• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Football team forced to remove crosses from helmets

I wonder what would happen if all the players defied the lawyer and put the stickers on their helmets again. That would be a protest worth waging, IMHO. I'm sure if they faced sanction some religious-liberty legal group would represent them.
 
OKgrannie said:
1. Is a religious symbol, for instance a cross, intended to respect an establishment of religion? 2. Is equipment owned by a state school and furnished to athletes for use in a state-sponsored activity considered to be government property? 3. Does the placement of said religious symbols on government property constitute an "entwining" of government and religion?
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.

You do know that there are other ways to honor fallen teammates, some have been mentioned, ways that do not involve using government property to express religious sentiments.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you get to limit the freedom of others. Sorry. :(
 
apdst said:
The goverment isn't involved, here.
Click to expand...

It involves a STATE school. That means equipment, facilities, leadership by coaches, are all paid for by government. That means people of all religions and of none have contributed to the purchase of said equipment, facilities, and leadership. So the government IS involved.
 
apdst said:
This is a choice made and funded by the players, not the university.
Click to expand...

The equipment involved belongs to the university, so it is properly a choice for the university. Actually, of course, the university also does not have the right to choose to violate the First Amendment. The players do not have the right to choose to deface government property. They also do not have the right to choose to use government property to make a personal statement.
 
apdst said:
This is a choice made and funded by the players, not the university.
Click to expand...

If I knew they funded it, I'd forgotten. That tends to change things, but it sometimes doesn't take much--especially where First Amendment issues are involved--to make what private persons do at a public school into state action. The fact the game is a scheduled event that takes place at the university, using school equipment and facilities, tends to involve the school somewhat.

I personally think all this stuff is nonsense, and that the members of the team should be able to wear crosses to honor these people that died. I would like to see the Supreme Court take a MUCH broader, more permissive stance on student-initiated religious speech at public schools. Let these trivial interactions between religion and government ride. This is not exactly like someone is planning to take the microphone and deliver a half-hour prayer for the souls of the departed to the captive audience who came to watch the game, stopping every minute or two to ask them to join in.
 
OKgrannie said:
The equipment involved belongs to the university, so it is properly a choice for the university. Actually, of course, the university also does not have the right to choose to violate the First Amendment. The players do not have the right to choose to deface government property. They also do not have the right to choose to use government property to make a personal statement.
Click to expand...

So no one has any rights? Have you ever read the 1st Amendment in its entirety?
 
matchlight said:
If I knew they funded it, I'd forgotten. That tends to change things, but it sometimes doesn't take much--especially where First Amendment issues are involved--to make what private persons do at a public school into state action. The fact the game is a scheduled event that takes place at the university, using school equipment and facilities, tends to involve the school somewhat.

I personally think all this stuff is nonsense, and that the members of the team should be able to wear crosses to honor these people that died. I would like to see the Supreme Court take a MUCH broader, more permissive stance on student-initiated religious speech at public schools. Let these trivial interactions between religion and government ride. This is not exactly like someone is planning to take the microphone and deliver a half-hour prayer for the souls of the departed to the captive audience who came to watch the game, stopping every minute or two to ask them to join in.
Click to expand...

I love it----"Let these trivial interactions between religion and government ride." Because it seems trivial to you, does not mean it is trivial to everyone, and the Bill of Rights was designed to protect individuals and minorities, since, after all, the majority needs no such protection for their views. I'm sure the choice of which Bible to be read in school classroooms seemed trivial to many at the time of the Pennsylvania Bible Wars, but the dispute ended up with people dead and property damaged. FYI, it is very rare for these types of violations to ever be reported and/or acted upon. For every news-making case, there are thousands of violations which just "ride." The repercussions for making waves in small towns in the Bible belt are significant. Sometimes these cases make the news around graduation time because the faithful are unwilling to give up on the tradition of forcing students and families to participate in prayers. But thousands of students across the country are forced to choose between participating in prayers to deities they do not believe in or suffering the persecution of following their consciences. Now remember, this is important, that stopping such public professions of faith does nothing to impede any person from praying or worshipping, it does not interfere with anyone's right to "free exercise", as there are a multitude of alternatives. Those alternatives include praying silently (whenever one wishes), making arrangements to pray with others in homes or churches before the event, meeting early for prayer for those who desire. So it seems the purpose, the very reason, for such public professions is to force the participation of those who would rather not.


Please read about one young girl's persecution for refusal to participate:
Atheists struggle in rural Oklahoma - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |

After the first game, the girls gathered to recite the Lord's Prayer, as they always do. However, Nicole did not participate. Nicole is an atheist, she does not believe in God. When she told her teammates their excitement for the California-transplanted freshman turned sour.

"When I started using ‘atheist,' they thought I worshipped the devil and all around school I was a ‘devil worshipper' and a ‘witch,'" said Nicole.

