• 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!

Navy reverses Bible ban

As long as I'm not paying for the Bibles, I'm all for it. It's a public service.

Might be tempted to scrape up some money and see about whether or not they'll do the same thing with donated copies of the Eddas, but I've got better things to worry about.
 
Cryptic said:
You are missing the core concept: The practice of placing a religous based motto on currency was found to be historical and thus, permissible. Likewise, the practice of allowing Gideons to place bibles in Navy lodges is, in all probability historical (practice been in place since prior to the 1950s)
Click to expand...

If that logic had any base in reality, especially in the military, there would be a lot of things we would still be doing that we don't do anymore. Why don't we do them anymore? Because we have found many traditions to be sexist, cruel or hazing. Again, for some reason religion seems to be the one thing we can't shake. We can criticize all other ridiculous traditions, but for some reason religion always gets a pass. Putting bibles in desk drawers of hotel rooms is a way of proselytizng that religion and should not be allowed. No more then religious members or salesman are allowed to go door to door on base and sell things.
 
Cryptic said:
Since both the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous appellate courts have made numerous rulings in this area.

Those rulings clearly state that "People have done this before" can be a justification for doing something- retaining religous mottos on coins, wordings in the Pledge, place names, and crosses on public land.

As with the coins, the Pledge, place names, crosses on public land, the common test for bibles in navy hotel rooms should be:
A- have People have done that before? and
B- is it historical (practice initiated before 1950?

If the answers to both "A" and "B" are "Yes", then the practice is allowed to continue. Its not a revolutionary concept and does a very good job of balancing the interests of both parties.
Click to expand...

And again, those rulings were based on currency and documents that obviously are part of our history as a nation. The bible is not even comparable to the mention of god or currency or in documents. Stoping he placement of bibles in hotel rooms is not even close to the same thing as removing all currency ever printed and having it reprinted without the word god on it.. Or re-writing all historical documents with the word god in it. The inclusion of which is just ludicrous.......
 
Kobie said:
I don't. My question was more geared toward the idea that such things should be provided (and others not) simply because the military is predominantly Christian. Goshin later clarified his statement.
Click to expand...

The government doesn't provide Bibles to the troops. Since a private orginization donates the Bibles what's the big deal?
 
Capster78 said:
Or re-writing all historical documents with the word god in it. The inclusion of which is just ludicrous.......
Click to expand...

Sigh, the ease or difficulty of removing something played no part in the Supreme Court decisions. Rather, they reached a very elegent compromise for both sides:
- If the religous references were before the 1950s, they stay as historical cultural statements
-If not, they go

So far, the compromise has worked very well: Recent ten commandment monuments have been removed, while crosses erected in the 1920s have stayed. Also, the Supreme Court has recentlty ruled that historical religous references can be even be kept in public schoools- but that they needed to be very historical. A buildling built in say, the 1960s was not historical enough
Capster78 said:
Stoping he placement of bibles in hotel rooms is not even close to the same thing as removing all currency ever printed and having it reprinted without the word god on it
Click to expand...

Do you really think that removing the motto "In God We Trust" from nearly all U.S. currency in circulation would be that hard? Heck, just simply stop minting or printing currency wth the motto. Both bills and coins have life spans. Also, and what about the crosses on public lands- would it be too hard to remove them as well?
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
The government doesn't provide Bibles to the troops. Since a private orginization donates the Bibles what's the big deal?
Click to expand...

The big deal is the separation of church and state. The government can't be seen as a device to push a particular religion.
 
Cryptic said:
Sigh, the ease of removing something played no part in the Supreme Court decisions. Rather, they reached a very elegent compromise for both sides:
- If the religous references were before the 1950s, they stay as historical cultural statements
-If not, they go

Do you really think that removinvg the motto "In God We Trust" from nearly all U.S. currency in circualtion would be that hard? Heck, just simply stop minting or printing currency wth the motto. Both bills and coins have life spans. Also, and what about the crosses on public lands- would it be too hard to remove them as well?

So far, the compromise has worked very well: Recent ten commandment monuments have been removed, while crosses erected in the 1920s have stayed. Also, the Supreme Court has recentlty ruled that historical religous references can be even be kept in public schoools- but that they needed to be very historical. A buildling built in the 1960s was not historical enough
Click to expand...

The ruling is stupid. I really don't see a cross from 1930 and a cross from 2010 to be any different. It is an attempt at the religious zelots in this country to hold on to anything they can use to push their ideas on the rest of us.
 
apdst said:
The government doesn't provide Bibles to the troops. Since a private orginization donates the Bibles what's the big deal?
Click to expand...

I never said it was a big deal.
 
Cryptic said:
And the Supreme Court both acknowledges that point, and also permits the words "In God we trust" to be retained on currency and the words "under God" to retained in the Pledge of Allegiance (among other things).

In short, the cut off date set by SCOTUS for when religous references are considered historical / cultural and can thus be retained is the 1950s (they have never set an exact date). My bet is that the Gideons have been placing those Bibles in Navy Lodges since before the 1950s.

As such, the historical practice should be allowed to continue. Yes, some atheists are going to get very butt hurt about it (I think the Navy's service wide Bible yank was fueled by what- two complainers?), but those types probably cry every time they use currency (In God we trust) or fly into Sacramento California, or are stationed in Corpus Christi, Texas.

At the end of the day though, too bad for the complainers. I dont know how else to say it- America still is majority Christian and some aspects of that are going to permeate in minor ways into the public sphere. That does not mean that the Navy needs to allow Christian or Muslim groups to construct chapels at Navy loges (not a historical practice).
Click to expand...

Actually, the main reason for keeping the "In God We Trust" on our currency is plainly expense that it would take to remove it. We have too much currency to change out and the expense to do it would be prohibitive for such a little benefit. So it isn't. It has little to nothing to do with when it was placed on there. There is no cost prohibitions to take the bibles from the Lodge rooms and give them to the base library or even putting them on a rack in the lobby or in a room somewhere with other religious texts having them available upon request.
 
Redress said:
If I remember right, and I am not going to look it up before going to bed, so take this for what it is worth, the standard is whether a reasonable person could interpret it as an endorsement of a particular religion. If a reasonable person stays at a navy lodge and finds the bible in their room, would they see it as the navy endorsing Christianity? I would kinda think that is quite possible.

Note: I am not suggesting the bibles are an endorsement, nor that it really was harmful, nor that it was worth the efforts of those who complained. I actually find it annoying that people target little stuff like this. However, once some one does complain, then you are in a situation where it does have to be taken seriously. I am not going to speculate on the outcome, but pending an actual outcome, it would have been best to keep the bibles out of the rooms.
Click to expand...

Do you think those folks staying at a Holiday Inn who notice the Gideon Bible in the dresser drawer think the Holiday Inn is endorsing religion? Or just doing a nice thing for the guests by allowing the Gideons to put it there? I personally do notice those Bibles when we stay in hotels and motels and it feels wrong if it isn't there though I very rarely ever open one. So why would any reasonable person see a Gideon Bible in a Navy Lodge room see it any differently? And how could any intelligent person see that as an endorsement of religion?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Do you think those folks staying at a Holiday Inn who notice the Gideon Bible in the dresser drawer think the Holiday Inn is endorsing religion? Or just doing a nice thing for the guests by allowing the Gideons to put it there? I personally do notice those Bibles when we stay in hotels and motels and would feel odd if it wasn't there though I very rarely ever open one. So why would any reasonable person see a Gideon Bible in a Navy Lodge room see it any differently? And how could any intelligent person see that as an endorsement of religion?
Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate here ...

Holiday Inn is a private company; the Navy lodge is a government-run entity. Holiday Inn can promote whatever religion it wants. The government, at least according to legal precedent re: the First Amendment, isn't supposed to do that.
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, the main reason for keeping the "In God We Trust" on our currency is plainly expense that it would take to remove it. .
Click to expand...

No- Actually, it would involve very little expense to change most, if not nearly all of the currency in circulation: Currency has a life span. simply ptop printing it with the motto. Most, if not nearly all US currency would quickly be motto free.

As I stated before, cost had no bearing in the Supreme Court decision. Rather, it was an elegent compromise:
-Has the practice (currency with motto) or cross on public land been in place since before the 1950s?

-If "no", it goes
-If "yes", it stays as a historical / cultural relic or practice.

My bet is that the Gideon bibles in the Nacy Lodges are in the "Yes" category.
 
roguenuke said:
It doesn't matter if the government is providing them or not, the government still appears to be endorsing that religion, whether intentionally or not. When it comes to the military especially, appearance does matter.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't appear to be endorsing religion. All it appears to be is the tradition of the Gideons placing Bibles in hotel rooms for the use of anybody who might wish to use one. If anything it appears to be the Navy quite correctly adhering to the Constitutional mandate that the government will not interfere in any way with the free exercise of religion.
 
Kobie said:
Playing devil's advocate here ...

Holiday Inn is a private company; the Navy lodge is a government-run entity. Holiday Inn can promote whatever religion it wants. The government, at least according to legal precedent re: the First Amendment, isn't supposed to do that.
Click to expand...

The point is neither are promoting religion by allowing the Gideons to provide a courtesy to patrons of overnight lodging. Only those who would deny that simple courtesy because it is seen as related to religion are promoting anything, i.e. denial of people's right to exercise religion as they choose or enjoy a simple courtesy that no doubt provides comfort and is of value to some.
 
Cryptic said:
No- Actually, it would involve very little expense to change most, if not nearly all of the currency in circulation: Currency has a life span. simply ptop printing it with the motto. Most, if not nearly all US currency would quickly be motto free.

As I stated before, cost had no bearing in the Supreme Court decision. Rather, it was an elegent compromise:
-Has the practice (currency with motto) or cross on public land been in place since before the 1950s?

-If "no", it goes
-If "yes", it stays as a historical / cultural relic or practice.

My bet is that the Gideon bibles in the Nacy Lodges are in the "Yes" category.
Click to expand...

The basic design of currency would still need to be changed. That costs money to do. It has not been worth that money, particularly since it has already been ruled to have very little significant relation to a particular religion, and much more historical value.

The same cannot be said legitimately about Bibles in hotel rooms, no matter how long they have been there. Just being used to something does not automatically give it historical value, especially not when it is specifically about a religion (the Bible is connected to Christianity, while God can be pretty much the god of any religion).

You cannot show this "1950s" thing you keep attempting to claim. That has absolutely little to do with whether something is acceptable. Pretty sure children were learning about the Bible and Christian beliefs in school long before the 50s and those still went away.

Frequently Asked Questions - Religion | First Amendment Center

This is the real test of acceptability:
In its 1971 decision Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court set forth a three-pronged inquiry commonly known as the Lemon test. To pass this test, thereby allowing the display or motto to remain, the government conduct (1) must have a secular purpose, (2) must have a principal or primary effect that does not advance or inhibit religion, and (3) cannot foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.
Click to expand...

Nothing whatsoever to do with length of time it has lasted.
 
apdst said:
Then why are you pissin about it?
Click to expand...

I'm not "pissin about it." Would you care to find the post where I actually objected to anything? If the one post of mine that you quoted is an example of "pissin about it," then methinks thou art barking uppeth the wrong tree.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The point is neither are promoting religion by allowing the Gideons to provide a courtesy to patrons of overnight lodging. Only those who would deny that simple courtesy because it is seen as related to religion are promoting anything, i.e. denial of people's right to exercise religion as they choose or enjoy a simple courtesy that no doubt provides comfort and is of value to some.
Click to expand...

I don't think they are either; however, I could conceivably see the difference between it at a Holiday Inn and a Navy lodge. Hence the "devil's advocate" part of my post. To be frank, I could not conceivably care less one way or the other.

Now, and this is purely a hypothetical that has sort of been addressed earlier in the thread, if the Muslim equivalent of the Gideons wanted to distribute copies of the Koran in Navy lodge rooms and were denied, I could see that being perceived as preferential treatment being granted to one religion over another. However, I highly doubt that will ever actually happen. Whereas if the same group wanted to distribute copies of the Koran in Holiday Inn rooms and were told to go pound sand, I don't think they'd have much (if any) legal recourse.
 
AlbqOwl said:
No it doesn't appear to be endorsing religion. All it appears to be is the tradition of the Gideons placing Bibles in hotel rooms for the use of anybody who might wish to use one. If anything it appears to be the Navy quite correctly adhering to the Constitutional mandate that the government will not interfere in any way with the free exercise of religion.
Click to expand...

Just because you don't think it does, doesn't mean other people agree. Many can easily see that it would promote religion for a government run hotel to provide religious texts of one kind (no matter where those texts actually came from) to its guests, but not offer any other religious texts to them. That can easily be seen as promoting religion. If the government was taking away Bibles from people when they entered the Navy Lodge, that would be prohibiting free exercise of religion. Refusing to place donated religious books of any kind in the rooms in no way inhibits anyone's exercise of their religion, at all.
 
Kobie said:
I don't think they are either; however, I could conceivably see the difference between it at a Holiday Inn and a Navy lodge. Hence the "devil's advocate" part of my post. To be frank, I could not conceivably care less one way or the other.

Now, and this is purely a hypothetical that has sort of been addressed earlier in the thread, if the Muslim equivalent of the Gideons wanted to distribute copies of the Koran in Navy lodge rooms and were denied, I could see that being perceived as preferential treatment being granted to one religion over another. However, I highly doubt that will ever actually happen. Whereas if the same group wanted to distribute copies of the Koran in Holiday Inn rooms and were told to go pound sand, I don't think they'd have much (if any) legal recourse.
Click to expand...

In fact, it wouldn't have to be a specific religious text. What if I wanted to share my religion with everyone and was willing to print out 24000 (number of Navy Lodge rooms about) single page documents on why I believe that we should start cloning ourselves rather than relying on procreation, they should have to put them in every single room at the Navy Lodge because I have just as much right to have my beliefs (although this isn't truly my beliefs, but it is an actual religion's beliefs) put in the government hotel rooms as the Gideons do.
 
roguenuke said:
In fact, it wouldn't have to be a specific religious text. What if I wanted to share my religion with everyone and was willing to print out 24000 (number of Navy Lodge rooms about) single page documents on why I believe that we should start cloning ourselves rather than relying on procreation, they should have to put them in every single room at the Navy Lodge because I have just as much right to have my beliefs (although this isn't truly my beliefs, but it is an actual religion's beliefs) put in the government hotel rooms as the Gideons do.
Click to expand...

I should start a petition to have a copy of Dianetics put in every Navy lodge room, just to be an asshole. :cool:
 
Kobie said:
I don't think they are either; however, I could conceivably see the difference between it at a Holiday Inn and a Navy lodge. Hence the "devil's advocate" part of my post. To be frank, I could not conceivably care less one way or the other.

Now, and this is purely a hypothetical that has sort of been addressed earlier in the thread, if the Muslim equivalent of the Gideons wanted to distribute copies of the Koran in Navy lodge rooms and were denied, I could see that being perceived as preferential treatment being granted to one religion over another. However, I highly doubt that will ever actually happen. Whereas if the same group wanted to distribute copies of the Koran in Holiday Inn rooms and were told to go pound sand, I don't think they'd have much (if any) legal recourse.
Click to expand...

It would be wrong to deny an Islamic group the ability to place the Qu'ran in hotel rooms, but since that would be against their religious beliefs to do so--they make of the book something far more religious than the average Christian does the Bible--that won't happen. The fact that that Gideons so far are the ONLY group to see it as their ministry to make Bibles available to as many as will receive them should not be a disqualifying factor.
 
AlbqOwl said:
It would be wrong to deny an Islamic group the ability to place the Qu'ran in hotel rooms, but since that would be against their religious beliefs to do so--they make of the book something far more religious than the average Christian does the Bible--that won't happen. The fact that that Gideons so far are the ONLY group to see it as their ministry to make Bibles available to as many as will receive them should not be a disqualifying factor.
Click to expand...

Again, I didn't say it was.
 
roguenuke said:
Just because you don't think it does, doesn't mean other people agree. Many can easily see that it would promote religion for a government run hotel to provide religious texts of one kind (no matter where those texts actually came from) to its guests, but not offer any other religious texts to them. That can easily be seen as promoting religion. If the government was taking away Bibles from people when they entered the Navy Lodge, that would be prohibiting free exercise of religion. Refusing to place donated religious books of any kind in the rooms in no way inhibits anyone's exercise of their religion, at all.
Click to expand...

In this particular case, those people who disagree would be very wrong.
 
roguenuke said:
Just because you don't think it does, doesn't mean other people agree. Many can easily see that it would promote religion for a government run hotel to provide religious texts of one kind (no matter where those texts actually came from) to its guests, but not offer any other religious texts to them. That can easily be seen as promoting religion. If the government was taking away Bibles from people when they entered the Navy Lodge, that would be prohibiting free exercise of religion. Refusing to place donated religious books of any kind in the rooms in no way inhibits anyone's exercise of their religion, at all.
Click to expand...

The government is not providing the books. It is not prohibiting the Gideons from doing so at the request of those who would like to have access to the Bibles or just because they like seeing them in the rooms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom