[helene_t]

Codo, on Nov 5 2009, 09:40 AM, said:

So they denied Jewish and Muslim Americans to pray for the dead at this special cross?

And they stop you from visiting Arlington?

Now this is really shocking...

Of course they don't. So it is not that the governement prohibit non christians to honour the dead or to visit this place. It is "just" that some non christians do not feel good when they see this sign.
So we discuss the fealings of non christians who are so full of hate (?) fear (?) other bad feelings against the cross that they cannot stand to honor the dead in the sight of this sign.

Roland, it's not like anyone is arguing that religious signs should be banned. You can display a cross in your own garden or carry it as a piece of jewelry.

It's about the government endorsing a particular religion. Sorry, I find that offensive myself, and I am even in the priviledged position of not having any traumatic experiences related to religion so it's not like a religious symbol, if displayed by individuals as a purely personal expression, gives rise to any negative emotions in me. Some people at various bridge clubs I have been a member of carry David's Star, Cross, or Thor's Hammer. I have nothing against it and I have no preference for either.

[Codo]

Helene,

I was never afraid that you would not accept different views...

Anyway, we have three possible discussions:

1. Is a cross always a christian sign?
We had this discussion and there are facts to support both views. Mine is that it is recognized as a christian sign by most people in the world, but that theoretical this is not the complete truth. (The example of the red cross was a good one- there was no intention to use a christian sign, but just use the flag of Switzerland, but still "all" people think that it is Christian in nature...)

2. Shall we remove a cross which was build in the 30s because a buddhist and his jewish advocat claimed 75 years later that their rights had been violated?
This is what the judge had to decide.

I find this quite difficult to decide, but I would tend to hold on to ancient signs as long as they are not a sign for something most people would see as something evil - like the Hakenkreuz f.e.
I won't judge about the judges words and descissions, but I have no understanding for the case of the claimer.

3. Shall we be careful now and in future about how to choose these signs.

Of course we should be careful. But fact is, that still 76,5 % of the Americans call themselves christians and just 14,5 % are without a belive and 0,5 % are Buddhists.
Source: Wikipedia, http://de.wikipedia....ki/USA#Religion, University of New York 2001.

So, when you have a christian sign in the US, you still serve the overwhelming majority. I cannot see something wrong in this in a democratic state. I cannot see anything wrong when a governement supports a religion which 3/4 of the population follow.
In a democracy, the minorities must be protected, but they must accept the will of the majority.

[helene_t]

Hi Roland,

Point 1, yes, of course a cross is not always a Christian symbol (it can also mean street crossing ahead, for example), but this particular cross is intended as a Christian symbol, and (almost) everyone will perceive it as such.

Point 2 I can sorta agree with. If you buy an old building which doesn't meet the environmental criteria for the planning commission to allow it to be build today, you don't necessarily have to demolish it. Maybe we would disagree in some borderline cases, maybe not.

Point 3 I just have to disagree. Some European countries have a particular branch of Christianity as "state religion". I can see that for some it is just like the state also endorses things like democracy and human rights, which a similar 90-something of the populace believes in. I just disagree. I think it's a good principle to have the state be neutral in religious matters. If 90% of the population is, say, Muslim, it means that 90% of private religious displays are likely Muslim, and that is a natural thing that minorities have to live with, as long as those displays are made in a lawful manner.

But there is no reason for the state to endorse it. It is not "just democracy" that the state endorses the majority religion. Of course if the majority want the state to endorse a particular religion it is "just democracy", just like it is "just democracy" for the state to do all the bad things that the majority wants it to do.

I can see only negative consequences of having a state religion, such as minorities becoming less active in the democratic process because they don't see the state as their state.

I think it's a petty that the US violates it's own constitution by for example require court witnesses to put a hand on the Bible, and writing "in God we trust" on banknotes.

[Codo]

Hi Helene

nice to agree with you.

I am not sure about case 3 however. Of which state do you think with a state religion? In the moment I can think of none.

I know several states (Turkey, Italy and Spain f.e.) where they have a "de facto" state religion because such an overwhelming majority has just one belief. Is this what you meant by "state religion"?

