Bloodless Coup

Bro,
I agree that other religions should also have their symbols protected in the way Christianity's are. But I disagree with your idea that the war against Christianity and all religious symbols is purely mythical when the Supreme Court has ruled that such symbols if they have a purely religious meaning can't be on public property, like the Ten Commandments. This is exactly what the Congress should be doing, interpreting the exact nature of our laws so that the Supreme Court isn't put in that position. The Supreme Court has been set up to protect our Constitution and the liberties it guarantees, but it has been derelict in this duty with respect to protecting freedom to worship religion, instead protecting the sensibilities of those who choose not to worship religion or the sensibilities of those who choose to worship another religion and reaching a compromise that says religion and spirituality don't belong in the lives of government employees, that way no one will be offended (wrong, because it offends everyone who worships religion or a spirituality, and ends up prohibiting the religious expression our Constitution was written to protect). Maybe energy, insurance, and ending the war in Iraq are your priorities, but to let the Court continue to roll back spiritual expression trounces liberties, and while you seem to think it's the end of the world that Bush has wire tapped a few hundred terror suspects to protect this country, you seem to have no concern for religious and spiritual liberties being prohibited when the first sixteen words of the Bill of Rights talk about how free exercise of religion should not be prohibited, and the liberties you're so concerned about were not addressed until the fourth ammendment, so they were obviously not the first, second, or even third priority of our nation's founders.

Are you suggesting that state sponsorship of one religion is consistent with all citizens having the right to free exercise of religion?

The Supreme Court has been set up to protect our Constitution and the liberties it guarantees, but it has been derelict in this duty with respect to protecting freedom to worship religion, instead protecting the sensibilities of those who choose not to worship religion or the sensibilities of those who choose to worship another religion and reaching a compromise that says religion and spirituality don't belong in the lives of government employees, that way no one will be offended (wrong, because it offends everyone who worships religion or a spirituality, and ends up prohibiting the religious expression our Constitution was written to protect).

Isn't that a telling little passage: those who choose to worship another religion. Just like teh gays. They could be upright and moral but they choose to worship some other (i.e. not christian) religion. I mean, clearly when their parents took them to the bris they could have objected, and absolutely could have just said no to the bar mitzvah and accepted Jesus instead. Why wouldn't they have, except to engage in some kind of rebellious choice.

a compromise that says religion and spirituality don't belong in the lives of government employees

Oh heavens! You mean the god police are off digging through the houses of government workers to make sure they have no bibles at home, and are blocking their access to church on Sunday and Wednesday evening?

Binky,
I'm a little confused. Why is it you think gays can't be Christians? And if you read my first sentence, "I agree that other religions should also have their symbols protected in the way Christianity's are." I know it's more fun to take my words out of context and emphasize words I didn't emphasize. But you might emphasize the results of my quiz from a few weeks back, the one that says I'm a Taoist and how I said it was right on because it's the spiritual belief system with which I most closely identify. So before you make me out to be a Bible thumping Christian who's against non-Christian religions just because I want to protect their right to bring a Bible and wear a cross to work, make sure it's not just because I appreciate the universal meaning and beauty within all religions that I want my spiritual beliefs protected, that I'll go the extra mile to protect theirs too. And if you think that Christians should have the free exercise of their religion prohibited while they're at work, do you also believe that agnostics should have their rights to be free from violations of their 4th ammendment rights abridged while they're at their workplace? Are you actually in favor of saying people don't get their liberties when they're at work, that protections of our Constitution don't extend that far (it would make those child labor law difficult to enforce), or is it because you think religious liberties are unimportant that you're in such a good place with those liberties being taken away from those people, those religious people (you know the ones I mean)?

Dude, you must be joking because I know your GRE scores are high enough that you have the reading skills to understand what a simile is. Try again.

Binky,
I think you need to check your typing, it's spelled S-M-I-L-E :-)

Morris, ok your views seem to be premised on this assertion - "the Supreme Court has been set up to protect our Constitution and the liberties it guarantees, but it has been derelict in this duty with respect to protecting freedom to worship religion".

As someone who is very much concerned about all our freedoms and liberties, including religious ones, I'd like to be infomed about what exactly it is that you are talking about. When exactly has the Supreme Court allowed the government to mess with our freedom to worship? Many infringing rulings like Minersville v. Gobitis have been overturned, and rulings protecting even small religions (like Wisconsin v. Yoder) have occurred. That said, true outrages have happened, like Employment Division v. Smith. But this term the Court has the opportunity to revisit that.

So what is it that you are so mad at the Court about? How are they infringing on freedom to worship (other than Smith)?

with a few outlying exceptions that have little effect on the daily lives of religious americans, the Court can only be said to have interfered with free worship with regard to those among the faithful who are so insecure in their faith and so lazy in their evangelical obligation, if any, that they cannot rest easy without the imprimatur of the united states government telling them they are doing the right thing.

the government denies no one the freedom of worship, and in plenty of cases goes out of its way to protect that same right. freedom of worship is not the same as government endorsement of same. the constitution protects the former fiercely but precludes the latter (philosophically, in service of the former, since the more a government picks favorite faiths, the more the people will feel empowered those practitioners of other faiths, and history shows that this empowerment leads to crime and repression).

until you can provide me with a converse interpretation of the words "Congress shall make no law concerning the Establishment of Religion," Morris, one that doesn't torture the plain meanings of "no" and "concerning," your putative textualism and your defense of the people's right to a government that officially thumps the bible are hopelessly irreconcilable.

To all concerned,
Are we missing the point here? Whenever anything in recently history has come up with regards to public espousing of christianity the immediate impulse is to check with the constitution. Don't get me wrong, it's a fine and dandy thing to do because, after all, what is protected is protected, right?

However, what ties me up in knots is the entire tone of this debate. It is a debate of protectionism. It is about the majority culture striving desperately to hang on to its prevalence in society and culture. From ensuring through some trumped up legislation (I fear reading what it might encompass) that Christian symbols be prevelant in the month of December, Congress would essentially be saying, "we are better than you."

This whole topic SHOULD be about the concept of inclusion. It should be about recognizing that all of America's denizens have cultures that are valid and worthy of notice within the American conscious. The "removal" of symbols isn't about a declaration of war against any particular belief, it's about RECOGNITION that there is more than one belief structure. What majority folk don't recognize is how, by the state publically espousing Christianity, it is creating superiority, maintaining dominance, and inherently belittling that which is does not recognize.

I already hear the "why won't you let us practice in peace" arguments, as well as the "tyranny of the minority" arguments coming from people's mouths. I understand that many current actions make you feel as if your majority religion is under attack, in jeopardy, and that by being its practioner you are suddenly becoming invalidated by the american consciousness. Instead perhaps it can be viewed under the guise of the US government fulfilling its primary purpose according to the principles of democracy, which is to protect your rights no matter who and what you are. And perhaps these acts are an attempt to ensure that ALL its inhabitants feel that way, as opposed to publicly touting one (or several) over others.

Very well put Nico. Thanks for taking the time to write.