The Banned said:
I really appreciate you giving a thought out response, and I do see where you're coming from. Hopefully my pushback comes across as friendly.
To the bolded, as Sapper was quoted at the top of the page, having Christianity in the public square was not "preferential treatment" until a particular SC group decided that the 14th amendment (not a part of the original framework of the country) meant that states had actually lost a right they previously had.
So, with your analogy, it's more like the school meal plan was tacos everyday. Everyone was cool with it. Obviously some liked it more than others, but no one had any major complaints. But quite rapidly, tacos were removed from the menu. We didn't move to taco Tuesdays and create a rotation the other 4 days of the week. Tacos were banned. To borrow from Bob Lee above, we were all forced to eat bologna sandwiches 5 days a week. No one is allowed to bring their own lunch. Even if you wanted to bring your own tacos, you have to eat them before or after school. They simply aren't allowed in a public school anymore.
Removing Christianity did not put all religions on even playing field. It removed them from the field altogether. This is "fair" inasmuch as one religion isn't elevated above another. But we have to consider the other group: atheists and agnostics. Now this group has their worldview elevated above the religious. Unintentionally to be sure, but they benefitted nonetheless. You may not see this law as benefiting the atheist or agnostic, but if you can recognized that a pre-existing right was removed and this particular group is the primary winner, maybe that would help.
To your last point: oO course government granted freedom is a tyranny of some degree! No matter what rule they make, some group is a loser and however many other groups are the winners. How many people are upset that they can't own tanks and rocket launchers and fighter jets, etc. I'm not saying civilians should or shouldn't have them, but it's clear people take differing stances on this. Someone's freedoms are infringed for the benefit of others. There is no neutral. We are making moral/value based judgements in all that we do and we are forcing that upon people who believe differently. It's just the way of things. I'm fine with acknowledging that all laws are imposing a moral value, but by definition it can't be "neutral". The best we can shoot for is trying to make it as fair as possible, but that is an ever moving target if it's not tied to some sort of truth constant. I'm not saying we shouldn't try. But it will never, ever be "neutral"
Christianity in the public square is only preferential treatment if they are the only ones permitted. The right that was 'lost' was the right to your own free speech while limiting the free speech of others. Again, the quote - when you are used to privilege, then equality feels like oppression. This law isn't about equal opportunity in the public square, its about the limiting of who is permitted in the public square.
Prior to 1862, white people had the right to own black people. And that right was removed. I offer this analogy not to draw any parallels, but just to point out that 'right was removed' need not be automatically associated with being oppressed. In this case, it removed the right of one group to oppress another. I hope that we can both agree that it was the correct thing to do to remove the right of slave owners to own slaves, right?
I see a theme among some Christians as it relates to Christianity is schools or in the public arena. There is an idea that without Christian prayers in school, Christian monuments at school, and explicit Christian endorsement, that Christianity is just gone. . . . Its as though you cannot practice your faith without explicit government instruction to do so.
If you have a school age kid, encourage them to pray when they wake up, and then before breakfeast, and then to meet on campus before school with a Christian organization to pray as a group, and then between classes, and in down times, and wear Christian shirts and jewelry, and then again at the flagpole after school, and then at home, and before dinner, and before bed. . . .
What is it about not having the 10 Commandments posted in classrooms prohibits anyone from practicing their faith?
I still feel you have the analogy wrong. Tacos used to be serve at work every day and most people didn't complain. The change I am proposing is that we allow everyone to bring their own lunch and not be forced to only eat tacos. The exact point of the analogy is that no one should be forced to only eat tacos or bologna sandwiches or anything. The point is that authority (the boss / government) can decide to foster an environment where each person decides what they want to eat without penalty or coercion. . . neutrality - or as close to it as they can be.
The taco Tuesday / lunch rotation is interesting, but I don't think its what any Christian is asking for. To bring the analogy back to religious terms, do you want your kids going to school to be taught Christianity on Monday, Islam on Tuesday, Buddhism Wednesday, Atheist Thursday, and Pagan Friday? I feel confident that just about every Christian parent in this country would object to their child being forced in public schools to participate in Islamic, Buddhist, or pagan traditions or teachings.
So much of this is about what we think government's role 'ought' to be within the public arena of religious discussion and education and debate. And how much power do you want the government to have in tipping the scales of the discussion. And keep in mind, that whatever power you give the government, can and will be used against you when public opinion changes. If you feel the government should be in the business of promoting Christianity in schools, you lose the right to complain about government promoting transgender issues in schools. This is exactly what you said earlier in the thread.
And I don't object to the idea that absolute neutrality is impossible. And I agree that this shouldn't prevent us from doing our best and making things as fair as possible. If you are defending the 10 Commandments law, then I don't see how this is making things as fair as possible. The law explicitly prohibits any other religion of value system from having a similar poster in classrooms. The 10 Commandments law is the government mandated tacos and the removal of your freedom to choose the lunch you want. It doesn't matter whether or not most people only want tacos - what is important is that we are giving an authority the power to mandate our lunch. Many Christians are not complaining about this because they like tacos. And as soon as things shift more and we move to government mandated bologna sandwiches, there will be complaining. This is exactly the hypocrisy you mentioned above. No?
My unfair emotional reaction to all of this is that Christians only care about their own freedom of religion and their own access to the public square. F#%# everyone else? Rationally, I know that is unfair and not descriptive of most Christians. I started this thread, in part, to point out that the result of this law is that it will elicit far more emotional negative reaction to Christianity than it will achieve any goal of Christians to spread a message of love.
The 'First they came for. . .. " quote from the German pastor after the rise of Nazism is one of my favorite quotes ever. If you don't care about anyone else's religious freedom, then why should anyone else care about yours?
