[blackshoe]

If there were to be a military coup in the United States, the new government would not be legitimate in the context of the Constitution, so I don't see the point of the example.

[barmar]

ArtK78, on Nov 5 2009, 01:36 PM, said:

This is a question of faith. You either believe it or you do not believe it. It is not something that can be proven one way or the other by objective analysis.

Which is exactly why it belongs in parochial school, not a secular history class. Public schools should teach accepted science, history, mathematics, etc.

[mike777]

barmar, on Nov 6 2009, 03:00 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Nov 5 2009, 01:36 PM, said:

This is a question of faith.  You either believe it or you do not believe it.  It is not something that can be proven one way or the other by objective analysis.

Which is exactly why it belongs in parochial school, not a secular history class. Public schools should teach accepted science, history, mathematics, etc.

in the usa one gets the impression that these are the least values.....


happiness, values........ego.....etc are much much more important

see other threads where teachers tell us they are gay...non gay...etc......

hate pollution,,,global warming...etc etc etc

other teaching threads where they tell us: they hate Bush, love obama...etc.......

[barmar]

phil_20686, on Nov 5 2009, 12:46 PM, said:

Quote

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.

Firstly, I don't think this is true. Classrooms normally have character derived form teh teacher who teaches there. While it doesnt belong to them, its still 'their space'. They get to decide what posters and decorations to put up.

Secondly, the line is pretty unclear, what if you were say, a history teacher. There is a convincing argument that the cruxifiction is probably the most important event in western history, even if you don't beleive in christianity.

Thirdly, teachers should be free to argue (in response to a question) that their view is correct. This is how learning is done. Then they can ask a different teacher the same question, and get a different answer. It's bizarre to think that this would be indtrination. Its only indoctrination if you demand that all your teachers say the same thing, even if they personally dis agree with it.

When I went to school, most of the classroom decorations had something to do with the curriculum. In a history classroom there were pictures of historical figures or events; in science classroom there were astronomincal pictures, the periodic table, etc.; math classrooms had geometric figures. They might reflect the teacher's character, but only in the way they're teaching the class.

I can't recall any personal items. I don't even think teachers had pictures of their families, as you often find in office environments.

The only deviations from curriculum-related decorations were seasonal, e.g. spooky figures around Halloween, or a small Christmas tree in December (this was 35-40 years ago, I doubt they could do this these days).

Regarding your last paragraph, I think others have already made the point that the crucifixion is NOT an agreed historical fact. It's fine to teach that crucixion was a common method of execution in ancient times, just like teaching about the use of the stocks as punishment in early America. And it's of course important to teach about how religions impacted history, e.g. the Crusades, the Nazi holocaust, and America being colonized by people fleeing religious persecution in England (sorry that all of these put religion in a negative light, but I can't think of positive examples), as well as its impact on current world events (again, mostly negative).

But public schools should NOT teach the tenets of any faith as if they're facts like those of science and history. For the 6 hours that kids are in school each day, the teachers are the face of the state to them. Their job is to teach the curriculum, not their personal beliefs. Of course, they're not robots or parrots of the state, they have opinions that color their teaching. But they should try to minimize the impact of this on their lessons.

Religion isn't the only area where they should do this. I would also object if a teacher pontificated on their political beliefs. A social studies teacher should try to explain, in as unbiased a manner as they can, what the platforms of the political parties are, so that students will understand the debates, and can form their own opinions about what's right. I realize it can be difficult to explain a belief you don't agree with without allowing your disagreement to show through, but it should be an ideal that teachers strive for.

[mike777]

if at some point we can only have teachers who:

Love peace and hate war
hate Pollution and love clean

Who accept all people regardless of color, race and sexual issues.

[mike777]

OtOH if we keep having teachers who love war and hate others.......why not have constant wars!!

[Codo]

Winstonm, on Nov 6 2009, 09:25 AM, said:

I am always amazed when the religious do not grasp the significance of a secular government - seeming not to understand that it is the very secular nature of their government that allows them to practice their religion in the manner they believe.

The U.S. is not a democracy - it is a Republic. Majority rules in a democracy but not so a Republic. If there were to be a military coup in the U.S. and the leaders determined Scientology to be the national religion, it wouldn't matter one damn bit what the majority thought or wanted.

You would be renditioned to Tom Cruise's house for never-ending reruns of Top Gun: now that's torture.

This is your truth? Okay, stay to it. You life in another world then me.

[helene_t]

I don't see the relevance of democracy to this thread.

If the majority wants to nuke Greenland (and the constitution can, if necessary, be amended to allow it) then we should do it. I would still be against it but we have to live with what the majority wants.

And if the majority wants the gvt to exclusively endorse scientology (or catholicism, or atheism), ...... same thing.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Nov 5 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

Quote

...the execution of Jesus Christ, who clamied to be the Son of God, is incredibly well documented.

I must step in to state that my understanding is that what your profess is factually inaccurate. There is NO reference written by a historian (or anyone else) who was a contemporary of a person named Jesus from Nazareth. The earliest mention comes some 40+ years after the claimed life of Jesus - other references are many more years later than that. Now I ask you, was that history being written or has that more the earmarks of mythology/legend passed on?

didn't a contemporary historian or two mention that he lived and even that he was killed by pilate? also, did alexander the great live?

[Codo]

[quote name='Trinidad' date='Nov 6 2009, 02:58 AM'] I do not think that it is Majority Dictatorship to have a cruzifix in each Italian school.[/QUOTE]
I do. If you would start your own (let's say Buddhist) school, you wouldn't have the same possibilities as the Roman Catholics. [/quote]
Now, what a surprise. You life in Italy and you do not have the same possibilitites for a buddhist school then for a roman catholic?

And this is Maj. Dictaorship for you?
Isn`t this just normal? If you make a school for a minority, you have lesser possibilities then if you make one for the majority.

Same is true for your soccer club compared to your Bridge club. Tha later has much lesser possibilities. Is this discrimination? Of course not.

Discrimnation would be to forbid Buddhist schools, or to make them pay more or to make it more difficult to study there. If this would happen, I would help you fighting the Italians. But this is not what was done. They had a sign on the wall which represented an overwhelming majority. That was everything.

[quote][quote]I do not think that allowing topless bathing or visiting the Sauna naked is Majority Dictatorship.
[/quote]
Allowing something is hardly ever a form of dictatorship. (Not allowing 'swimsuit saunas' would be.)
[/quote]

Okay, so it is dictatorship when they forbid me to go naked to a Sauna in America? Or to forbid my wife topless sunbathing in Morocco?

Do you think that I will win a lawcase in the US or in Morocco about this? I doubt it. It is in their culture to behave in their way. Our culture is different. But when I am in a minority (as a German in Morocco f.e.) I have to accept the rules of the majority, no matter whether these rules are cultural, relgious or whatever.

[quote] [quote]Nor do I think that building a cross on a war cemetry or a war memorial ina overwhelming christian country is Majority Dictatorship.[/quote]
If it would be built now, I think it would be Majority Dictatorship.[/quote]

So despite the fact that 75 % are Christians and an awful lot of people do not care about it, you think we must protect the smallest minority, because if we follow the will of the overwhelming majority, it would be dictatorship? I think you propose the dicatorship of the minority rights....

[quote]  The park is big enough for 2 religions.[/quote]

Of course it is. But just because there is space is no reason to look for all small minorities. I have no idea how many american buddhists died in WW I. But I can life with a cross, because it represents about 97 % of all dead. (And the rest had been mostly jews). I would bet that the killed Buddhists had been somehwere in the area of 0,01 % at most (but I have no numbers avaiable to back up this guess). So this war memorial is propably the wrong place for a buddhist shrine.

But I would agree that monuments in our times should respect the differences between the people. I have no idea how many American muslims and atheists are currently dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. But if there is a new war memorial, it should care for all colours and all religions.

[helene_t]

Codo, on Nov 6 2009, 12:19 PM, said:

Okay, so it is dictatorship when they forbid me to go naked to a Sauna in America? Or to forbid my wife topless sunbathing in Morocco?

Yes, it is majority dictatorship. Especially if the gvt decides to make certain dress codes compulsory. In a liberal democracy, we can argue about what dress codes should apply on gvt-owned beaches, but surely the gvt would not interfere with the dress codes of a sauna owned by the nudist society.

[Codo]

barmar, on Nov 6 2009, 02:35 AM, said:

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.

This is your personal believe.

But if you life in Italy where 80 % are roman catholic, why shouldn`t you promote this religion? After all it is as much (or even more) part of the Italian culture as pizza and pasta.

There is a difference between promoting and discrimination.

[Codo]

helene_t, on Nov 6 2009, 08:26 PM, said:

Yes, it is majority dictatorship. Especially if the gvt decides to make certain dress codes compulsory. In a liberal democracy, we can argue about what dress codes should apply on gvt-owned beaches, but surely the gvt would not interfere with the dress codes of a sauna owned by the nudist society.

And you think this dictatorship is wrong and that each minority should have the right to live after there own rules? I should be allowed to go naked in a public sauna in Chicago, because it is normal to visit a saune undressed in Germany and it would be dictatorsdhip if they refuse me this right?

Where is your borderline: Lets say you are from a small town in Yemen. All your relatives married little girls of the age of 11. Are you allowed to do the same in America? Would it be discrimination if they forbid you to do the same?

Discrimination is a real tricky subject, isn´t it?

[helene_t]

Codo, on Nov 6 2009, 12:28 PM, said:

But if you life in Italy where 80 % are roman catholic, why shouldn`t you promote this religion?

The Catholic church is powerful, and the catholic majority would be powerful even without being organized.

They can promote their own religion if they want. There is no need for the gvt to add to the advantage that the majority already has.

If anything, I think the gvt should discriminate in favor of minorities when required to balance a natural disadvantage of the minority. For example by making sure that left-handed students at government-run plumber schools have adequate tools even if it would be convenient for the schools to cater only for the right-handed majority.

I am not in favor of affirmative action in general. Actually I think both US and European gvts go to far in that direction.

But what's the point of promoting a particular religion because it's the majority religion? Is it somehow desirable to eliminate diversity and raise the 80% to 100%? I really think the government should stay out of it. Now if the board of a particular school decides to decorate the building with some symbols from the local folklore/religion/whatever, ok, I suppose that's their own decision, and the single Jewish student at an otherwise catholic school might have to live with it. And I am fine with the Danish Queen saying "God bless Denmark" in her new year speach, afaiac she doesn't have to ask Gaia, Vishnu, Thor and Richard Dawkins to bless Denmark, too. But for the government to decide that every school in the country must promote catholicism? Sorry that is disgusting.

Quote

I should be allowed to go naked in a public sauna in Chicago, because it is normal to visit a saune undressed in Germany and it would be dictatorsdhip if they refuse me this right?

OK, two different questions. One if it is majority dictatorship. The other is it's good or bad.

If the majority decides that you cannot swim naked on the single public beach in town, it is majority dictatorship, but since some people for obscure reasons take offense from having naked people around them, I think it's ok.

If the owner of a particular sauna enforces a dress code because he thinks the majority of his customers want that, then he is exercising dictatorship on behalf of the majority. Fine.

But: If the government forbids the creation of nudist saunas where non-nudist are free not to go, then it is very wrong and I would like to have the EU court prevent national governments from making such laws. The difference is that while Alice may take offense from having naked people in her own sauna, she cannot take offense from having naked people in Bob's sauna. She can just stay away from it.

Quote

Where is your borderline: Lets say you are from a small town in Yemen. All your relatives married little girls of the age of 11. Are you allowed to do the same in America? Would it be discrimination if they forbid you to do the same?

Discrimination is a real tricky subject, isn´t it?

Of course there are cases of discrimination which I personally favor. Of course there are borderline cases. I have said that several times in this thread already.

But we should still strive to eliminate clear-cut cases of pointless discrimination. Such as allowing a catholic community not to have non-catholic religious symbols in their own schools while not allowing other communities to do the same. Or allowing the non-nudist society to have their own sauna while not allowing the nudist society to have the same.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Nov 5 2009, 09:18 PM, said:

If there were to be a military coup in the United States, the new government would not be legitimate in the context of the Constitution, so I don't see the point of the example.

I meant it to be unrelated to the other point that the U.S. is a Republic and not a democracy - and in a republic there is no guarantee of majority rule.

[mike777]

At times I would much rather have a dictatorship by the minority.


anyway back to the OP, I think it is just stupid to force the cross to be hidden behind a box.


As far as left handed plumbers, sure in a perfect world with unlimited resources, but STOP!

[Codo]

Hi Helene,

all the time I misunderstood one of your points, which now is clear. It is okay for a majority to "forbid" unusual behaviour, but this is not the business of the governement. I guess you said this all the time, but I did not understood.
Sorry for misunderstanding this all the time.

I share this view, it is not for the governement to make such rules, but if I visit a community which has the "common knowledge" of such rules, it is right to follow these unwritten rules.

For the cruzifix in the Italian schools: I doubt that they had this rule to make Italy an even more catholic state then it had been. It was just a completely normal part of their life. They have cruzifixes everywhere. On the top of mountians, in every chamber, in the deepest forrest, at the roads, really everywhere. So the European judges forbid a symbol to be used in public schools which is used really everywhere else.

[Codo]

helene_t, on Nov 6 2009, 08:05 PM, said:

I don't see the relevance of democracy to this thread.

If the majority wants to nuke Greenland (and the constitution can, if necessary, be amended to allow it) then we should do it. I would still be against it but we have to live with what the majority wants.

And if the majority wants the gvt to exclusively endorse scientology (or catholicism, or atheism), ...... same thing.

But this is the point: Even if we take the cross at the memorial as a christian symbol, why should it be wrong to use this symbol to honour the dead?
If the overwhelming majority is Christian and does not care about the symbol or even supports it, why should we demolite it on behalf of a few who are unhappy?

[Winstonm]

Quote

didn't a contemporary historian or two mention that he lived and even that he was killed by pilate?

My understanding is no.

[helene_t]

Codo, on Nov 6 2009, 02:14 PM, said:

It is okay for a majority to "forbid" unusual behaviour, but this is not the business of the governement.

Not sure what you mean by "forbid" here, but yes, if 90% of sauna visitors want other visitors to wear swimming costumes then I am perfectly ok with nudists having less choice. Even if it means that there isn't enough customers to make a single nudist sauna viable so in fact the nudist have no choice, so be it.

But I would be opposed to anyone banning nudists from setting up their own sauna. In some societies, the local mafia, trade union, church or real estate mogul may be powerful enough to enforce such a ban, that would be even worse than the gvt doing it because at least the gvt is democratically elected. It just happens (thankfully) that in our societies, it is usually only the gvt that is in position to restrict freedom in the private sphere, a position which I think they tend to use too much.

Quote

Even if we take the cross at the memorial as a christian symbol, why should it be wrong to use this symbol to honour the dead?

The US constitution was written in a time when many Europeans fled to the US to get away from religious persecution. And today there is a strong militant Christian movement in the US that seeks to bend Christian dogma's in their own political interest, and make life tough for minorities which they perceive as living sinful lives (such as homosexuals). In that context I can understand if some Americans are allergic to crosses.

In a different context, I might have no problems with it. I can 100% live with the cross in the Danish national flag, although it wouldn't be my own choice if a new flag had to be chosen today. This has everything to do with the much less political and much more tolerant attitude of Christian communities in general in Denmark compared to the US