Soon school leaders were treating her differently and calling her ‘bad for morale,' Nicole said. She was allegedly accused of stealing another basketball player's shoes and kicked off the team. And that was the start of the ongoing feud between the Smalkowskis and the town of Hardesty.

"If you're not part of it (Christianity), you at least should be shunned or, at worst, harassed. And when she stood her ground on it and refused, they punished her," said Chuck Smalkowski, Nicole's father.
 
OKgrannie said:
I love it----"Let these trivial interactions between religion and government ride." Because it seems trivial to you, does not mean it is trivial to everyone, and the Bill of Rights was designed to protect individuals and minorities, since, after all, the majority needs no such protection for their views. I'm sure the choice of which Bible to be read in school classroooms seemed trivial to many at the time of the Pennsylvania Bible Wars, but the dispute ended up with people dead and property damaged. FYI, it is very rare for these types of violations to ever be reported and/or acted upon. For every news-making case, there are thousands of violations which just "ride." The repercussions for making waves in small towns in the Bible belt are significant. Sometimes these cases make the news around graduation time because the faithful are unwilling to give up on the tradition of forcing students and families to participate in prayers. But thousands of students across the country are forced to choose between participating in prayers to deities they do not believe in or suffering the persecution of following their consciences. Now remember, this is important, that stopping such public professions of faith does nothing to impede any person from praying or worshipping, it does not interfere with anyone's right to "free exercise", as there are a multitude of alternatives. Those alternatives include praying silently (whenever one wishes), making arrangements to pray with others in homes or churches before the event, meeting early for prayer for those who desire. So it seems the purpose, the very reason, for such public professions is to force the participation of those who would rather not.


Please read about one young girl's persecution for refusal to participate:
Atheists struggle in rural Oklahoma - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |

After the first game, the girls gathered to recite the Lord's Prayer, as they always do. However, Nicole did not participate. Nicole is an atheist, she does not believe in God. When she told her teammates their excitement for the California-transplanted freshman turned sour.

"When I started using ‘atheist,' they thought I worshipped the devil and all around school I was a ‘devil worshipper' and a ‘witch,'" said Nicole.

Soon school leaders were treating her differently and calling her ‘bad for morale,' Nicole said. She was allegedly accused of stealing another basketball player's shoes and kicked off the team. And that was the start of the ongoing feud between the Smalkowskis and the town of Hardesty.

"If you're not part of it (Christianity), you at least should be shunned or, at worst, harassed. And when she stood her ground on it and refused, they punished her," said Chuck Smalkowski, Nicole's father.
Click to expand...


All sorts of constitutional issues are marvelously clear and simple to the simple-minded. Fortunately for this country, the justices on the Supreme Court realize that the First Amendment does not speak in absolute terms. I may have quoted earlier from Zorach v. Clausen, the 1952 decision in which Justice Douglas made some keen observations about why interpreting the Establishment Clause too strictly would produce absurd, unworkable results. Other justices have noted that such interpretations would probably violate the Free Exercise Clause. One advantage bitter atheists enjoy, I suppose, is that they never have to resolve these very difficult problems. It takes more thinking than most of them are capable of, anyway.

In his concurring opinion in Van Orden v. Perry, a decision upholding the placement of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol, Justice Breyer commented on the balances that must be struck in interpreting the Establishment Clause:


The Court has made clear . . . that government must "neither engage in nor compel religious practices," that it must "effect no favoritism among sects or between religion and nonreligion," and that it must "work deterrence of no religious belief." The government must avoid excessive interference with, or promotion of, religion. But the Establishment Clause does not compel the government to purge from the public sphere all that in any way partakes of the religious. Such absolutism is not only inconsistent with our national traditions, but would also tend to promote the kind of social conflict the Establishment Clause seeks to avoid.

Thus . . . the Court has found no single mechanical formula that can accurately draw the constitutional line in every case. Where the Establishment Clause is at issue, tests designed to measure "neutrality" alone are insufficient, both because it is sometimes difficult to determine when a legal rule is "neutral," and because "untutored devotion to the concept of neutrality can lead to invocation or approval of results which partake not simply of that noninterference and noninvolvement with the religious which the Constitution commands, but of a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious."

Neither can this Court's other tests readily explain the Establishment Clause's tolerance, for example, of the prayers that open legislative meetings; certain references to, and invocations of, the Deity in the public words of public officials; the public references to God on coins, decrees, and buildings; or the attention paid to the religious objectives of certain holidays, including Thanksgiving.

If the relation between government and religion is one of separation, but not of mutual hostility and suspicion, one will inevitably find difficult borderline cases. And in such cases, I see no test-related substitute for the exercise of legal judgment. That judgment is not a personal judgment. Rather, as in all constitutional cases, it must reflect and remain faithful to the underlying purposes of the Clauses, and it must take account of context and consequences measured in light of those purposes. While the Court's prior tests provide useful guideposts--and might well lead to the same result the Court reaches today, --no exact formula can dictate a resolution to such fact-intensive cases. (italics mine)
 
matchlight said:
All sorts of constitutional issues are marvelously clear and simple to the simple-minded. Fortunately for this country, the justices on the Supreme Court realize that the First Amendment does not speak in absolute terms. I may have quoted earlier from Zorach v. Clausen, the 1952 decision in which Justice Douglas made some keen observations about why interpreting the Establishment Clause too strictly would produce absurd, unworkable results. Other justices have noted that such interpretations would probably violate the Free Exercise Clause. One advantage bitter atheists enjoy, I suppose, is that they never have to resolve these very difficult problems. It takes more thinking than most of them are capable of, anyway.

In his concurring opinion in Van Orden v. Perry, a decision upholding the placement of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol, Justice Breyer commented on the balances that must be struck in interpreting the Establishment Clause:


The Court has made clear . . . that government must "neither engage in nor compel religious practices," that it must "effect no favoritism among sects or between religion and nonreligion," and that it must "work deterrence of no religious belief." The government must avoid excessive interference with, or promotion of, religion. But the Establishment Clause does not compel the government to purge from the public sphere all that in any way partakes of the religious. Such absolutism is not only inconsistent with our national traditions, but would also tend to promote the kind of social conflict the Establishment Clause seeks to avoid.

Thus . . . the Court has found no single mechanical formula that can accurately draw the constitutional line in every case. Where the Establishment Clause is at issue, tests designed to measure "neutrality" alone are insufficient, both because it is sometimes difficult to determine when a legal rule is "neutral," and because "untutored devotion to the concept of neutrality can lead to invocation or approval of results which partake not simply of that noninterference and noninvolvement with the religious which the Constitution commands, but of a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious."

Neither can this Court's other tests readily explain the Establishment Clause's tolerance, for example, of the prayers that open legislative meetings; certain references to, and invocations of, the Deity in the public words of public officials; the public references to God on coins, decrees, and buildings; or the attention paid to the religious objectives of certain holidays, including Thanksgiving.

If the relation between government and religion is one of separation, but not of mutual hostility and suspicion, one will inevitably find difficult borderline cases. And in such cases, I see no test-related substitute for the exercise of legal judgment. That judgment is not a personal judgment. Rather, as in all constitutional cases, it must reflect and remain faithful to the underlying purposes of the Clauses, and it must take account of context and consequences measured in light of those purposes. While the Court's prior tests provide useful guideposts--and might well lead to the same result the Court reaches today, --no exact formula can dictate a resolution to such fact-intensive cases. (italics mine)
Click to expand...

I quite agree that the court's decisions have been confusing and contradictory. It appears to me that recent decisions tend to be leaning more toward toleration which I believe is a mistake in a world filled with religious violence. Dominionists, Christian Nationalists, Reconstructionists, all have their own reasons for pushing for a policy recognizing Christianity and accepting expressions of Christianity in the public sphere. A policy of appeasement toward those playing the victimhood card whenever they are not allowed to use public facilities to promote their own religious views will not be effective in the long run, and we will be faced with violence between different sects of Christianity.
 
OKgrannie said:
I quite agree that the court's decisions have been confusing and contradictory. It appears to me that recent decisions tend to be leaning more toward toleration which I believe is a mistake in a world filled with religious violence. Dominionists, Christian Nationalists, Reconstructionists, all have their own reasons for pushing for a policy recognizing Christianity and accepting expressions of Christianity in the public sphere. A policy of appeasement toward those playing the victimhood card whenever they are not allowed to use public facilities to promote their own religious views will not be effective in the long run, and we will be faced with violence between different sects of Christianity.
Click to expand...

Like it or not, this country and the rest of the western world have had a fight to the finish forced on them by savage, supremacist fanatics--who knows how many hundreds of thousands of them--who claim to be motivated by Islam. And, like it or not, we are their natural enemy. The traditions, laws, and culture of the United States have been heavily influenced by the English Protestants who founded it. That's why there are those seas of white crosses in the Normandy cemeteries, interspersed here and there with a Star of David. That's why the first Congress provided funds for a chaplain to lead prayers, and why even today state legislatures open their sessions with such prayers. That's why we have the other mixtures of church and state that Justice Breyer mentioned, and why they don't violate the Constitution. That's why, if a fire should start in the kitchen of First Methodist as the ladies in the flock are preparing for the bake sale, the guys in the local city firehouse don't have to just sit there and let the place burn down.

I think this is a very dangerous time for Americans to be doubting or apologizing for any part of their heritage, including the religious part. Any God damned Muslim jihadist savage can see the lack of conviction, and it can only convince them we are not only unbelievers, but decadent ones, ripe for the plucking. They sure as hell don't lack any conviction about their[/I} religion, and every show of hand-wringing, navel-gazing doubt about Western Civilization encourages them--and puts us in worse danger. Well-meaning people here may see political correctness and multiculturalism as considerate and nice. But to supremacists who would never dream of singing the praises of foreign cultures while being diffident about their own, the sight of Americans doing that habitually can only be proof of our weakness. I believe the risk we face from religious fanatics abroad is so serious that for the time being, at least, I'll gladly accept the risk any religious nuts at home may pose, just for the sake of solidarity.
 
matchlight said:
Like it or not, this country and the rest of the western world have had a fight to the finish forced on them by savage, supremacist fanatics--who knows how many hundreds of thousands of them--who claim to be motivated by Islam. And, like it or not, we are their natural enemy. The traditions, laws, and culture of the United States have been heavily influenced by the English Protestants who founded it. That's why there are those seas of white crosses in the Normandy cemeteries, interspersed here and there with a Star of David. That's why the first Congress provided funds for a chaplain to lead prayers, and why even today state legislatures open their sessions with such prayers. That's why we have the other mixtures of church and state that Justice Breyer mentioned, and why they don't violate the Constitution. That's why, if a fire should start in the kitchen of First Methodist as the ladies in the flock are preparing for the bake sale, the guys in the local city firehouse don't have to just sit there and let the place burn down.

I think this is a very dangerous time for Americans to be doubting or apologizing for any part of their heritage, including the religious part. Any God damned Muslim jihadist savage can see the lack of conviction, and it can only convince them we are not only unbelievers, but decadent ones, ripe for the plucking. They sure as hell don't lack any conviction about their[/I} religion, and every show of hand-wringing, navel-gazing doubt about Western Civilization encourages them--and puts us in worse danger. Well-meaning people here may see political correctness and multiculturalism as considerate and nice. But to supremacists who would never dream of singing the praises of foreign cultures while being diffident about their own, the sight of Americans doing that habitually can only be proof of our weakness. I believe the risk we face from religious fanatics abroad is so serious that for the time being, at least, I'll gladly accept the risk any religious nuts at home may pose, just for the sake of solidarity.
Click to expand...


This is one scary post.
 
RogueWarrior said:
This is one scary post.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're easily frightened. I keep in mind that we are the ones with the dozen aircraft carriers and the hundred heavy bombers and the six thousand H-bombs, and not the Muslims who like to talk about fighting. If any of the God-forsaken sandpiles they call their countries wants a serious fight with the U.S., they would do well to think long and hard about that. We should stop worrying about what they might do to us, and make them start worrying about what the U.S.might do.
 
matchlight said:
Like it or not, this country and the rest of the western world have had a fight to the finish forced on them by savage, supremacist fanatics--who knows how many hundreds of thousands of them--who claim to be motivated by Islam. And, like it or not, we are their natural enemy. The traditions, laws, and culture of the United States have been heavily influenced by the English Protestants who founded it. That's why there are those seas of white crosses in the Normandy cemeteries, interspersed here and there with a Star of David. That's why the first Congress provided funds for a chaplain to lead prayers, and why even today state legislatures open their sessions with such prayers. That's why we have the other mixtures of church and state that Justice Breyer mentioned, and why they don't violate the Constitution. That's why, if a fire should start in the kitchen of First Methodist as the ladies in the flock are preparing for the bake sale, the guys in the local city firehouse don't have to just sit there and let the place burn down.

I think this is a very dangerous time for Americans to be doubting or apologizing for any part of their heritage, including the religious part. Any God damned Muslim jihadist savage can see the lack of conviction, and it can only convince them we are not only unbelievers, but decadent ones, ripe for the plucking. They sure as hell don't lack any conviction about their[/I} religion, and every show of hand-wringing, navel-gazing doubt about Western Civilization encourages them--and puts us in worse danger. Well-meaning people here may see political correctness and multiculturalism as considerate and nice. But to supremacists who would never dream of singing the praises of foreign cultures while being diffident about their own, the sight of Americans doing that habitually can only be proof of our weakness. I believe the risk we face from religious fanatics abroad is so serious that for the time being, at least, I'll gladly accept the risk any religious nuts at home may pose, just for the sake of solidarity.
Click to expand...


spoken like the American taliban
i will defend your right to express this nonsense
but damn, this is one extremist position
 
matchlight said:
Like it or not, this country and the rest of the western world have had a fight to the finish forced on them by savage, supremacist fanatics--who knows how many hundreds of thousands of them--who claim to be motivated by Islam. And, like it or not, we are their natural enemy. The traditions, laws, and culture of the United States have been heavily influenced by the English Protestants who founded it. That's why there are those seas of white crosses in the Normandy cemeteries, interspersed here and there with a Star of David. That's why the first Congress provided funds for a chaplain to lead prayers, and why even today state legislatures open their sessions with such prayers. That's why we have the other mixtures of church and state that Justice Breyer mentioned, and why they don't violate the Constitution. That's why, if a fire should start in the kitchen of First Methodist as the ladies in the flock are preparing for the bake sale, the guys in the local city firehouse don't have to just sit there and let the place burn down.

I think this is a very dangerous time for Americans to be doubting or apologizing for any part of their heritage, including the religious part. Any God damned Muslim jihadist savage can see the lack of conviction, and it can only convince them we are not only unbelievers, but decadent ones, ripe for the plucking. They sure as hell don't lack any conviction about their[/I} religion, and every show of hand-wringing, navel-gazing doubt about Western Civilization encourages them--and puts us in worse danger. Well-meaning people here may see political correctness and multiculturalism as considerate and nice. But to supremacists who would never dream of singing the praises of foreign cultures while being diffident about their own, the sight of Americans doing that habitually can only be proof of our weakness. I believe the risk we face from religious fanatics abroad is so serious that for the time being, at least, I'll gladly accept the risk any religious nuts at home may pose, just for the sake of solidarity.
Click to expand...


Our freedom of religion tradition is in far more danger from American Christian fundamentalists supporting Christian Nationalism or Dominionism than from any other threat. Every time some well-meaning citizen says a breech of our separation clause is just not important, we should just let it ride, keep the peace, we are one step closer to losing that freedom.
 
OKgrannie said:
Our freedom of religion tradition is in far more danger from American Christian fundamentalists supporting Christian Nationalism or Dominionism than from any other threat. Every time some well-meaning citizen says a breech of our separation clause is just not important, we should just let it ride, keep the peace, we are one step closer to losing that freedom.
Click to expand...

Somehow I doubt I will lose any sleep tonight worrying about the dread threat Christian fundamentalists supposedly pose to our First Amendment freedoms. To hear you tell it, the U.S. is only a few steps away from becoming a Christian theocracy--sort of a Tehran West. Some people might think that by relying on more and more outlandish exaggerations to sustain your argument, you're showing how weak it is. Others might think it shows the sort of irrational hostility toward Christianity that's so often on display in forums like this one.

The Bill of Rights originally applied only to the United States, and not to the states. In a long series of decisions starting about 1900, the Supreme Court held that first one and then another provision of the BOR was "incorporated" in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and through it, applied to the states. The Court did not apply the Free Exercise Clause to the states until Cantwell v. Connecticut in 1940, and it did not apply the Establishment Clause to them until Everson v. Board of Education in 1947.

During the century-and-a-half that separates the Bill of Rights from the World War Two era, then, any state could have restricted the free exercise of religion as far as it pleased, or authorized any amount of religious involvement in government. It could even have established its own official church. If most states had done that, it would hardly have mattered that the Establishment Clause barred Congress from declaring an official national religion; we would have had a de facto theocracy anyway.

This was unquestionably a more openly religious nation during most of the time between 1791 and 1947 than it is now. The dangers you claim religious extremists pose to our freedoms should have been even greater during that century-and-one-half. And yet no state ever even came close to declaring official religion. Must have been a miracle.
 
matchlight said:
Maybe you're easily frightened. I keep in mind that we are the ones with the dozen aircraft carriers and the hundred heavy bombers and the six thousand H-bombs, and not the Muslims who like to talk about fighting. If any of the God-forsaken sandpiles they call their countries wants a serious fight with the U.S., they would do well to think long and hard about that. We should stop worrying about what they might do to us, and make them start worrying about what the U.S.might do.
Click to expand...

You're talking to children.
 
matchlight said:
Somehow I doubt I will lose any sleep tonight worrying about the dread threat Christian fundamentalists supposedly pose to our First Amendment freedoms. To hear you tell it, the U.S. is only a few steps away from becoming a Christian theocracy--sort of a Tehran West. Some people might think that by relying on more and more outlandish exaggerations to sustain your argument, you're showing how weak it is. Others might think it shows the sort of irrational hostility toward Christianity that's so often on display in forums like this one.

The Bill of Rights originally applied only to the United States, and not to the states. In a long series of decisions starting about 1900, the Supreme Court held that first one and then another provision of the BOR was "incorporated" in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and through it, applied to the states. The Court did not apply the Free Exercise Clause to the states until Cantwell v. Connecticut in 1940, and it did not apply the Establishment Clause to them until Everson v. Board of Education in 1947.

During the century-and-a-half that separates the Bill of Rights from the World War Two era, then, any state could have restricted the free exercise of religion as far as it pleased, or authorized any amount of religious involvement in government. It could even have established its own official church. If most states had done that, it would hardly have mattered that the Establishment Clause barred Congress from declaring an official national religion; we would have had a de facto theocracy anyway.

This was unquestionably a more openly religious nation during most of the time between 1791 and 1947 than it is now. The dangers you claim religious extremists pose to our freedoms should have been even greater during that century-and-one-half. And yet no state ever even came close to declaring official religion. Must have been a miracle.
Click to expand...

The dangers from Christian Nationalists are real. That many are not aware of them or even know what they are or what they believe and propose for this country is amazing in this time of information overload. When they say that the Founders intended this to be a Christian Nation and it should be, most simply accept that Christians are generally a kindly people who care for the poor and sick, etc. They have no idea what Christian Reconstruction stands for and would be amazed that any Christian would accept such views these days. IOW, Christian Reconstructionists would change this country to their version of Christianity, not your everyday church on mainstreet version.

Christian Reconstructionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

prominent advocates of Christian Reconstructionism have written that according to their understanding, God's law approves of the death penalty not only for murder, but also for propagators of all forms of idolatry,[8][9] active homosexuals,[10] adulterers, practitioners of witchcraft, and blasphemers,[11] and perhaps even recalcitrant youths[12] (see the List of capital crimes in the Bible). American Vision's Joel McDurmon responded to these criticisms by denying that Reconstructionists have promoted coercive means.[13]

Conversely, Christian Reconstructionism's founder, Rousas John Rushdoony, wrote in The Institutes of Biblical Law (the founding document of reconstructionsim) that Old Testament law should be applied to modern society and advocates the reinstatement of the Mosaic law's penal sanctions. Under such a system, the list of civil crimes which carried a death sentence would include homosexuality, adultery, incest, lying about one's virginity, bestiality, witchcraft, idolatry or apostasy, public blasphemy, false prophesying, kidnapping, rape, and bearing false witness in a capital case.[14]
Click to expand...

While advocates of such extreme views are few in number, they have had a great influence. For instance, Glenn Beck hosts a Reconstructionist on his show every week, David Barton, although the self-proclaimed historian Barton has largely been discredited, his views remain popular.


According to sociologist and professor of religion William Martin, author of With God on Our Side:

It is difficult to assess the influence of Reconstructionist thought with any accuracy. Because it is so genuinely radical, most leaders of the Religious Right are careful to distance themselves from it. At the same time, it clearly holds some appeal for many of them. One undoubtedly spoke for others when he confessed, 'Though we hide their books under the bed, we read them just the same.' In addition, several key leaders have acknowledged an intellectual debt to the theonomists. Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy have endorsed Reconstructionist books. Rushdoony has appeared on Kennedy's television program and the 700 Club several times. Pat Robertson makes frequent use of 'dominion' language; his book, The Secret Kingdom, has often been cited for its theonomy elements; and pluralists were made uncomfortable when, during his presidential campaign, he said he 'would only bring Christians and Jews into the government,' as well as when he later wrote, 'There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world.' And Jay Grimstead, who leads the Coalition on Revival, which brings Reconstructionists together with more mainstream evangelicals, has said, 'I don't call myself [a Reconstructionist],' but 'A lot of us are coming to realize that the Bible is God's standard of morality … in all points of history … and for all societies, Christian and non-Christian alike… It so happens that Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and North understood that sooner.' He added, 'There are a lot of us floating around in Christian leadership—James Kennedy is one of them—who don't go all the way with the theonomy thing, but who want to rebuild America based on the Bible.'[26]


For many years, and for some yet today, Christians just assumed they, meaning "Christians" in general as opposed to one denomination or another, had the right to government support in the form of access. They assumed Christian prayers at public meetings and public schools, in the military, and in Congress were welcomed. They failed to realize that the BoR was written to protect minorities and individuals. Few of them ever realized that anyone would object and when objections did occur, the objectors were ignored, ridiculed, and/or persecuted. That reaction continues today as you can see from this news incident and others involving military coercion of religious participation, and continued incidents involving schools. I understand these sorts of violations are traditional and as such carried on with little thought to the effect they may have upon those with other views. But I would think, as a Christian who cares about others, once it was pointed out that those violations are hurtful to one who doesn't share that view, a Christian would begin to think about it and come to the conclusion that Christians as a group should not continue such actions, but what I hear from such Christians is something like, "Well, you're just wrong to feel that way, so I'm going to do it anyway regardless of what the courts say."
 
OKgrannie said:
I quite agree that the court's decisions have been confusing and contradictory. It appears to me that recent decisions tend to be leaning more toward toleration which I believe is a mistake in a world filled with religious violence. Dominionists, Christian Nationalists, Reconstructionists, all have their own reasons for pushing for a policy recognizing Christianity and accepting expressions of Christianity in the public sphere. A policy of appeasement toward those playing the victimhood card whenever they are not allowed to use public facilities to promote their own religious views will not be effective in the long run, and we will be faced with violence between different sects of Christianity.
Click to expand...

Christianity hasn't broken down into violence yet, and it likely won't if we allow these kids to put stickers on their helmets. I think that's a bit absurd.

It is still a free country and the individual has the right to speech and expression. In this case, there was nothing wrong with what the kids do. I think it is important to maintain a secular school system, and to ensure that government doesn't promote any one religion over another. But people will express themselves and we have to be able to allow that on some front too. In public schools there are large restrictions on that, some of which go well too far against the rights of the individual. But even then, there was nothing wrong with these stickers, and it wasn't the school promoting a religion.

No harm, no foul.
 
matchlight said:
Maybe you're easily frightened. I keep in mind that we are the ones with the dozen aircraft carriers and the hundred heavy bombers and the six thousand H-bombs, and not the Muslims who like to talk about fighting. If any of the God-forsaken sandpiles they call their countries wants a serious fight with the U.S., they would do well to think long and hard about that. We should stop worrying about what they might do to us, and make them start worrying about what the U.S.might do.
Click to expand...

Death and destruction are more the tools of Satan. I'd prefer intelligence, forgiveness, and creation.
 
matchlight said:
Somehow I doubt I will lose any sleep tonight worrying about the dread threat Christian fundamentalists supposedly pose to our First Amendment freedoms. To hear you tell it, the U.S. is only a few steps away from becoming a Christian theocracy--sort of a Tehran West. Some people might think that by relying on more and more outlandish exaggerations to sustain your argument, you're showing how weak it is. Others might think it shows the sort of irrational hostility toward Christianity that's so often on display in forums like this one.

The Bill of Rights originally applied only to the United States, and not to the states. In a long series of decisions starting about 1900, the Supreme Court held that first one and then another provision of the BOR was "incorporated" in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and through it, applied to the states. The Court did not apply the Free Exercise Clause to the states until Cantwell v. Connecticut in 1940, and it did not apply the Establishment Clause to them until Everson v. Board of Education in 1947.

During the century-and-a-half that separates the Bill of Rights from the World War Two era, then, any state could have restricted the free exercise of religion as far as it pleased, or authorized any amount of religious involvement in government. It could even have established its own official church. If most states had done that, it would hardly have mattered that the Establishment Clause barred Congress from declaring an official national religion; we would have had a de facto theocracy anyway.

This was unquestionably a more openly religious nation during most of the time between 1791 and 1947 than it is now. The dangers you claim religious extremists pose to our freedoms should have been even greater during that century-and-one-half. And yet no state ever even came close to declaring official religion. Must have been a miracle.
Click to expand...

The dangers from Christian Nationalists are real. That many are not aware of them or even know what they are or what they believe and propose for this country is amazing in this time of information overload. When they say that the Founders intended this to be a Christian Nation and it should be, most simply accept that Christians are generally a kindly people who care for the poor and sick, etc. They have no idea what Christian Reconstruction stands for and would be amazed that any Christian would accept such views these days. IOW, Christian Reconstructionists would change this country to their version of Christianity, not your everyday church on mainstreet version.

Christian Reconstructionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

prominent advocates of Christian Reconstructionism have written that according to their understanding, God's law approves of the death penalty not only for murder, but also for propagators of all forms of idolatry,[8][9] active homosexuals,[10] adulterers, practitioners of witchcraft, and blasphemers,[11] and perhaps even recalcitrant youths[12] (see the List of capital crimes in the Bible). American Vision's Joel McDurmon responded to these criticisms by denying that Reconstructionists have promoted coercive means.[13]

Conversely, Christian Reconstructionism's founder, Rousas John Rushdoony, wrote in The Institutes of Biblical Law (the founding document of reconstructionsim) that Old Testament law should be applied to modern society and advocates the reinstatement of the Mosaic law's penal sanctions. Under such a system, the list of civil crimes which carried a death sentence would include homosexuality, adultery, incest, lying about one's virginity, bestiality, witchcraft, idolatry or apostasy, public blasphemy, false prophesying, kidnapping, rape, and bearing false witness in a capital case.[14]
Click to expand...

While advocates of such extreme views are few in number, they have had a great influence. For instance, Glenn Beck hosts a Reconstructionist on his show every week, David Barton, although the self-proclaimed historian Barton has largely been discredited, his views remain popular.


According to sociologist and professor of religion William Martin, author of With God on Our Side:

It is difficult to assess the influence of Reconstructionist thought with any accuracy. Because it is so genuinely radical, most leaders of the Religious Right are careful to distance themselves from it. At the same time, it clearly holds some appeal for many of them. One undoubtedly spoke for others when he confessed, 'Though we hide their books under the bed, we read them just the same.' In addition, several key leaders have acknowledged an intellectual debt to the theonomists. Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy have endorsed Reconstructionist books. Rushdoony has appeared on Kennedy's television program and the 700 Club several times. Pat Robertson makes frequent use of 'dominion' language; his book, The Secret Kingdom, has often been cited for its theonomy elements; and pluralists were made uncomfortable when, during his presidential campaign, he said he 'would only bring Christians and Jews into the government,' as well as when he later wrote, 'There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world.' And Jay Grimstead, who leads the Coalition on Revival, which brings Reconstructionists together with more mainstream evangelicals, has said, 'I don't call myself [a Reconstructionist],' but 'A lot of us are coming to realize that the Bible is God's standard of morality … in all points of history … and for all societies, Christian and non-Christian alike… It so happens that Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and North understood that sooner.' He added, 'There are a lot of us floating around in Christian leadership—James Kennedy is one of them—who don't go all the way with the theonomy thing, but who want to rebuild America based on the Bible.'[26]


For many years, and for some yet today, Christians just assumed they, meaning "Christians" in general as opposed to one denomination or another, had the right to government support in the form of access. They assumed Christian prayers at public meetings and public schools, in the military, and in Congress were welcomed. They failed to realize that the BoR was written to protect minorities and individuals. Few of them ever realized that anyone would object and when objections did occur, the objectors were ignored, ridiculed, and/or persecuted. That reaction continues today as you can see from this news incident and others involving military coercion of religious participation, and continued incidents involving schools. I understand these sorts of violations are traditional and as such carried on with little thought to the effect they may have upon those with other views. But I would think, as a Christian who cares about others, once it was pointed out that those violations are hurtful to one who doesn't share that view, a Christian would begin to think about it and come to the conclusion that Christians as a group should not continue such actions, but what I hear from such Christians is something like, "Well, you're just wrong to feel that way, so I'm going to do it anyway regardless of what the courts say."
 
Ikari said:
Christianity hasn't broken down into violence yet, and it likely won't if we allow these kids to put stickers on their helmets. I think that's a bit absurd.

It is still a free country and the individual has the right to speech and expression. In this case, there was nothing wrong with what the kids do. I think it is important to maintain a secular school system, and to ensure that government doesn't promote any one religion over another. But people will express themselves and we have to be able to allow that on some front too. In public schools there are large restrictions on that, some of which go well too far against the rights of the individual. But even then, there was nothing wrong with these stickers, and it wasn't the school promoting a religion.

No harm, no foul.
Click to expand...

"No harm, no foul", "just let it ride", the attitude that small violations don't count allows bigger violations to follow. Allowing the stickers on government property makes it appear that government is endorsing that religion. Students and others have plenty of venues for self-expression without using government property.
 
OKgrannie said:
"No harm, no foul", "just let it ride", the attitude that small violations don't count allows bigger violations to follow. Allowing the stickers on government property makes it appear that government is endorsing that religion. Students and others have plenty of venues for self-expression without using government property.
Click to expand...

Uggg...I just think this is the overreaction that drives the problem and is one of there reasons we can't have anything nice any more.

Logic, reason, and evidence must reign supreme. And in this case, none of those point to government endorsing a religion. It was kids who put a simple sticker on their helmet and there's nothing particularly offensive about it and the school wasn't endorsing it or requiring it.

Secularism means something doesn't speak to religion, good or bad. It's not anti-theism. That's an important distinction to maintain.
 
OKgrannie said:
Are you saying that putting religious symbols on public property is NOT respecting an establishment of religion? In case you haven't heard, it is not only Congress, but the states also are forbidden to make laws or rules respecting an establishment of religion. Disallowing religious displays on public property, a commonsense ruling BTW, is not interfering with anyone's free exercise. Anyone is free to display any symbols they choose on their own property, and they have no right to co-opt government property or anyone else's property to promote a religion. No one has ever had a "free exercise right" to someone else's property.
Click to expand...
So whats the "rule" or "law" that congress made to allow the cross on those helmets? Short of that you just sunk your own argument.
 
Ikari said:
Uggg...I just think this is the overreaction that drives the problem and is one of there reasons we can't have anything nice any more.

Logic, reason, and evidence must reign supreme. And in this case, none of those point to government endorsing a religion. It was kids who put a simple sticker on their helmet and there's nothing particularly offensive about it and the school wasn't endorsing it or requiring it.

Secularism means something doesn't speak to religion, good or bad. It's not anti-theism. That's an important distinction to maintain.
Click to expand...

Look, I agree this is a minor violation. Perhaps insignificant. I'm just saying that an accumulation of minor violations adds up. It leads to more, such as the way you hear some justify an action by saying we've got God on our money and God in our Pledge of Allegiance so it would be OK for government to pay for a church or distributing Bibles to schoolkids. The world as we know it will not end with this one thing, it will be an accumulation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom