The college of William and Mary has decided that a cross in a chapel was too controversial, but a Sex Workers Art Show wasn't.
Gene Nichol, president of William and Mary about the cross: leaving the cross on display in Wren Chapel where it had been for decades is “…contrary to the best values of the college.”
Gene Nichol, president of William and Mary about the sex workers art show: "I don’t like this kind of show and I don’t like having it here, but it’s not the practice and province of universities to censor or cancel performances because they are controversial.”
Words fail me.
Read the whole thing.
26 comments:
Isn't displaying the cross a form of expression, and therefore isn't removing the cross a form of censorship too?
Gene Nichol, president of William and Mary about the sex workers art show: "I don’t like this kind of show and I don’t like having it here, but it’s not the practice and province of universities to censor or cancel performances because they are controversial.”
So, you’re saying that censorship is appropriate except when directed at Christian symbology?
Let’s put aside that W&M is a publicly funded university and focus instead on historical accuracy. The “Wren Cross” was not installed until the late 30’s/early 40’s when the Episcopalians down the road decided their’s wasn’t big and/or shiny enough. Actually, the overwhelming prominence of crosses in Protestant churches in the New World is a relatively recent phenomenon. It’s removal actually enhances the historical accuracy of the building.
Let’s be fair here. It’s not like Nichol has forbidden prayer and banned Christmas on the campus. He explicitly stated that the cross could be returned on request for events and later agreed to compromise by having the cross reinstalled on Sundays. How is that not reasonable? Why is this unacceptable?
I’m not exactly sure how the naughty art show fits into your argument since it was not sponsored by the college, but put on by several student groups. Student groups also host prayer services that the college neither sponsors nor censors. Do you see where I’m leading? The college represents itself very carefully, but it allows it’s students to represent themselves very freely.
Those who have a problems with William & Mary, as you’ve outlined, have the very excellent option of sending their children up the road to that bastion of intellectual excellence, Liberty University. But in Williamsburg, the benefit to open diversity outweighs any feelings of overblown persecution.
Well, Cara, if it's only been there since the 1940s, then by all means, let's have it torn down at once. And while we're at it, let's look at all kinds of other things that have only been around since the 1940's or earlier and tear them down, too.
How about if we start with all the laws against immoral behavior that used to be on the books? Their removal postdates 1940, so let's do away with that and put 'em back in, shall we? Looks like most of your artists will be spending the night in jail.
Come to think of it, they'll probably enjoy it.
No, Nicholas hasn't forbidden prayer, he's just decided that atheism or agnosticism is the religion that the University will support. The removal of the symbol is a statement of support as well. Oh well, at least there aren't any laws about the separation of church and state, are there?
There are? Rats.
Nice touch with the condescension towards the Episcopalians, too. They "decided their's (sic) wasn’t big and/or shiny enough." Stupid Episcopalians.
If you are attending Billy and Mary, you might want to try some classes in the English department, dear. The proper use of the word was "theirs."
The point of the post seems to have missed you entirely. You might want to try two classes in English. The University has the power to both permit events and remove symbols for exactly the same reason - because it owns the property. The University chose to remove a cross and permit a sex workers art show. That says a great deal about the campus.
As for Liberty University, I looked them up. They seem a lot like our local Point Loma Nazarene University. Check out what they do for fun.
Sick bastards.
Nice, you found a typo. You should be a copy editor. But did you find any other salient weakness in my statement?
I'm Episcopalian. The remark was meant to be self-deprecating. Not like you would know that. My bad. Statement retracted.
Let's see here. I'll try not to go all ad hominem even though you did.
No, Nicholas hasn't forbidden prayer, he's just decided that atheism or agnosticism is the religion that the University will support.
That's right. Except atheism is not a religion, as you said. It's a neutrality. I know that this is really offensive, that a publicly funded university would choose to represent itself as religiously neutral. I guess you would call it "secular" as if secular were a dirty word.
Maybe I do need an English class because I'm having a hard time understanding why you are saying that Gene Nichol has endorsed atheism/agnosticism as a religion and should have been prevented from doing so under the First Amendment? You're saying that the precedent of governments to not encourage any one particular system of religious beliefs has been violated?
Wait, how is atheism a religion again?
The University has the power to both permit events and remove symbols for exactly the same reason - because it owns the property. The University chose to remove a cross and permit a sex workers art show.
Actually, the Commonwealth of Virginia owns the property on which the campus of the College of William & Mary sits. While it was founded as a parochial school, it has been a secular institution for most of it's 314 years. The administration has an obligation to protect freedom of speech without explicitly promoting any one particular religion.
I don't understand why anyone is still upset. Yet these stories keep rolling through my news feed. I really don't think that anyone (important) connected with William & Mary really cares about this non-issue anymore. As I've stated previously, a very good compromise was reached on the matter. I have a feeling that many of those still making a fuss had never even heard of the college until this story hit the blogs several months ago.
btw: I looked up Point Loma Nazarene University. It's no Liberty U, if only because this is offered:
March 13th, 2007. Dr. Donna Blackman, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, "Exploration of an undersea mountain - how tectonics, magmatism, and deep-sea life evolve together"
If PLNU thinks it's okay for their biologists to say that life was able to evolve, then they're okay with me. They can spill lambs blood on the burning Quran for all I care. But they are not publicly funded.
I liked your pictures of the Special Olympics. Commendable. But you don't have to go to a parochial college to be positive in the community. According to W&M's Office of Volunteer Services, "It is estimated that 70 percent of William and Mary students participate in service activities contributing over 150,000 volunteer hours each year." Guess they aren't worshiping Satan all the time.
Hard to fathom. What are they thinking?
That's right. Except atheism is not a religion, as you said. It's a neutrality. I know that this is really offensive, that a publicly funded university would choose to represent itself as religiously neutral. I guess you would call it "secular" as if secular were a dirty word.
"A federal court has ruled that prison officials in Wisconsin violated the rights of an inmate who sought to form an Atheist discussion group because they failed to treat Atheism as a religion."
American Atheists
"This case is sometimes cited as establishing Secular Humanism as a religion under the law."
Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia
While it was founded as a parochial school, it has been a secular institution for most of it's 314 years.
College of William and Mary
You represent the University very poorly... and dishonestly.
Hey K T --
Figured I'd deliver this lil' spankin' to Miss Russell over at your house too. ; )
Glib Says:
“So, you’re saying that censorship is appropriate except when directed at Christian symbology? ”
Nope. Find where I said that and you win the cupie doll.
“The “Wren Cross” was not installed until the late 30’s/early 40’s”
If you notice, I said “decades” in my post. Strike two for you sweetie.
“overwhelming prominence of crosses in Protestant churches in the New World is a relatively recent phenomenon. It’s removal actually enhances the “historical realities” of the building.”
We are talking about A cross, not an “overwhelming prominence.” Although I’m sure with vampiresses like you, a single cross in walkie-talkie range and a whiff of Luigi’s garlic breath, your brain would shrivel like a prime hog within gnashing distance of Rosie O’Donnell.
“Why is this unacceptable?”
Because a cross has always been displayed at the CHAPEL, hello, CHAPEL, and this one had been there with no problem until Nichol decided to create the dust up by removing it for no good reason. I find it funny that people like me who defend the status quo, which has brought harm to no one (no, it is not a violation of the Establishment Clause to display a cross in a chapel, please don’t look silly by contending such an idiocy), and people like you promote radical transformation, yet we are accused of trying to “impose” something on society.
“naughty art show”
Art show? ART SHOW? This country is losing its mind. A fat chick prancing around stage and a homosexual prostitute running his mouth qualifies as ART?
“was not sponsored by the college”
Survey says…XXX. Student fees were used to fund a portion of the “art show.”
“Those who have a problems with William & Mary, as you’ve outlined, have the very excellent option of sending their children up the road to that bastion of intellectual excellence, Liberty University”
Oh, you mean, it’s your way or get the “eff” out, right. So tolerant.
“that bastion of intellectual excellence, Liberty University”
Oh, you mean the school with one of the top-ranked debating teams in the nation?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11078887/site/newsweek/
“the benefit to open diversity outweighs any feelings of overblown persecution.”
Not sure if I’ve ever read anything as meaningless as this sentence. Care to elaborate?
“So, you’re saying that censorship is appropriate except when directed at Christian symbology?”
So you’re saying censorship is appropriate especially when directed at Christian symbology.
Sweetie, you better come with more than this next time, cause you just got Punk’d.
"But did you find any other salient weakness in my statement?"
The better question would be. "Does ANYTHING I've written make sense?"
"atheism is not a religion, as you said. It's a neutrality."
If you really belive that hostility to religion equals neutrality I'll give you a test to see if you are consistent. A day care center doesn't allow Asian kids. Is the day care center neutral toward Asian kids?
"I know that this is really offensive, that a publicly funded university would choose to represent itself as religiously neutral."
No the real offense here is that people like KT and I have broken our backs for years providing tax-payer funding for an education system that produces young people who have been convinced that the wholesale elimination of symbols of the Faith of our Founders is the same as "neutrality."
"Actually, the Commonwealth of Virginia owns the property on which the campus of the College of William & Mary sits."
OK, then since at the time of the founding of our country most colonies maintained an ESTABLISHED religion (see you may not know this, but the First Amendment's Est. Clause applies to the federal government and the limits the LAWS its legislative branch may make respecting an establishment of a particular religious denomination as the one citizens must follow), how is a single cross that has sat uncontroversially at a CHAPEL for 75 years a violation of anything aside from the wafer-thin fragility of a few raging atheists or limp "Episcopalians?"
"I don't understand why anyone is still upset."
Of course you don't because you are a secular extremist and you got your way. Most other Americans who have followed this story are outraged by the idiotic and senseless decision of Nichol.
Miss Russell it is sad that our education system today continues to create people who think that it's not important to maintain symbols and traditions that honor the very foundation of the country you take such great pains to be ignorant about yet suckle of its fruits, but it IS important to celebrate diseased gay hookers, fat strippers and dildo guns...and even call it "art."
Cara, how old are you? That's not a derogatory question, it's a sincere one. I think the problem is generational.
I don't understand why anyone is still upset
You show absolutely no comprehension of the problem at all. The University allowed this:
A woman named Dirty Martini did a striptease. Weighing in at well over 200 pounds, she finished her routine wearing only a G-string and pasties,
but removed a cross from a chapel.
Cara, the world was not always thus. There were not always movies like Saw or Hannibal Rising shown in respectable theaters. There was a time when young women did not sell themselves publicly on things like MySpace. You live in a world that has been corrupted beyond recognition by the mass media and a gradual acceptance of evil and putrescence until people like you can no longer tell the difference.
I will die before this reaches full fruition. From your comments, it is unlikely that you will. I will probably live to see Europe finally pay the piper.
In the next presidential election, we will have our first serious black candidate since Jesse Jackson. That election is sure to address the catastrophe that is black America. With 70% illegitimacy, their society has broken down at its very foundations. The devastation of that moral decay permeates all aspects of their lives. In an attempt to cater to voters like you, the debate will focus on legislative solutions and will avoid any moral judgment at all.
Good luck fixing that with the tax code.
When you can't see the problem with embracing Sodom and Gomorrah on your campuses, you're screwed.
I'm 25, I have a degree in biology and environmental science from W&M. I think the problem is partially generational. I think the problem with homophobia in America is greatly generational. So how old are you? And Glib? (I guessed 80+, but that was based on a rant as his page)
Understand that nobody is censoring Christians. Christians are free to express their beliefs to the point that they don't infringe upon others. You can't convince me that this is a case of censorship because the cross can be freely displayed within the Wren chapel at anytime. By extension of your collective argument, religious symbols from all representative student, faculty, staff, and alumni religious would rightfully have to be displayed at all times. Not only would this be garish, but probably far more offensive to your cause.
On the federal court ruling referenced by loboinok:
"The Christian Right is already spinning this (story) and distorting it," noted Austin Cline, operator of About.Com's Atheism page. Indeed, the conservative WorldNetDailyCom quoted Brian Fahling of the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, who labeled the ruling "a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence."
"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," Fahling groused."
(From the page s/he linked: American Atheists)
Atheism is by definition not a religion. Nor is it a neutral position, as Richard Dawkins explains in his heretical tome, "The GOD Delusion." Gene Nichol did not endorse atheism he endorsed RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY. You can keep denying it, but there is a huge difference.
I will no longer dwell on your homophobia because it's getting old. But the racism, I find troubling:
With 70% illegitimacy, their society has broken down at its very foundations. The devastation of that moral decay permeates all aspects of their lives. In an attempt to cater to voters like you, the debate will focus on legislative solutions and will avoid any moral judgment at all.
I don't know how this came up, William & Mary is incredibly homogeneous. Being a pasty white kid from the Northern Rockies, I really don't think I have enough background to comment rightfully on that matter. But since you did, I will counter that the state of Black America is very very complicated and that a great deal of institutional racism still exists in this country. But there is an even greater amount of class-ism. You can't "morally judge" a people for being poor when that poverty is systemic and entrenched, as it has been since the days of the Middle Passage. I will concede that the Black community has a great deal of soul-searching to do. But that needs to happen within the black community, and I believe it is happening somewhat. Improving education and healthcare would be two important steps to facilitate this.
A society should be measured by not by how the wealthy are doing, but by the state of the indigent. I would say we have a long way to go.
I posted this at Glib's page but I have a feeling it's not going to survive "moderation." So I copy/pasted it here since he did the same. w0rd.
---
Cupie doll? Punk’d? Did you mean pwned? What are you like an octogenarian? Who talks like that?
No, you didn’t say that explicitly, but the tone of your writing implied that was how you felt; that the cross should have stayed and that the gross icky queers should have been the ones to go. But I can tell you’re angry, old timer. Your formatting is getting messy.
I noticed you said, “decades” but I was merely highlighting that fact as your readers may have been misled to believe that the cross represented a significant piece of colonial history, which it doesn’t.
Although I’m sure with vampiresses like you, a single cross in walkie-talkie range and a whiff of Luigi’s garlic breath, your brain would shrivel like a prime hog within gnashing distance of Rosie O’Donnell.
Incoherent and ad hominem. Nice. Very nice. That must mean that I won the argument. I’m just having so much fun, though. You write like Mr. Burns on “The Simpsons.” It’s really cute. But still, at your age, you should not be high on crystal meth, sir.
Because a cross has always been displayed at the CHAPEL, hello, CHAPEL, and this one had been there with no problem until Nichol decided to create the dust up by removing it for no good reason.
Hello. About 50 miles West of Williamsburg there is an interfaith chapel at the Richmond International Airport. There’s a cross in it, but it’s displayed as a medallion alongside others of equal size representing various other world religions. It’s a very nice space. I’m sure there are thousands of non-faith-specific chapels throughout the country. The term chapel does not necessitate Christian exclusivity.
While I’m not sure if a student comment prompted the original removal, Nichol stated that several students have thanked him for making the Wren Chapel a more welcoming space.
And again, I will reiterate that while perhaps mishandled at first, a terrific compromise was reached in the matter; the cross is placed every Sunday, all day long and is available for placement at any other time whenever anyone asks. There is no problem here. The problem was imagined by people who are appalled that someone who packs an ACLU card would ever be made president of the College.
homosexual prostitute running his mouth
Now we get into the nitty-gritty. The fags are taking over. Why won’t they shut up? Oh no. Stop. They’re coming with swatches. It’s going to be fabulous. Help. Please. Somebody…
Student fees were used to fund a portion of the “art show.”
Student fees have gone to far more evil things. Things such as the William & Mary Basketball program of Doom; covering World’s Most Evil Man and former College Chancellor, Henry Kissinger’s travel expenses to and from the campus; those gawdawful mandatory diversity/tolerance workshops they make the freshmen take, et al.
Yeah, Liberty U! Go there! If you want a college president of the cloth, the Reverend Falwell will be happy to take your money. I say this not because I am intolerant of your religion, I am intolerant of your ignorance. I only knock LU for their commitment to what the dept. of biology characterizes as, “freedom and willingness to explore non-Darwinian explanations for the origin of life.” Needless to say, they DO NOT have a geology department. Point being: You can have the best debate team in history but all the good it will do those who are openly hostile toward the most basic empirical truths. That is, Methuselah, unless you agree with the Young Earth “hypothesis” in which case, point doubly made.
…
Oh, excuse me. I was just on the ACLU’s inter-page… giving them money, at least twenty of my dollars. I am now a Card-Carrying Member ™ and I hope you’re happy because, “You’re my Inspir-ation!” Your cause actually took a step backwards today. Good work.
Game. Set. Match… Pwnage.
Cara, institutional racism, if such exists, has a much weaker correlation to success than moral behavior. The link between illegitimacy and social pathologies is very, very strong.
Given your degree, you must certainly have studied statistics. Student's t-test, I believe, is the proper mechanism for establishing such correlations. Go look at the correlation between race and any social pathology and then look at the correlation between illegitimacy and social pathologies. It's not even close and the sample sizes are in the millions.
I'm 45 and I've lived through quite a bit of amoral social pathologies. It's no joke. My generation has bequeathed to you a world where moral judgment is virtually required for a happy and successful life, but is socially unacceptable. Hence the removal of a cross and the celebration of the orgiastic lifestyle.
I'm truly sorry.
I wish I could let you experience the first-hand view of drug addiction, alchoholism, madness, family abandonment, adultery, illness, poverty and divorce that I have. I haven't done most of those, but I've been at the epicenter of all of them. At 25 you think you know the world, but you don't. Alas, you can't experience them vicariously, but you will experience them in your lifetime. The world you live in is rife with it.
Only the burned believe in the fire. W&M threw gasoline onto the conflagration.
So, it's not contradictory to go out of the way to remove something in the building's makeup that's been around as long as most grandparents, but promote something that kids can't watch?
That sounds like throwing out the baby and keeping the bathwater....
"noted Austin Cline"... "quoted Brian Fahling"... "Richard Dawkins explains"... "Gene Nichol did not endorse".
I'm not referring to, nor interested in people's personal opinions.
Try addressing the opinions and decisions of the Courts.
The Washington Ethical Society case involved denial of the Society's application for tax exemption as a religious organization. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court's ruling, defined the Society as a religious organization, and granted its tax exemption.
The Court Stated,
The sole issue raised is whether petitioner falls within the definition of a "church" or a "religious society" . . . . The taxing authority urges denial of the tax exemption asserting petitioner is not a religious society or church and that it does not use its buildings for religious worship since "religious" and "worship" require a belief in and teaching of a Supreme Being who controls the universe. The position of the tax Court, in denying tax exemption, was that belief in and teaching of the existence of a Divinity is essential to qualify under the statute. . . . To construe exemptions so strictly that unorthodox or minority forms of worship would be denied the exemption benefits granted to those conforming to the majority beliefs might well raise constitutional issues . . . . We hold on this record and under the controlling statutory language petitioner qualifies as "a religious corporation or society" . . . .
It is incumbent upon Congress to utilize this broad definition of religion in all its legislative actions bearing on the support or non-support of religion, within the context of the "no-establishment" clause of the First Amendment.
Secular Humanism is a religion
"for Free Exercise Clause purposes."
The Court has undeniably defined Secular Humanism as a religion "for free exercise purposes." When Secular Humanists want the benefits of a religion, they get them.
Tax Exemption. Secular Humanism has been granted tax-exempt status as a religion. The Torcaso quote cited the cases.
Conscientious Objection. Even though Congress originally granted conscientious objector status only to those who objected to war for religious reasons (i.e., because of a belief in God), the Supreme Court turned around and said that Humanists who don't believe in God are "religious" for C.O. purposes. U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 183, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733, 746 (Holding that belief in a "Supreme Being" is not a necessary component of "religion," quoting a Secular Humanist source, "Thus the 'God' that we love . . . is . . . humanity.")
So Secular Humanism is emphatically and undeniably a religion -- "for free exercise purposes."
Any claim that "the clear weight of the caselaw" is against the proposition that Secular Humanism is a religion is a misleading claim. Secular Humanism is a religion ("for free exercise clause purposes").
Secular Humanism is Not a religion
"for Establishment Clause purposes."
But when Christians attempt to get the religion of Secular Humanism out of the government schools, based on the same emotional frame of mind which atheists had when they went to court against God in schools, then pro-secularist courts speak out of the other side of their faces and say that Secular Humanism is NOT a religion "for establishment clause purposes." This is slimy deceitful legalism at its worst.
But it explains why so many are confused about whether Secular Humanism is a religion.
Here is the rule: When Secular Humanists want the benefits of religion, Secular Humanism is a religion. When Secular Humanists are challenged for propagating their religion in public schools, it is not a religion. If that sounds insane, it is; but all insane people are still rational. This insanity is cloaked in the rational-sounding rhetoric of constitutional law. Remember:
Secular Humanism is a religion "for free exercise clause purposes," and it is not a religion "for establishment clause purposes."
Here's how it works. In Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist., 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994), a high school biology teacher tried to balance the teaching of evolutionism with creationism based on the claim that Secular Humanism (and its core belief, evolutionism) is a religion. The court emphatically rejected this claim:
We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are "religions" for Establishment Clause purposes. Indeed, both the dictionary definition of religion and the clear weight of the caselaw5 are to the contrary. The Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while the belief in a divine creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower forms is not. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 96 L.Ed.2d 510 (1987) (holding unconstitutional, under Establishment Clause, Louisiana's "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act").
Note 5: See Smith v. Board of School Com'rs of Mobile County, 827 F.2d 684, 690-95 (11th Cir. 1987) (refusing to adopt district court's holding that "secular humanism" is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes; deciding case on other grounds); United States v. Allen, 760 F.2d 447, 450-51 (2d Cir. 1985) (quoting Tribe, American Constitutional Law 827-28 (1978), for the proposition that, while "religion" should be broadly interpreted for Free Exercise Clause purposes, "anything `arguably non-religious' should not be considered religious in applying the establishment clause").
Thus a teacher who wants to tell his students about his religious beliefs is free to do so if his religion is the religion of Secular Humanism, but may not tell his students about his religious beliefs if his religion is Christianity. Christians are not even allowed to discuss Christianity with students during lunch break, while Secular Humanists are allowed to teach the tenets of the religion of Secular Humanism from the blackboard during class.
Peloza alleges the school district ordered him to refrain from discussing his religious beliefs with students during "instructional time," and to tell any students who attempted to initiate such conversations with him to consult their parents or clergy. He claims the school district, in the following official reprimand, defined "instructional time" as any time the students are on campus, including lunch break and the time before, between, and after classes:
You are hereby directed to refrain from any attempt to convert students to Christianity or initiating conversations about your religious beliefs during instructional time, which the District believes includes any time students are required to be on campus as well as the time students immediately arrive for the purposes of attending school for instruction, lunch time, and the time immediately prior to students' departure after the instructional day.
Complaint at 16. Peloza seeks a declaration that this definition of instructional time is too broad, and that he should be allowed to participate in student-initiated discussions of religious matters when he is not actually teaching class.
The school district's interest in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation trumps Peloza's right to free speech.
While at the high school, whether he is in the classroom or outside of it during contract time, Peloza is not just any ordinary citizen. He is a teacher. He is one of those especially respected persons chosen to teach in the high school's classroom. He is clothed with the mantle of one who imparts knowledge and wisdom. His expressions of opinion are all the more believable because he is a teacher. The likelihood of high school students equating his views with those of the school is substantial. To permit him to discuss his religious beliefs with students during school time on school grounds would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Such speech would not have a secular purpose, would have the primary effect of advancing religion, and would entangle the school with religion. In sum, it would flunk all three parts of the test articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). See Roberts v. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047, 1056-58 (10th Cir. 1990) (teacher could be prohibited from reading Bible during silent reading period, and from stocking two books on Christianity on shelves, because these things could leave students with the impression that Christianity was officially sanctioned), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 3025, 120 L.Ed.2d 896 (1992).
Secular Humanist teachers and school administrators (who are protected by the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment as members of tax-exempt religious organizations and religious conscientious objectors) are free to propagate their views in schools, but Christians are not. If Christians propagate their views, it is an "establishment clause" violation, but not if Secular Humanists propagate their views.
