing a religion? On the other hand, if one allows everybody BUT religions this same access, how is that NOT endorsing a stance on religion? One that says 'the religious have no right to participate in society?"

They don't allow everybody but religions though, read above about the porn, certain industries should not be given the chance to advertise and promote themselves in public forums because of the consequences that would be drawn. Religion = divisiveness, anger, discomfort and social issues. Porn around children could lead to early development of sexual behavior, early pregnancies and other problems.

there are two ways to handle the 'don't advocate any specific religion' problem. One is to prohibit any religious expression in public places. The problems with that are, well, the freedom of speech abrogation that MUST be done in order to accomplish this, and of course the fact that doing so IS establishing a religion..or rather, an 'anti-religion.'

An anti-religion would be something that actively opposes religion rather than one that does not permit the use of certain public areas for religious promotion.

Don't look now, but not permitting the use of certain public areas for religious promotion IS actively opposing religion...especially if other groups are allowed to use those areas for essentially the same things; for instance, allowing an advertisement for a Future Farmer's bake sale so that some of their members can purchase lambs to raise for the fair, but NOT allowing the local Baptists to advertise a bake sale where the proceeds go to,. oh...buying Harcourt 'StoryTown" reading books for their first grade students.

Nothing wrong with the government endorsing religious people's charitable behavior, it's the religion that the government shouldn't endorse.

It's like...going to the local animal shelter and being told that because the workers there cannot recommend any ONE of the animals for adopting, they are simply going to kill 'em all to make it fair--thus enforcing a 'no animal' policy. A "no -religion" policy IS establishing a policy--and absolutely abrogating the part about inhibiting the 'free expression thereof."

It is not a 'no-religion' policy though, the state simply has no right to endorse any religion and by doing so they create division, even if they permit the promotion of many religions. People should be able to go about their day without having religion shoved down their throat, that is freedom from religion and it is vital to maintain freedom of religion.

WHY should people 'be able to go about their day without having religion shoved down their throat?"

Because if they don't want it to happen, then it shouldn't, that's the whole point of 'freedom'.

What's so horrific about religion that it is so politically correct to deny first amendment rights to...especially when the first amendment specifically mentions how important it is to allow people to be free to express their opinions?

People are still allowed to express their opinions, the government cannot endorse those opinions though.

I have news; it is NOT your right to be free of religion

Really? So you are advocating a theocracy now?

...or rather, it is not your right to force theists to not be theists around you.

I never said that it was.

It is your right to tell them what you think of them, to tell them to buzz off, to tell them they are idiots--or to completely ignore them.

I know.

It is NOT your right to force them to be elsewhere.

I'm not suggesting that it is.

Just as it is not their right to force you to come to their church, or display their religious icons and symbols

Agreed, it is not their right to force their religion on others.

it is NOT your right to forbid them to display theirs...or to keep them out of public venues to which you have access.

They can be in public venues, what they shouldn't be allowed to do is promote their religion in areas where others have to work and/or live.

Very bad things happen when people are allowed to decide that others may not worship as they please. Trust me. I know this. Boy, do I know this. First hand, and second hand, and....well, there is a REASON that I don't have clear title to two miles of Mississippi river land in the middle of St. Luis, and it ain't because the folks around were exactly tolerant of people who believed differently.

If they want to perform human sacrifice or even animal sacrifice should it be allowed? The rituals some perform are unacceptable and should not be allowed, especially in public.

The other way is simply to...ignore the fact that there is a theistic belief involved in any group. If someone wants to post a fund-raising poster, the only question that should be asked is...is this fundraiser for charitable purposes, with the money going where you claim it is? Ok then, fine....it doesn't matter whether you are Habitat for Humanity or Catholic Charities, post ahead. You want to post the Ten Commandments in the Courthouse? No problem. Post away...right next to the Code of Hammurabi and all the other codes of justice that humans have used throughout history.

I disagree, the government should have no religious endorsement, especially not in places where people have to work and/or live.

That's the point. The above is NOT a 'religious endorsement." Denying any group because it is religious, however, IS a religious endorsement;

My objection appears to be confused, I'm not saying deny a group because it's religious, I'm saying that the government cannot endorse a religion.

it is an endorsement of the opposite of theism. It is telling people that theists have no rights, no business expressing themselves, no freedom of speech, and no place in society.

Based on what you thought I was saying, I agree.

You know, like they do at the US Supreme Court building.

That is unconstitutional though as it does not meet any expectation of 'freedom from religion'.

There is no constitutional requirement of 'freedom FROM religion.' Freedom OF, yes. Not 'freedom from."

In order to have freedom of you need freedom from.

Freedom OF includes those opinions that there is no deity. Freedom FROM includes ONLY that.

It most certainly does not. Freedom from promotes peoples ability to freely choose not to adopt a religion, like Christians not adopting Hinduism. Freedom from also prevents religions from forcing their religious ideals on others. Without freedom from, one cannot have freedom of because freedom of is Dependant on ones ability to say no.

As such, it is establishing a state religious stance....and that is very unconstitutional.

You seem to have misinterpreted what 'freedom from religion' is.

You want to have a religious display in the city park? Fine. There's the area over there. You have a space 5 x 5 x 10 (or something) and you can have it for this many days. It looks like we have a space free right next to the Christian Scientists, across from American Atheists, and kitty-corner from the local recycling center display. The only thing that matters is that your display is of the correct size, stays the number of days you pay for, and doesn't display stuff that would shock a kid's parents. (Nothing shocks kids.) Leave out the F word, and everybody should be dressed. Like that. The second you start caring whether a group is religious or not, or treating religious groups differently than others in matters like this, you are abrogating the establishment clause. One way or another.

"Leave out anything that shocks kids parents", you would know about the bus sign that caused all that controversy, "THERE'S PROBABLY NO GOD. NOW STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE."

I liked that sign. Disagreed with it, but I liked it. The problem is this....that sign caused controversy...not because of what it said, but because the company that allowed THAT sign would never in the world have allowed a pro-theist message to occupy that space...and would have been sued by the ACLU and the American Atheists before the glue dried. The problem was the hypocrisy.

At least, for me it was.

You don't speak for everyone and many did find that signs content 'shocking' which would subsequently, so suddenly, according to your standards, this advertisement would not be allowed and this is the fundamental core of atheism. But if we remove any and all government endorsement of religious positions then we don't have to worry about the nonsense of how people are upset by tis or the problems the promotion causes.

This would be considered shocking to many kids' parents and many don't want their kids to be forced to see it. Some religious or non-religious codes are considered shocking, so off the bat you have excluded many. This is the problem, the state should stay the hell out of religious matters and should not promote any religion because of the divisive nature of religion.

Everything is divisive.

To what degree? Is it avoidable? For religion, much of it is.

STAMP collecting is divisive. Comic books are. STar Trek is...and if you don't think so, ask a geek which Captain is better, Kirk or Picard.

How divisive are they? Are measures being taken to avoid that division.

Politics are FAR more divisive than religion.

That really depends on the person, for many religion is what everything rests on, many would give up everything for their religion, and some have. Many people take very hard stances on religion and when they butt heads with others it can turn very ugly. I myself have had confrontations with people of religion and just holding the stance, "I don't know, but I don't believe so," I have received much criticism and big arguments, it really can get very ugly and I have had nothing of the sort on political matters.

Foot ball is divisive.

Agreed and measures are taken to avoid that division and conflict as much as possible.

The solution is not to destroy it. The solution is to understand each other....and you don't do that by forcing everybody into the catacombs, my friend.

I never suggested anybody should go to the catacombs, literally or figuratively. I never suggested religion should be destroyed. Forcing every religion onto the public does not reduce the conflict, if anything, it increases it. Many people are quite content living around people not knowing their fundamental differences but with everyone claiming what God really wants around them and they themselves have a different view conflict is going to arise, especially between theists because many think they have a better understanding of 'God' than people who disagree.

[dianaiad]

<snip to here>

I never suggested anybody should go to the catacombs, literally or figuratively. I never suggested religion should be destroyed. Forcing every religion onto the public does not reduce the conflict, if anything, it increases it. Many people are quite content living around people not knowing their fundamental differences but with everyone claiming what God really wants around them and they themselves have a different view conflict is going to arise, especially between theists because many think they have a better understanding of 'God' than people who disagree.

I had a very long, erudite and involved response almost written to this, and then....my computer turned itself off and I lost the lot.

I can take a hint when someone uses a baseball bat to hit me with it....

So my answer here will be short.

Basically, your argument seems to be that religious expression should be limited so that people around them are not bothered by it; that if the government allows any religious group 'speaking room,' for any reason at all, that constitutes endorsement of religion....and that freedom from religion is far more important than freedom of.

In response to that, I say...no. That is an incredibly dangerous direction to take. First, the constitution does not mandate freedom from religion. In fact, it specifically states that the government may not establish a state religion, nor "inhibit the free exercise thereof."

The first amendment also states that we have freedom of speech. Since the only sort of speech that the government is specifically told not to inhibit (in addition to the general 'free speech' bit) is RELIGIOUS speech, then telling religions that they have to shut up lest someone actually know that they exist is, well...a huge problem.

Consider; if the government can so completely ignore THAT specific aspect of the constitution and abrogate religious speech, what else can it turn its attention to, to prohibit? Y'never know; YOU might have an opinion it doesn't like, next.

....................and yes, telling religions that they cannot have equal access to government venues IS 'sending them to the catacombs." Taxing them is; both things are specifically and DIRECTLY 'inhibiting the free exercise thereof."

Allowing ALL religions to have the same access to public venues that non-religious groups have, under exactly the same rules that non-religious groups have to abide by, is NOT 'endorsing a religion." Quite the opposite. However, discriminating against religions and not allowing them equal access simply and only BECAUSE they are religious IS establishing a state religion of sorts. Certainly it is violently breaking the spirit of the establishment clause.

You do not have the right to tell me to shut up, or forbid me the right to speak my piece in a public area--if my neighbor can speak his there. It doesn't matter what the subject is.

[Filthy Tugboat]

<snip to here>

I never suggested anybody should go to the catacombs, literally or figuratively. I never suggested religion should be destroyed. Forcing every religion onto the public does not reduce the conflict, if anything, it increases it. Many people are quite content living around people not knowing their fundamental differences but with everyone claiming what God really wants around them and they themselves have a different view conflict is going to arise, especially between theists because many think they have a better understanding of 'God' than people who disagree.

I had a very long, erudite and involved response almost written to this, and then....my computer turned itself off and I lost the lot.

I can take a hint when someone uses a baseball bat to hit me with it....

I absolutely hate that.

So my answer here will be short.

Basically, your argument seems to be that religious expression should be limited so that people around them are not bothered by it; that if the government allows any religious group 'speaking room,' for any reason at all, that constitutes endorsement of religion....and that freedom from religion is far more important than freedom of.

Not at all, I am suggesting that government areas where people are working and/or living should not be made public forums for religious promotion. I have said this several times, you cannot have freedom of religion without having freedom from religion. The opposition to a theocratic nation and a state religion is a major function of 'freedom from religion', but it is still vital in smaller matters, the government should simply stay out of religious matters.

In response to that, I say...no. That is an incredibly dangerous direction to take. First, the constitution does not mandate freedom from religion. In fact, it specifically states that the government may not establish a state religion, nor "inhibit the free exercise thereof."

At what point does the 'free exercise thereof' get inhibited? If a preacher ran into any secure government building trying to preach without asking, they would be removed, regardless of their right to free exercise of religion. We know that exercise is limited by the government and rightly so, the illegality of human and animal sacrifice is a limitation put on religious expression. Religious matters should not be considered any more valuable than others and there are many forms of non-religious expressions that are limited. Again, back to the porn example. A children's hospital would not advertise for a porn company because of the consequences on the children, the feelings of the parents and the content of the material. A religion should be handled just as carefully, the consequences it has on those receiving it, the feelings of those receiving it and the content of the material.

The first amendment also states that we have freedom of speech. Since the only sort of speech that the government is specifically told not to inhibit (in addition to the general 'free speech' bit) is RELIGIOUS speech, then telling religions that they have to shut up lest someone actually know that they exist is, well...a huge problem.

That's not what I'm suggesting should happen. The government has no place to tell religions to shut up or to talk, they have no place commenting on religions unless it is to do with dangerous religious fanaticism.

....................and yes, telling religions that they cannot have equal access to government venues IS 'sending them to the catacombs." Taxing them is; both things are specifically and DIRECTLY 'inhibiting the free exercise thereof."

It's not about whether the individuals are religious or not, it matters if they are representing and promoting their religion though. The 'hobby' of religion should be handled carefully just as the 'hobby' of porn should be.

Allowing ALL religions to have the same access to public venues that non-religious groups have, under exactly the same rules that non-religious groups have to abide by, is NOT 'endorsing a religion." Quite the opposite. However, discriminating against religions and not allowing them equal access simply and only BECAUSE they are religious IS establishing a state religion of sorts. Certainly it is violently breaking the spirit of the establishment clause.

You do not have the right to tell me to shut up, or forbid me the right to speak my piece in a public area--if my neighbor can speak his there. It doesn't matter what the subject is.

Religious people should be given the same rights as the non-religious but the government should never endorse religion. Public forums where people have to live and work should not be used to promote religion.