Results of an AOL poll.....what does everybody think?

[whammy]

Time for a nice debate.
I'm the Navy guy so you know I voted yes, yes!



Should religious symbols be allowed in government buildings?
79% Yes 250,057
21% No 68,372
Total votes: 318,429


Should students say the Pledge of Allegiance in schools?
67% Yes, it should be required 213,497
28% It should be optional 89,426
6% No, it shouldn't be said in schools at all 18,006
Total votes: 320,929

 

[BVS]

Well the first question of the poll is always an interesting one(we have another current thread along the same lines going on in Alabama)

My answer would be no. Absolutely not. Unless you put every single symbol of every religion that is practiced in the US. But then you'll have the issue of people arguing if certain beliefs can actually be considered a religion. Would the KKK be considered a religion, would they be able to put their symbols up, what about the occult?

There's a reason we seperate Church and State. We've seen what happens when religion runs a country. It's NOT a good idea, and damn near impossible. Trust me the God I believe in wouldn't want to be associated with this government.

As far as the second question. I believe it should be optional. Personally I see pledging my allegiance to a flag to be a form of idolatry.

I have a question. I'm being sincere here. How is being in the Navy a given that you would say yes to the first question? I can understand the second but not the first. I know athiest who are serving in the Navy, so why would it be automatic?

 

[womanfish]

I think people get really stupid when it comes to religion. I can't tell you how happy I am that I was able to grow up with the freedom to practice the type of religion I was in (no longer practice though). So even though I grew up very religious, my dad is a minister, etc... I am SO supportive of the seperation of church and state. To have them together will inevitably position some groups of people before others and that isn't what this country is about. It's about supporting and welcoming the vast array of beliefs that are present throughout our society.

It really bothers me that conservatives spout off about how great our country is and the freedoms we have, etc..., but then want those freedoms to be relegated to only those that are Christian or only those that support the president's every move, and so on. Freedom means the rights of everyone and questioning and having your own beliefs.

I used to be all for the pledge until President Bush took office and now the sight of the flag makes me sad and angry.

 

[nbcrusader]

Unfortunately, religious symbols and the Pledge of Allegience (the version with the word "God" in it) have become lightening rods for the hateful extremists who want to beat religion back behind church doors.

I am against establishment of a state religion, for the record.

 

[womanfish]

Unfortunately, religious symbols and the Pledge of Allegience (the version with the word "God" in it) have become lightening rods for the hateful extremists who want to beat religion back behind church doors.

I am against establishment of a state religion, for the record.

Can you please tell me why religion doesn't belong behind church doors??

Again, you say the religion, but you mean Christianity. It may be the largest held religion in the U.S., but it isn't the only one. And it's only a drop in the bucket when you consider the religious beliefs of the world population.

To be persecuted or looked down upon or discriminated against because of not being Christian is not right and against what this country stands for. I doubt that you've ever had the opportunity for that to happen to you and so you can't comprehend it. But I am not a hateful extremist by any means. To me, hateful extremists are the ones who force a religion and belief on others when we supposedly live in a country with freedom of speech and religion.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I'd vote yes to the first question, and for the second question I believe reciting the pledge of allegiance ought to be optional. I think it's wrong to force students to recite it if against their wishes, but equally it would be ridiculous to say students are forbidden to recite it.

 

[nbcrusader]

To me, hateful extremists are the ones who force a religion and belief on others when we supposedly live in a country with freedom of speech and religion.

I've heard this before and it is usually associated with anyone who opens their mouth to express their beliefs. It has nothing to do with someone forcing their beliefs - it has more to do with the "I don't want to hear" crowd.

 

[BVS]

How is it hateful extremists?! So I, as a believer, but also a supporter of separation of Church and State am a hateful extremists? Why do you want a goverment building that doesn't represent the people? This is the purpose of government not to divide by religion.

 

[womanfish]

I've heard this before and it is usually associated with anyone who opens their mouth to express their beliefs. It has nothing to do with someone forcing their beliefs - it has more to do with the "I don't want to hear" crowd.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "I don't want to hear" crowd, but again it is becoming painfully obvious that you have never had the distinct "pleasure" of being discriminated against or looked down on because of your religious beliefs. I have.

By doing this it is "forcing" the belief of the majority on those that have different beliefs.

I am all for people voicing their beliefs and opinions because I believe in the freedom of speech and religion. But the Christian majority needs to come to grips with the fact that the expressing of beliefs and opinions is not a right reserved soley for them. Many Christians completely close themselves off to other ways of thinking and believing.

Now that is a "I don't want to hear" crowd.

 

[nbcrusader]

I'm not sure what you mean by the "I don't want to hear" crowd, but again it is becoming painfully obvious that you have never had the distinct "pleasure" of being discriminated against or looked down on because of your religious beliefs. I have.

Actually, I have. In public and in the workplace.

In no way were those involved with the discrimination "forcing" their beliefs on me.

Christians may proselytize, some passionately (most don?t at all). Still, the concept of "forced" belief is overused and misused.

 

[womanfish]

Actually, I have. In public and in the workplace.

In no way were those involved with the discrimination "forcing" their beliefs on me.

Christians may proselytize, some passionately (most don?t at all). Still, the concept of "forced" belief is overused and misused.

I agree it may be misused at times. But I am using it as an overall statement. You seem to be ignoring the rest of my arguement because of me using that term. When you are discriminated against and you are in the minority, you often feel that it would be easier to abandon or change your beliefs than to go through the discrimination. It may not be a deliberate act of "forcing", but whatever you call it, it isn't right in a country with freedom of religion.

 

[verte76]

There are many definitions of the term "hateful extremist" to me. Yes, one version is the kind of person who screams bloody murder at anyone who simply says something like "I believe in Jesus". Another version is the kind of extremism that wants to label me an "idolator" or whatever because I don't subscribe to a fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity. This is the infamous
"Bible Belt mentality" which I'm all too familiar with being from Alabama. These people are not to be confused with the people who mind their own business and say "I believe in Jesus" in all good faith. It works both ways. Most Christians are in the latter group. The former group is mostly known from being noisy and nosy about my personal affairs.

 

[sharky]

here's the big thing about the First Amendment: its not there to protect the voice of the majority. Its there to protect the voice of the minority.

That being said, the commandment statue needs to be moved. There are several cases in which Moses shows up in political architecture such as the Supreme Court building and Congress, but Moses in these examples is included as an important lawmaker along side other important non-religious and religious lawmakers.

The difference in this case is that this judge is specifically saying he has it there to put God back in to law. He can't do that because putting God into American law is not separating church and state.

There are athiests who follow the laws of this land and religious people who go to church every week, walk out the church doors and break the law. Regardless of religion, you must follow the law of this land whether you agree with it or not. And if a high court says the monument needs to be removed, whether he agrees with the decision or not, the judge in this case needs to remove it. He is not a judge representing a church or a God. He is supposed to be a judge representing American citizens, regardless of their religion.

 

[verte76]

I remember the day I went to vote in the political elections against this guy, in 2000. It was madness. I posted a note about the elections on an Internet list and people were absolutely shocked at this candidate.
Take down that statue.

 

[nbcrusader]

Regardless of religion, you must follow the law of this land whether you agree with it or not. And if a high court says the monument needs to be removed, whether he agrees with the decision or not, the judge in this case needs to remove it. He is not a judge representing a church or a God. He is supposed to be a judge representing American citizens, regardless of their religion.

Just to play devil's advocate, the notion of civil disobedience is only appropriate.....


I think this guy has picked the wrong battle and is standing alone, even among the fellow justices of the State High Court. Too bad we didn't get the same media coverage when whoever filed suit demanding removal of the monument.

 

[sharky]

Civil disobedience indeed. but this judge is not an American citizen who is simply protesting something the government is doing. He is a judge who is using his position as a judge to exert power over the people of Alabama who are supposed to be represented regardless of religion.

He also had a very disturbing quote in a CNN.com story:
Asked on CNN whether he would support an Islamic monument to the Koran in the rotunda of the federal building, Moore replied, "This nation was founded upon the laws of God, not upon the Koran. That's clear in the Declaration (of Independence), so it wouldn't fit history and it wouldn't fit law."

In the meantime, the judge has now been suspended.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/22/ten.commandments/index.html

 

[anitram]

Keep religion in religious institutions, it's that simple.

 

[deep]

It is not the wrong battle.

It is the wrong argument.


I still say he is not fit to be a judge.

 

[verte76]

He also had a very disturbing quote in a CNN.com story:
Asked on CNN whether he would support an Islamic monument to the Koran in the rotunda of the federal building, Moore replied, "This nation was founded upon the laws of God, not upon the Koran. That's clear in the Declaration (of Independence), so it wouldn't fit history and it wouldn't fit law."

 

[verte76]

It is not the wrong battle.

It is the wrong argument.


I still say he is not fit to be a judge.

I agree. What an evil .

 

[sue4u2]

When he put the monument in the state house, My! state house he forced his religious beliefs on me. I can worship anyway I feel and I do, however I am not allowed to go to your house and place monuments professing my beliefs. He's misguided and I for one feel the state is better off without him. Why didn't he fight so passionately to have it put in, instead of the way he covertly snuck it in there. Because by law he knew he was wrong.

 

[nbcrusader]

Keep religion in religious institutions, it's that simple.

That sounds highly repressive to people of faith. In fact, we try to teach the opposite. Faith does not end when we walk out the church door.

 

[verte76]

I know what you're saying nbcrusader. I don't believe in leaving my faith in the church building either. That's not the issue to me. Maybe it will help if I change my tune and talk about a public official I respect, our Republican governor Bob Riley. Gov. Riley is a man of deep religious commitment. He attends church regularly and has a strong friendship with his minister. While I do not always agree with his policy, he is a forward-looking and very gutsy guy who no sane person would accuse of being a Dixiecrat style politico. He communicates with the public about his faith but he does it the right way. He shares it in a gentle, friendly, and inclusive manner, inviting anyone who's interested in his ideas to share. He doesn't push, he's never insulted members of other religions, and aside from a few people who screamed when he had prayer breakfasts at the Governor's mansion, he's never gotten under anyone's skin about his beliefs. I couldn't have cared less that he was having prayer breakfasts at the mansion. Needless to say there were no lawsuits. I wouldn't have supported any. He hasn't made any enemies because of his faith; he's done that by taking on the Old Guard with an ambitious tax reform package that has probably already cost him re-election because the state GOP doesn't like it.
I don't need to say any more about my opinion of Moore. He's done everything wrong. He's the latest in a long line of politicos who's pushed their values down people's throats rather than having constructive dialogues with people. People in Alabama take to discussing issues of faith in a positive manner if it's done right. We had a governor who made a big deal about prayer in schools. He also wasn't friendly to public education and pissed off the teachers. As a result the teachers didn't support him. He also made an ass out of himself when promoting his beliefs, and he didn't accomplish a damn thing except make the state Redneck Club famous. Another damn Dixiecrat.
Does this make any sense? My point is that there's a right way to share your faith and some wrong ways too. Riley is doing it right. Moore is screwing up big time, and he's paying the price.

 

[enggirl]

I've been following this story for the past week or so (I work at a newspaper--go figure) and it's been driving me nuts!

To answer the initial poll: NO and No. I don't think that there should be any items of religious significance in public places (such as courthouses). People seem to have a very, very short memory: Wasn't it just recently that we took down the Taliban--a fundamentalist group that had taken over the govt. of Afghanistan? Granted, there are all sorts of cans of worms where Afgh is concerned (that's a whole other thread) but it's a good example of what happens when a religion is used as a basis for law. Govt should be secular. And again, yes we do have laws that some can argue are based on the 10 commandments--don't kill, don't steal...etc., but these are laws in non-Christian places as well. So we can assume that they are probably also found in other religions. Christianity doesn't have the market on "good rules to live by."

Unfortunately, we all bring up the "separation of church and state" quote, but it isn't in the Constitution that way--those words came from a letter Jefferson wrote in which he explained that section of the document.
Article 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." This has been open to interpretation for, well, a couple of hundred years now. But again, we see what happens when one religion runs rampant over others and runs a country. And here we've seen what happens when it runs rampant and takes over a judge who, being a judge, should KNOW BETTER!

One thing that is really starting to burn my ass about this whole thing is that some are saying that what Moore is doing is "civil disobedience" and comparing him to MLK and the like. Huh? Martin Luther King did what he did to OPEN the world to something new--to give blacks the rights that they were being denied. What Moore is doing is closer to what someone who was the opposite of MLK--George Wallce--did. He fought to keep segregation, defying the law and the National Guard that had been sent out to keep those black students safe while they went to school. Moore is a neo-Wallace...NOT MLK. He wants to CLOSE the world up and deny other faiths, other religions. I heard that, when asked if there should be Hindu symbols in the courthouse, he said that he didn't even know if Hunduism was a religion.

Christians are using this as a means of voicing fear--I've heard some say that they are being discriminated against. No one has gone to a church and tried to have it shut down. No one has told people in a Denny's that they can't say a silent--or even voiced--prayer over their Moons Over My Hammy. No one is running around grabbing gold crosses off of 14-year-old girls' necks. But the minute a judge--elected or not--decides to take the law into his/her own hands because of his faith--the faith that he is FREE to pursue in his own church and home--is when things get out of whack. How can anyont hink that he will be objective when on the bench? An athiest--even more, someone who follows a faith he has complete disrespect for (Jew, pagan, Buddhist, etc.)--gets brought before his bench on charges. Will he be fair? Take the monument to a church--that's where it belongs.

 

[verte76]

It burns me up that people are comparing this guy to MLK. That's ludicrous. You're right, this guy is like George Wallace, our most infamous Dixiecrat-style politico, keeping blacks out of universities, only he's appealing to people's religious fears and insecurities, not bringing out the good in anyone. Yesterday he made a really disturbing statement about the Koran and Islam having nothing to do with God. Doesn't that *suck*?? Great, just what we need with the problems in Iraq, a public official saying this. I've done enough stuff on the topic but you're right.

 

[Seabird]

Of all the things in the world that are bad, how could anyone see so much hatred in a religious symbol only meant in good intentions? No one is forcing their beliefs on anyone. I can't believe most people even care if it exists or where it is. There are too many extremists trying to read things into things making a big stink out of it.

The guy who brought up the Koran thing was trying to make a point- most times when it's something Christian, or Judeo-Christian, people get all shitty and start hollering about forcing beliefs, freedom, etc. But when it's another religion, they usually start defending its right to exist, religious freedom, and such. I have noticed this in my lifetime. That's what the guy was trying to point out, no attack on the Koran in particular, just the hypocrisy. Here's an example: several years ago, at a college my brother was attending, someone erected a cross where some students prayed. Of course the shit hit the fan and they were made to take it down. Soon after, someone erected a Buddhist statue near the same area. No one complained. When someone finally did, they were told the rant about religious freedom, rights, etc. Come to find out, it was the Christian students with the cross who had put it there to prove the hypocrisy, and they were proven right.

I know the radicals are annoying, but this monument really isn't hurting anyone nearly as much as the fighting. If you don't want to see it, don't look at it. If you think it was a waste of money, think how much more tax money will be wasted to move it.

 

[nbcrusader]

One thing that is really starting to burn my ass about this whole thing is that some are saying that what Moore is doing is "civil disobedience" and comparing him to MLK and the like. Huh? Martin Luther King did what he did to OPEN the world to something new--to give blacks the rights that they were being denied. What Moore is doing is closer to what someone who was the opposite of MLK--George Wallce--did. He fought to keep segregation, defying the law and the National Guard that had been sent out to keep those black students safe while they went to school. Moore is a neo-Wallace...NOT MLK. He wants to CLOSE the world up and deny other faiths, other religions. I heard that, when asked if there should be Hindu symbols in the courthouse, he said that he didn't even know if Hunduism was a religion.

I am not sure where the MLK comparison came in. If you embrase the concept of civil disobedience, can you really then say what is an acceptable cause for civil disobedience and what is not? That seems to violate the principle of civil disobedience.

 

[verte76]

Of all the things in the world that are bad, how could anyone see so much hatred in a religious symbol only meant in good intentions? No one is forcing their beliefs on anyone. I can't believe most people even care if it exists or where it is. There are too many extremists trying to read things into things making a big stink out of it.

The guy who brought up the Koran thing was trying to make a point- most times when it's something Christian, or Judeo-Christian, people get all shitty and start hollering about forcing beliefs, freedom, etc. But when it's another religion, they usually start defending its right to exist, religious freedom, and such. I have noticed this in my lifetime. That's what the guy was trying to point out, no attack on the Koran in particular, just the hypocrisy. Here's an example: several years ago, at a college my brother was attending, someone erected a cross where some students prayed. Of course the shit hit the fan and they were made to take it down. Soon after, someone erected a Buddhist statue near the same area. No one complained. When someone finally did, they were told the rant about religious freedom, rights, etc. Come to find out, it was the Christian students with the cross who had put it there to prove the hypocrisy, and they were proven right.

I know the radicals are annoying, but this monument really isn't hurting anyone nearly as much as the fighting. If you don't want to see it, don't look at it. If you think it was a waste of money, think how much more tax money will be wasted to move it.

I'm looking at this from the point of view of a native of this state. I can't write a history book here, but this is the latest in a string of political events whose theme is that damning word, Dixiecrat. It's practiced by shameless demogogues and it's a whole political philosophy based on an exploitation of the theme of "states rights". This is a heck of alot more than just a show of the Ten Commandments. And OK, maybe they were just trying to "catch" him on the question about the Koranic stuff. But I was annoyed because I have some really cool Moslem friends who don't hold it against me that I worship God in a Catholic church. I don't hold it against them that they pray in a small mosque at the local Moslem Community Center. They live in this state, they pay taxes here, and they'd never have to put up with rhetoric like this from Gov. Riley, who does discuss faith issues in public. Gov. Riley knows how to talk about his faith. Roy Moore is screwing up with his rhetoric and his place in the whole shameful history of Dixiecrat demogogues. I think you probably have to be from here to really understand this. This is a nutty place where people are still fighting the Civil War. I'm not kidding. I've been observing Alabama politics all of my life, and it's my politics, and it's usually absolutely exasperating. Then you get someone like Gov. Riley, who is willing to tackle the state's pressing economic crisis, and the Old Guard is trying to shoot him down. The State GOP voted to oppose his tax plan just yesterday. It's just not fair. Our good pols get shot down and our demons get glorified. Ugh. A good book to read on the topic is Diane McWhorter's "Carry Me Home". Diane is a native of Birmingham and her research is very thorough. It's a book anyone attempting to understand Alabama politics should read.

 

[verte76]

I am not sure where the MLK comparison came in. If you embrase the concept of civil disobedience, can you really then say what is an acceptable cause for civil disobedience and what is not? That seems to violate the principle of civil disobedience.

No, you can't. But you can analyze the particular cause that's being embraced in Civil Disobedience Act X. In the case of MLK, he was protesting against a grave injustice, racism. Moore was condemned and relieved of his duties by his colleagues on the Supreme Court. None of these people are card-carrying ACLU members who are planning to hit the next peace rally. They're fellow conservatives who are condemning unprofessional conduct as they see it. Quite a difference. I really wish this stuff were not going on. It's putting me on the spot. It's embarrassing. You have to put this in the context of Alabama politics to really understand it, and maybe you have to be from Alabama or at least the South to understand it, too. It's historically rooted, not an isolated incident.

 

[enggirl]

I am not sure where the MLK comparison came in. If you embrase the concept of civil disobedience, can you really then say what is an acceptable cause for civil disobedience and what is not? That seems to violate the principle of civil disobedience.

I brought up the MLK comparison because it's been brought up in other media--CNN, etc. Jerry Falwell tried to compare the two, in fact. He IS being disobedient, obviously...and I suppose you can argue that what he is doing, at least among his constituency, is "civil disobedience," but when one goes on to compare him to MLK, I think the comparison has gone too far. I'll still compare him to Wallace, especially in the context of southern, conservative, religious politics.