I find it very hard to separate something which is part of the reality of the overwhelming majority from the state. And why should this be true for religion but not for other areas?

Why should it be allowed to hail Atatürk but not Mohammad?
Why should it be allowed to have a foto of Berlusconi in a class room but not a cross?

My belive is, that in Rome you must do as the Romans do. So, I would respect crosses in Italian schools, Imans shouting in Bagdad, Halfmoons in Istanbul. Like we respect the wish to wear pants in an American Sauna, refuse topless sunbathing in Morocco or do not ask for calf meat in India. This is showing respect for the majority of the inhabitants of these countries.

I cannot see why you should respect the majority religious believes less then their cultual believes, especially as the borderline is not clear at all.

So I cannot see why a governement should not follow and support the belives of the majority as long as it gives freedom to the different views of the minorities.

And one more point: What is neutral? I think there are no neutral positions.
If you demolish the current cross, this is a statement too and not neutral at all. If you build new signs, you will hardly find any "easy" sign without an ancient meaning.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Nov 5 2009, 08:22 AM, said:

I think it's a petty that the US violates it's own constitution by for example require court witnesses to put a hand on the Bible, and writing "in God we trust" on banknotes.

I'll give you "in God we trust", although I'm not sure that the argument that it's unconstitutional holds water.

On the question of witness oaths in court, though, one is not required to swear on the Bible. If a witness objects to that, he won't have to do it. He still has to make an oath to tell the truth, of course.

[helene_t]

Codo said:

I know several states (Turkey, Italy and Spain f.e.) where they have a "de facto" state religion because such an overwhelming majority has just one belief. Is this what you meant by "state religion"?

No-no-no. Turkey is a secular state. It may not be a secular country, but that is beyond the control of the state. Same with France. I am talking about countries like Denmark where the Queen is required to be Lutheran, the Lutheran Church has certain privileges not granted to other denominations (such as municipal tax offices collecting church tax on the Church's behalf), and certain activities sometimes being banned on Christian holidays (not sure if it applies now, the law changes every so often).

Now this discrimination cannot be totally avoided: That government offices are closed on Sundays is a kind of endorsement of Christianity which I would ideally like to get rid of, but it would be impractical. Most people, whether Christians or not, are happy with one weekly day off and are happy with it being Sunday, if only because it is practical for the purpose of international call centers and airlines to have the same holidays as neighboring countries. I would still like to reduce the amount of discrimination as far as feasible.

Quote

Why should it be allowed to hail Atatürk but not Mohammad?

Of course it is (and should be) allowed for anyone to hail Mohammad as an act of personal display. As I understand it Turkish civil servants are not supposed to hail Mohammad in official speeches.

Quote

And one more point: What is neutral? I think there are no neutral positions.

No but one can strive. I could think of something more neutral than a cross. Flowers, olive branches, white pigeons. Maybe even stars and other astronomical objects although one would have to select carefully

Quote

If you demolish the current cross, this is a statement too and not neutral at all.

Well if the cross was set up illegally it may be the appropriate legal action to get rid of it. I expect the government in grave cases to order the demolition of illegal buildings, regardless of whether they symbolize something or not. I say may. If it has been there for decades and hasn't created much controversy until lately (even if it was set up illegally) the sensible (and possibly legal) thing may very well be to let it stay.

But I think it is important that the court recognizes that the cross was set up illegally or at least it would have been illegal today. What they decide to do about it? I would need to know more details, but probably I wouldn't care much.

Blackshoe said:

one is not required to swear on the Bible

Thanks, I stand corrected. I am relieved to hear that.

[ArtK78]

The United States has no state religion. The fact that a majority of its people are Christian does not make the United States a Christian nation (no matter what Rush Limbaugh and his ilk state to the contrary).

In the United States, one of the traditional tasks of the Supreme Court and the Judiciary in general is to protect the rights of minorities. That is one of the reasons that judges have lifetime appointments - so that they are removed from politics. Congress and state legislatures can pander to the will of the majority, but the Courts are supposed to be free of political influences. At least, that is the theory.

And if a cross was "wrongfully" erected on public land 75 years ago, correcting the "wrong" now is better than not correcting it at all. There is no statute of limitations on this issue. Better late than never. The issue is whether the erection of the cross on public land was wrong to begin with.

[Trinidad]

Codo, on Nov 5 2009, 01:08 PM, said:

In a democracy, the minorities must be protected, but they must accept the will of the majority.

That is reeking Majority Dictatorship. You don't want to go there.

Rik

[Codo]

Trinidad, on Nov 6 2009, 12:45 AM, said:

Codo, on Nov 5 2009, 01:08 PM, said:

In a democracy, the minorities must be protected, but they must accept the will of the majority.

That is reeking Majority Dictatorship. You don't want to go there.

Rik

???

Sorry I don't get that.

One of us must truely misunderstand the other, because I can see no realtionship between your statement and mine.

I do not think that it is Majority Dictatorship to have a cruzifix in each Italian school.

I do not think that allowing topless bathing or visiting the Sauna naked is Majority Dictatorship. Nor do I think that building a cross on a war cemetry or a war memorial ina overwhelming christian country is Majority Dictatorship.

Do you think so?

[onoway]

It seems to me to be trying to launder the past to suit the present political correctness. Didn't these people die "For God and Country?". Perhaps now people are much more aware of all the shades of meaning and ramifications, so in future we can have such things as statues glorifying war. Yippee. Surely nobody reasonable would suggest that at the time it was meant as anything other than a mark of respect for the fallen.

I understand that priceless and ancient statues of Buddha were destroyed by the Taliban, much to the dismay and censure of nearly everyone else, it seemed. This cross is certainly not a priceless artifact, but artifact it is, and of its time. Destroying such things because they don't fit the present temper will only serve to further divide people into "us" and "them".

It's highly unlikely any of those buried there would understand this argument at all. It would be nice if people could show respect for the spirit in which it was erected, whether or not they agree with it.

I get really tired of the efforts of the "correctness" police to tidy up the past (and present!) to make everything as bland and inoffensive as possible. Seems to me the way to have people learn tolerance is to have a chaotic shambles. A wild or even semi wild garden is much often more interesting (and healthy!) than a sprayed and manicured lawn, even if less convenient to walk on.

[Codo]

helene_t, on Nov 5 2009, 11:33 PM, said:

I am talking about countries like Denmark where the Queen is required to be Lutheran, the Lutheran Church has certain privileges not granted to other denominations (such as municipal tax offices collecting church tax on the Church's behalf), and certain activities sometimes being banned on Christian holidays (not sure if it applies now, the law changes every so often).

Quote

And one more point: What is neutral? I think there are no neutral positions.

No but one can strive. I could think of something more neutral than a cross. Flowers, olive branches, white pigeons. Maybe even stars and other astronomical objects although one would have to select carefully

Quote

If you demolish the current cross, this is a statement too and not neutral at all.

Well if the cross was set up illegally it may be the appropriate legal action to get rid of it. I expect the government in grave cases to order the demolition of illegal buildings, regardless of whether they symbolize something or not. I say may. If it has been there for decades and hasn't created much controversy until lately (even if it was set up illegally) the sensible (and possibly legal) thing may very well be to let it stay.

But I think it is important that the court recognizes that the cross was set up illegally or at least it would have been illegal today. What they decide to do about it? I would need to know more details, but probably I wouldn't care much.

I join you in your fight against discrimination.

But we have a different view about where discrimination starts.
If I understood you right, your opinion is that discrimination starts as soon as we give additional rights to someone which we refuse to someone else.

Of course this is true in several issues. So if you give someone the right to elect the governement and don't give this right to others, this is discrimination.

But wait a moment: We do this all the time. Arnie can become Governor but not president. My son is too young to vote. You are not allow to vote for the English parliament despite the fact that you life there. All this is accepted, because the majority accept these rules and can see the reasoning behind this "discrimination".

So the question is: Where is discrimination acceptable and practicale and where does it harm the minority? I think it is very difficult to set these rules.

If you are a muslim in Germany, you have to live with several "discriminations": If you try to pray 5 times a day, you may lose your job. If you try to follow the Ramadan,it gets quite complicate. If your holy day is Friday, you may still have to work, or get trouble.

Is this fair? I think it is. Because we have to make the rules according to the majority and it is impossible to fullfill the needs of any minority. If I am in the minority, I have to arrange myself with the given culture and try my best to life my live according to the circumstances and my personal believes. It is my responsibility to arrange my live in a way that it works. I cannot ask for a change because I am from Finland, living in Italy and being Lutherian or Atheist.

I know, this view is not shared by the European judges, but they are allowed to have another opinion, after all it is very hard to set the borderlines...

And you are right, there are signs that are more neutral then a cross. The white pidgeons should be 100 % clear. Well maybe not for Vegans, but what do I know.... And olive branches? The sign of a champion in ancient Rome? Oh well....

And yes, if it was illegal to build a cross at that place in 1934, then it is better to demolite it now then never. But like you, I would need much more information to have an own opinion whether it was right or wrong.

[phil_20686]

There is actually a huge issue hidden here, in the interpretation of secular. Secular was orignially meant as "seperate from religion". But that is not synonymous with refusing to allow religions symbolism. Both turkey and the crucifixes in italy provide interesting points of discussion.

There is a large and growing group of "secularists" in both america and britian who wish to interpret it as essentially hostile to any religion. There was a huge furore in america over catholic bishops essentially telling people that they should try to avoid voting for pro choice politicians. A religion gains power because its adherents beleive it to be true, obviously our beleifs influence our voting choices. Powerful religious leaders have infulence in elections because they can influence large numbers of people. This is exactly how democracy is supposed to work. Its not any different from party politics where parties gain influence because they represent groups of like minded people.

Moreover, the banning of religous symbolism in schools is making a definite statement. After all, students at a school do not just go to learn academic disciplines, but also about people and life in general. The EU is making then a definite statement that religion is not an important part of the lives of their teachers, and not something that they are allowed to discuss with their kids. This is bizzare. I would have concerns over a law that forced all teachers to ahve crucifixes in their class rooms for example, that would be wrong, but i think banning them is equally wrong. IF a teacher is a devout folllower of a religion then they should be free to place religious items in their classrooms. The devout are just as much a part of diversity as the agnostic.

In short, agnosticism and atheism are equally statements of and about faith. Secularism must be sure that it does not stray into promoting agnosticim and denigrating religious, as that is itself a deviation from giving no beleif or faith a preferred spot.

[barmar]

The problem, Phil, is that allowing religious symbols practically always implies singling out a particular religion, which is viewed as promoting that religion in favor of others. Doing so in any state-run organization is considered to violate the establishment clause. And even displaying symbols of a variety of religions singles out religion over atheism (unfortunately, atheists and agnostics are not well organized, so we don't have a common symbol -- maybe we should adopt an image of Dawkins).

That teacher is allowed to be as devout as they want in their personal life. But displaying religious items in the classroom goes beyond that. Students are expected to learn from their teachers, and in a secular school they shouldn't be indoctrinating them with their religious beliefs.

[phil_20686]

Quote

Allowing religious symbols practically always implies singling out a particular religion, which is viewed as promoting that religion in favor of others.

This seems totally irrelevant. Its fine for indivduals to favour one religion, even when they are representing the state, thats diversity. Its just not ok for the government to demand that its employees favour one religion.

Quote

  That teacher is allowed to be as devout as they want in their personal life.  But displaying religious items in the classroom goes beyond that.  Students are expected to learn from their teachers, and in a secular school they shouldn't be indoctrinating them with their religious beliefs.

I disagree completely with this. You seem to be equating learning about religion with indocrination? Why? Banning religious symbols from a classroom is no different from banning evolution textbooks, you are saying that it isnt something that its important for the kids to learn about. Why should a teacher not be able to bring an important part of their life to the class room? To say that they must discard their religion at the door like inappropriate clothing is to make a statement about its value, which is contrary to secularism.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on Nov 5 2009, 06:14 PM, said:

That teacher is allowed to be as devout as they want in their personal life.  But displaying religious items in the classroom goes beyond that.  Students are expected to learn from their teachers, and in a secular school they shouldn't be indoctrinating them with their religious beliefs.

To clarify that (in case there might by a misunderstanding):

The Italian crucifixes in school are not personal religious signs from the teacher, of from the school for that matter. Italian public schools are required by Italian law to have a crucifix in the class room.

The European court has ruled that this law is illegal.

Rik

[phil_20686]

barmar, on Nov 5 2009, 12:14 PM, said:

That teacher is allowed to be as devout as they want in their personal life.

This is again making an implicit statment about the value of religion. For those who are religious its a part of their life, and you are actually discriminating against them in favour of agnostics if you demand that they not make any public statements or affermations about their faith, since you are refusing to allow them to express themselves fully. This is no different from demaning that teachers who are gay never mention that or talk about it.

[phil_20686]

Trinidad, on Nov 5 2009, 12:28 PM, said:

barmar, on Nov 5 2009, 06:14 PM, said:

That teacher is allowed to be as devout as they want in their personal life.  But displaying religious items in the classroom goes beyond that.  Students are expected to learn from their teachers, and in a secular school they shouldn't be indoctrinating them with their religious beliefs.

To clarify that (in case there might by a misunderstanding):

The Italian crucifixes in school are not personal religious signs from the teacher, of from the school for that matter. Italian public schools are required by Italian law to have a crucifix in the class room.

The European court has ruled that this law is illegal.

Rik

Ah this is actually good. I wondered why the italiens were not more annoyed about it. I doubt if many of them will be removed . When i read the bbc news story that was not the impression I got.

[barmar]

There's a difference between teaching about religion in general (you could hardly teach current events without getting into issues of religious differences), and promoting a specific religion.

I don't begrudge small, personal symbols, e.g. a teacher wearing a cross around their neck. But hanging a crucifix in the classroom crosses the line. It's not their personal space, to decorate as they wish, it's a public institution. Teachers in public schools are acting as agents of the government, and the government is not supposed to promote or favor any religion. They also shouldn't teach atheism, either. They should be neutral regarding specific religious beliefs; this is the place of family and churches.

Evolution is different. That's scientific fact, not religious faith, and schools are expected to teach science.

[helene_t]

phil_20686, on Nov 5 2009, 06:28 PM, said:

barmar, on Nov 5 2009, 12:14 PM, said:

That teacher is allowed to be as devout as they want in their personal life.

This is again making an implicit statment about the value of religion. For those who are religious its a part of their life, and you are actually discriminating against them in favour of agnostics if you demand that they not make any public statements or affermations about their faith, since you are refusing to allow them to express themselves fully. This is no different from demaning that teachers who are gay never mention that or talk about it.

I think it's fine for a teacher to mention he is gay, straight, atheist, christian, whatever.

I would have problems with someone decorating the classroom with crussifixes, "god is not great"-posters, or pornographic posters of either orientation. I am not necessarily arguing it should be illegal, or against the school's statutes, to do so. Just that I wouldn't appreciate it.

[Trinidad]

phil_20686, on Nov 5 2009, 06:23 PM, said:

I disagree completely with this. You seem to be equating learning about religion with indocrination? Why? Banning religious symbols from a classroom is no different from banning evolution textbooks, you are saying that it isnt something that its important for the kids to learn about. Why should a teacher not be able to bring an important part of their life to the class room? To say that they must discard their religion at the door like inappropriate clothing is to make a statement about its value, which is contrary to secularism.

Of course, these kids are taught about religion. This is Italy, remember? In a perfect world, they would be taught about Roman Catholicism (because that's what they are familiar with), the differences with Calvinism, and Lutheranism (without bias). At the same time, they would be shown how Christianity compares to religions like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. (without bias). But given that this is Italy and not a perfect world (sorry to all Italians ), I have the idea that they will learn a lot about the advantages of Roman Catholicism and why the other religions (or non religions) are err... misguided. Having a crucifix in the class room puts the bias in the teaching, rather than taking it out.

The woman who took the case to the European court is a Christian herself... A Lutheran to be precise.

Furthermore, I think it is perfectly fine for a teacher to be open about his beliefs. He can start the school year by saying: "I am an Xyz, because... But I am also a teacher and I will teach you about a variety of religions as well as the fact that some people believe that we don't need a religion."

And for the record, I am perfectly fine with teaching the biblical creation as well as evolution in the same school.

Rik