Secular Humanism is a religion "for free exercise clause purposes," and it is not a religion "for establishment clause purposes."
Bottom line... they want their cake and to eat it too.
Oh wow. Okay. Statistics also teaches us to avoid the logical fallacy, Cum hoc ergo propter hoc--Correlation therefore causation. You are using this on two levels: That there is causation between race and illegitimate pregnancy and that there is causation between illegitimate pregnecy and what you term, "social pathology." (If you are referring to "The Gays," you will find that the Black community is probably the most homophobic of them all. Look at how far it has gotten them!)
Being a nerdy academic type, I will also direct you to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs which shows us that until more basic essentials are met, such as having enough to eat and feeling safe, an individual can't be expected to make good use of a second-rate public "education" much less fully internalize a basis for moral behavior (which you will notice is at the peak of self-actualization). I promise that if you take all the data and examined level of socio-economic status as it applies to things like crime and teenage pregnancy, you will find a far stronger correlation.
Institutional racism, though abstract to you and I, is a very real and damaging phenomenon. It isn't as much of an issue for most minority groups so much as for Blacks (and American Indians, for different reasons); though xenophobia is always a bit of a problem, going back to Jamestown, the institutions of this country were built by immigrants and their descendants. When you put into perspective that slavery was in place for the majority of the 400+ years Europeans have been living here and that Jim Crow was struck down less than 50 years ago, it isn't at all surprising that blacks haven't "just gotten over it." (e.g. One in every thirteen black men are currently in prison. Single mother-hood is a problem in the black community. If we applied the same severity sentencing and released non-violent drug offenders to the healthcare system, a whole lot more dads will be available for their families and, agree with the means or not, society has taken a baby-step forward.)
I agree that moral and ethical judgment is required for a happy and successful life. But there is absolutely no equating morality with religion. Religion may encourage moral behavior; love thine neighbor as thine self, could be the most beautiful teaching of Christianity. But one need not be born-again to exercise good moral judgment. Religion is not morality. Here is why these are distinct:
If my people's God tells me to assemble an army to rape, murder, and conquer your people, in his name, you would probably not agree that my people were acting morally. After all, your God didn't tell you about our God's plan. For all you know, our God is a fairy tale.
Where I'm leading is that ethical behavior is universal. While people will never every agree how to answer the unanswerable questions of existance, I think it's safe to say that we can all concure that it is a good thing not to be raped, pillaged, and murdered. Yes?
You might have twenty years on me, but don't think I haven't seen some ugliness and don't think I'm incapable of fathoming the depths of human evil. Demanding that crosses remain in public school buildings is not going to solve any social problems. If we make sure that children have enough to eat, are healthy, and can feel safe, we will have taken a major step improving our society for everyone. Didn't Christ teach us that? (If He were alive today, He would be a complete liberal.)
A court ruling also put the president in office. Can't say that was the right decision.
Thus a teacher who wants to tell his students about his religious beliefs is free to do so if his religion is the religion of Secular Humanism, but may not tell his students about his religious beliefs if his religion is Christianity. Christians are not even allowed to discuss Christianity with students during lunch break, while Secular Humanists are allowed to teach the tenets of the religion of Secular Humanism from the blackboard during class.
The direct promotion of any religion's tenets extending beyond universal ethical truths has no place within the public schooling system. But, loboinok, just what are the tenets of Secular Humanism? That the world is 4.5 billion years old? That life has existed for 3.5 billion years and that over that incomprehensibly long time modern species evolved through the elegant process of natural selection? That we evolved from these same primitive single celled organisms? Why are these universal facts that can be empirically proven again and again using evidence and logic, why is this religion?
I'm not saying that students should not be taught about the history and beliefs of Judeo-Christian culture, but they need also touch on Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, neolithic systems of belief. Gaining an understanding of world religious thought would help to remove the FUD that has led to this continued uproar.
You will never successfully argue that atheism is a religion. While it is an outlook that may usurp religion, being non-theistic and non-dogmatic (science is always open for revision upon the discovery of new findings), the term 'religion' does not apply and the Washington Ethical Society does not speak for all atheists.
Again, Gene Nichol did not change the college "religion" to atheism. He did not banish God from the chapel. God's there. They say He's everywhere, you know.
A court ruling also put the president in office. Can't say that was the right decision
Of course you can't, because a "court ruling" didn't put him in office.
Your lack of understanding regarding that issue, might explain why you are struggling with the issue at hand.
You will never successfully argue that atheism is a religion.
I don't need to argue it.
"When facts are on your side, argue facts. When the law is on your side..."
re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdÊ’É™n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
a·the·ism /ˈeɪθiˌɪzÉ™m/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
[Origin: 1580–90; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ism]
secular humanism
–noun
any set of beliefs that promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines.
[Origin: 1980–85]
the term 'religion' does not apply
Seems the dictionary and the courts definition, differ from yours.
the Washington Ethical Society does not speak for all atheists.
But the court does speak for the law.(usually)
I have monitored enough crevo threads to know that evos are just as dogmatic and religious, concerning their beliefs and doctrine, as creationists are about theirs. In some ways, even more so.
You may argue with the technical and legal definitions all you like...but you're not going to change them.
Statistics also teaches us to avoid the logical fallacy, Cum hoc ergo propter hoc--Correlation therefore causation. You are using this on two levels: That there is causation between race and illegitimate pregnancy and that there is causation between illegitimate pregnecy and what you term, "social pathology."
Thanks for the tip, Cara. I had no idea that the causation was still in question. My own life looks very different now. I'll have to look for a different source of problems than having my family income cut by 45% and my workforce cut in half while retaining the same responsiblities as a single dad. I had thought it was the immoral actions of a wife who decided to run off with her boss, desert her family and abandon her children, but now I see that the wisdom of some 25 year old college student who has yet to experience this has a lot to teach me.
And no, bonehead, I didn't correlate race with illegitmacy, the proper way to analyze the statistics is to eliminate race as a variable. It turns out that illegitimacy is disastrous no matter what the race. Whitey racist amoral slobs who long for the days of Jim Crow (or better yet, the overseer) have the same problems as the blacks.
How would correlating race with illegitmacy have made my point, anyway? The whole point is that behavior has the greatest impact on performance, not race. What kind of sick mind would equate race with performance or even consider it?
K Cat. Dude. I promise I wasn't jabbing at you personally. I didn't mean to turn this into a nightmarish therapy session for you. Sorry your wife left you with the kids. The hussy. I'd be that bitter too. Glad you got that off your chest.
I reread your earlier post and realize I misunderstood you. It actually isn't nearly as stupid as I made it sound. So you're saying that there's a fairly strong correlation between illegitimate pregnancy and "social pathologies" (still not clear what these are specifically; crime, poverty, drug use, what?). Absolutely there is. If we teased apart the complexities involved, I don't think that we would find that one causes the other, but rather they feed into the same cycle of poverty and social immobility. As Maslow showed us, you can't expect an individual to tune a moral compass under survival conditions. Improvements in overall education and access to healthcare in under-served communities could go a very long way in this respect.
Sorry if I misread you and assumed the worst. Keep in mind that I lived in the South where I saw and heard some pretty stupid racist shit; people are capable of anything.
In Scandinavia, having children out of wedlock is becoming almost the norm. Couples often will have a couple of kids while living together before they decide to get married. Sometimes, they will live together long enough to raise their children before going their separate ways, having never tied to knot. I'm not saying that differences in culture and circumstance don't factor into whether this living arrangement is successful or not, just that large numbers of unwed parents are capable of raising their bastard children without causing the disintegration of society. Yes, it is way different, but shows that illegitimate pregnancy is not always detrimental.
A question for lolinok: If you were to sue the College of William & Mary to have the two-foot high alter cross replaced on a permanent basis, what would be your argument? What court would you use? Would you cite precedent? Would you win? Why or why not?
Cara, thanks for the nice reply, but your wrong on many counts.
First, there aren't any complexities involved. It's a matter of simple time and money. Less time, less money equals lower quality product. Period. There's no getting around it. It's simple math.
No, this isn't a therapy session and I'm not venting bitterness. It's frustration with people who want to rationalize destructive behavior. Take religion out of it. Remove all crosses everywhere and burn all bibles. Close all churches and ban religious teaching everywhere.
If I take away half of your money and half of your time you're going to put out a poorer product as a parent. It actually is much worse than losing half because of the fixed temporal costs of life, but 50% will do for a thumbnail sketch.
You're worried about Liberty University taking your money and feeding its students crap? Take a look at the intellectual foundations of your beliefs, generated by the Molly Ivins and Pat Schroeders of this world.
It was all lies. All of it. You can prove it with half a sheet of paper and 4th grade math. You’ve been lied to over and over and over again by people like Gene Nichol.
The world is on fire and W&M just poured gasoline on it. Like I said, have fun cleaning up the mess with a tax code and some hate crime laws.
Scandinavia? You’ve got to be kidding me. Outside of Norway which is propped up by oil money, the whole of Europe (except Ireland) is in big, big trouble. Take a look at their birth rates, unemployment rates and social spending commitments vs. tax revenue forecasts. They’re all screwed, big time. Again, it’s simple math. Fewer kids, more elderly, huge social programs = hyperinflation.
Less time, less money equals lower quality product.
You're talking about children, right? I grew up in the 80's when lots of mother's were joining their husbands in the work place. It wasn't just that upitty feminists wanted vocational equality. Families were finding that a second source of income was be needed to accomodate an ever rising standard of living. Even with just the essensials, it is nearly impossible to raise a kid on a single income. How doubly hard this must be for one parent on their own. We can both agree that two parents are better than one and that one parent staying home is even better.
Fifty years ago, a family could live a comfortable middle-class lifestyle on a 40 hour per week income. Why are two incomes now required to support that same lifestyle? If America is wealthier than ever, why are most of us worse off than we were 20 or 30 years ago? The middle class is shrinking at an alarming rate. The only way I know to remedy that, short of Marxist revolution, is modification of the tax code. I am not an economist, so that is as far as I will advance that point. But it's not like the wealthy can be trusted to redistribute the wealth on their own.
Okay, even if single mom has a little bit more to take home at the end of the day, the kids are still running around on the streets until she gets home and baby daddy is still in jail. This can't be solved in a top down fashion. Nor can we insist that she just "figure it out." That is how otherwise law-abiding citizens turn to crime.
I think you are on the right track about improving "the product." Single mom's kids could greatly benefit from day care or after-school programs. Her ambitious thirteen year old might join the debate team rather than sell drugs on the corner. Removing mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders would go a long way to make a lot of fathers available to earn that second income and contribute that missing 50% of parental contact. An investment in social programing at these levels would reap enormous gains over the long term. Addressing these social and economic aspects meaningfully is how urban America will overcome.
It's frustration with people who want to rationalize destructive behavior. Take religion out of it. Remove all crosses everywhere and burn all bibles. Close all churches and ban religious teaching everywhere.
I think this is the meat of the beef over the "Wren cross." There is a preceived slippery-slope between Nichol's decision and the banning of Christian practice in America. I think this paranoia is a fairly new phenomenon. Eighty percent of American adults identify with the Christian religion. That is a HUGE majority! A two-foot high alter cross not being displayed 24/7 in a state-owned building at a small liberal arts college in eastern Virginia is not going to precipitate a ban on religion. The president of a college is allowed to make decisions about college property. Being a public college, I find his decision appropriate, though he mishandled it at first. If he banned prayer and religious assembly on the campus, I would be among the first to stand right there next to you rallying for the cause. But that was not the case. Though three hundred years ago, W&M was founded as a parochial college to train Anglican priests. But 300 years ago, every college was a parochial college. Surely you don't really believe that the state of Christianity in America is weak enough that this small gesture of inclusiveness will burn the whole house down. Give your people some credit!
You're worried about Liberty University taking your money and feeding its students crap?
I'm not worried about Liberty U. They are a privately funded parochial school. They can do whatever they want. But then again, I certainly don't want a physician that subscribes to creationism. A university that can endorse the wholesale rejection of an entire body of scientific evidence and analysis which it considers "biased" because it conflicts with literal interpretations of the book of Genesis should not even offer classes in science.
Take a look at the intellectual foundations of your beliefs, generated by the Molly Ivins and Pat Schroeders of this world.
It was all lies. All of it. You can prove it with half a sheet of paper and 4th grade math. You’ve been lied to over and over and over again by people like Gene Nichol.
Oh, Molly. What a firecracker she was. I do miss her.
But could you elaborate? Are you talking about the virtues of secularism? What is so simple that I'm missing here?
The world is on fire and W&M just poured gasoline on it.
There are real religious wars going on in the world, wars in which people die. Theocracy has never done anything to contribute to geo-political stability. Here in the U.S. "extreme" Christians fear that a super-secular government will ban religious freedom. While a small kernel of truth had to seed this paranoia, it has largely been fed by shrill religious punditry. On the other side, there is equal paranoia that the religious right is conspiring to theocratize the federal government in order to subjugate women, ban homosexuality, and make church attendance mandatory. Maybe that sounds good to you, but I don't really think that the Puritan age represented a golden era here in the New World. I could also go into a very long discussion about self-fulfilling prophesy and imminitizing the eschaton and how it all relates to the Judeo-christian linearization of time, but this is getting long.
You are right, though. The world is in trouble. Big trouble. Focusing our energies on comparatively petty and benign issues is not going to solve any of the real problem this country is facing. Issuing death certificates to fetuses and passing an amendment to "protect marriage" from gay people do not benefit society materially or spiritually. These issues cause division which makes us weak. They seem to demand that everybody get on the same page and become good Christians. While eighty percent might claim Christianity as their religion, I doubt that even 10% of those would actively seek to institute a state religion but I wonder how many would be simply be complicit in it. I could invoke that the foundation of this country was largely due to a desire for religious freedom, but the irony that the early colonists fled religious oppression only to become the oppressors does not bode well for my confidence.
Only an official position of religious neutrality, not atheism, not agnosticism, but neutrality, will ensure benefit for all. No one wins when the government takes sides on which should be the prevailing mythology.
I should add that I don't think that we are on the brink of an authoritarian theocracy. I'll admit that scenario is much more likely in my mind than the banning Christian practice. I could see a ban on Islam happening, but not on Christianity. Obviously, I hope for neither.
Wow, I missed all the fun! Shows me for having too much work this week.
"There are real religious wars going on in the world, wars in which people die. Theocracy has never done anything to contribute to geo-political stability."
Atheist regimes have killed more people than any other group in history ever. Mao alone counts for about 65,000,000. Stalin is in second place and Hitler in third.
Atheists take win, place and show in terms of mass murder and slaughter.
Post a Comment