If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
Where should the line be drawn between Government and Religion?
As we are all aware, there are times where the two collide and debates spark up about the limits on each. Some of the more common questions:
Should the government put a manger on state/public property for Christmas?
Should a government building have to remove a Christian image?
Should "In God We Trust" be on our currency?
Should religious people get to ignore laws if their religion requires them to do something that's illegal? If not, then should those laws be changed or repealed to accomodate their religion?
...and so forth.
It seem to me that government should simply continue passing laws, building its buildings, etc. without any mention or addressing of religion, and leave it to religion to work within the laws of the land. But, obviously, some disagree.
I though about this today because of a debate at work when I mentioned that it's a felony in Virginia to wear a mask except in certain limited circumstances, meaning that conservative Muslim women specifically can not hide their faces in public. One of the only guys here who is more argumentative than I disagreed with me, so I had to email him the law to get him to shut up.
For GP, here's the law we'd discussed:
§ 18.2-422. Prohibition of wearing of masks in certain places; exceptions.
It shall be unlawful for any person over sixteen years of age while wearing any mask, hood or other device whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden or covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be or appear in any public place, or upon any private property in this Commonwealth without first having obtained from the owner or tenant thereof consent to do so in writing. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons (i) wearing traditional holiday costumes; (ii) engaged in professions, trades, employment or other activities and wearing protective masks which are deemed necessary for the physical safety of the wearer or other persons; (iii) engaged in any bona fide theatrical production or masquerade ball; or (iv) wearing a mask, hood or other device for bona fide medical reasons upon the advice of a licensed physician or osteopath and carrying on his person an affidavit from the physician or osteopath specifying the medical necessity for wearing the device and the date on which the wearing of the device will no longer be necessary and providing a brief description of the device. The violation of any provisions of this section shall constitute a Class 6 felony.
(Code 1950, §§ 18.1-364, 18.1-367; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1986, c. 19.)
Ideally, government would be "colorblind" to religion, not considering, endorsing, or enabling it in any way, nor subjecting it to any rules or restrictions not also in effect for non-religious entities.
One of the great failings of our democracy has been its inability to protect the non-practice of religion. Another has been the inability to keep it from dominating the public discourse.
Ideally, government would be "colorblind" to religion, not considering, endorsing, or enabling it in any way, nor subjecting it to any rules or restrictions not also in effect for non-religious entities.
One of the great failings of our democracy has been its inability to protect the non-practice of religion. Another has been the inability to keep it from dominating the public discourse.
Well put.
__________________
Mark S.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have".
Gerald Ford
(ii) engaged in professions, trades, employment or other activities and wearing protective masks which are deemed necessary for the physical safety of the wearer or other persons;
So this protects people who keep their cycle helmet on when going into stores and the like? I wear my helmet into Wawa and the Chinese place because I'm only in there for a few minutes.
Ideally, government would be "colorblind" to religion, not considering, endorsing, or enabling it in any way, nor subjecting it to any rules or restrictions not also in effect for non-religious entities.
One of the great failings of our democracy has been its inability to protect the non-practice of religion. Another has been the inability to keep it from dominating the public discourse.
As we are all aware, there are times where the two collide and debates spark up about the limits on each. Some of the more common questions:
Should the government put a manger on state/public property for Christmas?
Should a government building have to remove a Christian image?
Should "In God We Trust" be on our currency?
Should religious people get to ignore laws if their religion requires them to do something that's illegal? If not, then should those laws be changed or repealed to accomodate their religion?
...and so forth.
It seem to me that government should simply continue passing laws, building its buildings, etc. without any mention or addressing of religion, and leave it to religion to work within the laws of the land. But, obviously, some disagree.
I though about this today because of a debate at work when I mentioned that it's a felony in Virginia to wear a mask except in certain limited circumstances, meaning that conservative Muslim women specifically can not hide their faces in public. One of the only guys here who is more argumentative than I disagreed with me, so I had to email him the law to get him to shut up.
For GP, here's the law we'd discussed:
§ 18.2-422. Prohibition of wearing of masks in certain places; exceptions.
It shall be unlawful for any person over sixteen years of age while wearing any mask, hood or other device whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden or covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be or appear in any public place, or upon any private property in this Commonwealth without first having obtained from the owner or tenant thereof consent to do so in writing. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons (i) wearing traditional holiday costumes; (ii) engaged in professions, trades, employment or other activities and wearing protective masks which are deemed necessary for the physical safety of the wearer or other persons; (iii) engaged in any bona fide theatrical production or masquerade ball; or (iv) wearing a mask, hood or other device for bona fide medical reasons upon the advice of a licensed physician or osteopath and carrying on his person an affidavit from the physician or osteopath specifying the medical necessity for wearing the device and the date on which the wearing of the device will no longer be necessary and providing a brief description of the device. The violation of any provisions of this section shall constitute a Class 6 felony.
(Code 1950, §§ 18.1-364, 18.1-367; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1986, c. 19.)
Christmas has been made into a secular holiday (as if it were ever christian to begin with.....see winter solstice). As such, it creates no offense if some government official doesn't want to work on Christmas.
A government establishment should not have a Christian image.
We should not have God on our currency or in our pledge of allegiance, and we didn't until the 1950's.
Everybody should have to obey the law. In the above example, the law should be changed; not groups designated that must and mustn't follow it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim schmidt
Ideally, government would be "colorblind" to religion, not considering, endorsing, or enabling it in any way, nor subjecting it to any rules or restrictions not also in effect for non-religious entities.
One of the great failings of our democracy has been its inability to protect the non-practice of religion. Another has been the inability to keep it from dominating the public discourse.
+1. Except I would like to see more public discourse and criticism of religion. Religion should be criticized as much as political beliefs because of the profound impacts it has on our society. In no other subject can one say “I believe this in spite of zero empirical evidence and in spite of its inability to withstand an objective criticizing argument”. I guess people really don’t care whether their beliefs are actually true..idk. I don’t understand religion yet. The best I can say is that people believe things based on primarily their time and place of birth, and base their beliefs on what feels good, instead of what is.
Last edited by shadows090 : 08-27-2009 at 09:27 AM.
Ideally, government would be "colorblind" to religion, not considering, endorsing, or enabling it in any way, nor subjecting it to any rules or restrictions not also in effect for non-religious entities.
One of the great failings of our democracy has been its inability to protect the non-practice of religion. Another has been the inability to keep it from dominating the public discourse.
So this protects people who keep their cycle helmet on when going into stores and the like? I wear my helmet into Wawa and the Chinese place because I'm only in there for a few minutes.
Technically, no. You'd have to be engaged in the activity (being on a motorcycle).
Our system of government will never truly be completely free of religion because it was created with a core set of values that is decidedly judeo-christian. The basic premise that "all men are created equal" is pretty unique to the judeo-christian value set. In india and many asian countries no such belief exists, which explains the persistence of caste systems and other hierarchical social constructs in which some people are treated very poorly and this is actually supported by the government.
__________________
"The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change culture and save it from itself." -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Ideally, government would be "colorblind" to religion, not considering, endorsing, or enabling it in any way, nor subjecting it to any rules or restrictions not also in effect for non-religious entities.
One of the great failings of our democracy has been its inability to protect the non-practice of religion. Another has been the inability to keep it from dominating the public discourse.
Ideally, government would be "colorblind" to religion, not considering, endorsing, or enabling it in any way, nor subjecting it to any rules or restrictions not also in effect for non-religious entities.
One of the great failings of our democracy has been its inability to protect the non-practice of religion. Another has been the inability to keep it from dominating the public discourse.
This.
__________________
Jesucristo, make the ganglia twitch!
"Good men who drive vans have to transcend a stigma."
Where should the line be drawn between Government and Religion?
Linear Mode
