(no subject)
Dec. 19th, 2007 09:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
philosoraptor42I recently read an LJ blog rightly criticising an article on a religiously conservative website called: worldnetdaily
While looking at the article, I saw a book being promoted entitled "Backfired: A nation born for religious tolerance no longer tolerates religion". While it would actually be pretty reasonable to presume that this was talking about Christian intolerance against other religions such as the protest against a Hindu giving a prayer in the senate and the promises of hellfire by the Westboro Baptist Church, the book is actually suggesting that Christianity is being discriminated against. I say 'Christianity', but the word used is simply 'religion'. The list of examples of this discrimination, however, shows a very definite emphasis on Christianity.
Every item on the list is quite clearly NOT discrimination.
1. "Ten Commandments taken down"
Disallowing the ten commandments being displayed in court was because the first amedment prohibits the creation of a "state religion". Preventing the state from asserting a particular religious stance is not intolerance against anyone's religion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700416.html
2. "“Under God” removed from the Pledge"
Actually the words 'under God' were inserted into the pledge as late as 1954; so if a pledge with those words removed is intolerant towards Christianity, the original pledge would also be similarly intolerant.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm
3. "Prayer prohibited"
Actually prayer in schools in the US is not prohibited, and it is certainly not prohibited in the country as a whole. What is not allowed is for the state to insist that a group recite or accept a certain prayer, and this is clearly because such a requirement would go against their personal religious freedom and would be pressure from the state authorities to adhere to a particular religious belief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer#United_States
4. "Nativity Scenes banned"
Actually the only example I can find on the internet (and maybe I'm not looking hard enough) of complaints against a nativity scene not being resolved by local authorities 'in favour' of the nativity scene, is this:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-flbnativity1218sbdec18,0,2996589.story
Strangely enough though, this shows a group called the "Committee to Bring Jesus Back to Christmas" had been pressurising the local malls to display their nativity scene, and only ONE mall had resolved not to bow down under pressure. Is it really intolerance?
Another quite funny example was where a nativity scene had finally been allowed because they were prepared to include 'secular symbols' (i.e. snowmen) in their display. Sounds like the dispute was a mere legal technicality when it comes down to it...
5. "Salvation Army defunded"
I can't even find anything related to this on google. The nearest thing I found was this:
"The Salvation Army..asked the White House to change federal regulations to allow religious charities receiving federal funds to engage in employment discrimination against gays."
http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/85922/index.php
Oooooh, feel that tolerance!
6. "Boy Scouts sued"
Do they mean this?
"The US Government is suing the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) for nearly �8m, for allegedly starting a forest fire.
"The government says the scouts let a fire get out of hand in a forest in the Uinta Mountains in Utah, which burned down 14,000 acres of woodland."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/world/newsid_3856000/3856161.stm
Or this?
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0327867520071004
"Dykes was allowed to continue in positions of trust and continue to abuse boys for four or five years after he was first arrested or investigated as early as 1981, said Clark."
Okay, so obviously they don't mean these cases, but it goes to show that suing the Boy Scouts Association isn't always a sign of decline...
It's more likely that they are referring to this case:
http://www.timcurran.com/scouting/
http://www.timcurran.com/scouting/nytimes.htm
"The California Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Boy Scouts of America can exclude gay people, agnostics and atheists from its ranks because it is a private membership group not covered by the state's civil rights law."
And this case is supposed to show intolerance towards Christians? How precisely did they reach THAT conclusion?
7. "Christmas Carols stopped"
Well actually there is an example of this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1753422/posts
"A high school choir was asked to stop singing Christmas carols during an ice skating show featuring Olympic medalist Sasha Cohen out of concern the skater would be offended because she's Jewish.
""This request was simply made by a staff member who was attempting to be sensitive to the celebrity guest, without considering the wider implications ... or consulting with her supervisor for guidance," Graham said in an e-mail to the newspaper."
The thing is though, the ice-skater wasn't offended. This is not a case of INtolerance, but actually ULTRA-tolerance. The singers were stopped out of fear of offence to religion, not as means of preventing religious expression.
This article shows an example of christmas carols being banned, but the reasoning is pretty similar to the 'group prayer' example. Sometimes being expected to sing the same song can enforce a certain group identity on people which they might not be willing to be involved in.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6745305/
As a Jewish boy growing up in Texas, Joel Schwartzberg performed many traditional Christmas songs in the elementary school choir.
Uncomfortable about singing evangelical versions of songs like “Silent Night,” Schwartzberg kept his lips sealed during those parts. He remembers being told by his teacher that he had to sing all the words if he wanted to participate.
...Schwartzberg said a line can be drawn.
Strangely enough a woman who writes books with titles like "Jesus on Parenting" has nevertheless got some very interesting things to say on this issue:
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitehurst01252005.html
While intolerance was considered a grave sin back when America was marching towards civil rights instead of away from them, today that vice has become-presto!-a virtue. This means that conservative Christians must become increasingly intolerant in order to demonstrate their faith, and the more in-your-face the intolerance is, the better.
Hmmm, funny how we've managed to reach the exact opposite conclusion of the book worldnetdaily were promoting.....
Here are some more examples of Christian intolerance in the US:
> Religious conservatives have been known to write heavily biased and deliberately misleading books on neopaganism, often claiming personal experiences which are clearly fabricated.
> Until recently, it was illegal for Native Americans to practice their traditional ceremonies.
> Jews have long been excluded from organisations like golf clubs in the US, and in some places this discrimination continues
> A troop of boy scouts was found to be destroying priceless petroglyphs on the Mexican border because they claimed they were pagan symbols of satanic orgin.
> Ritual abuse seminars have been known to accuse a variety of groups from Jewish and Pagan religious groups to mutual support and self-help groups of 'ritual abuse' without any evidence to back up their accusations. This appears to be because of religious prejudices.
> It used to be necessary to claim belief in a personal deity in order to be a conscientious objectors.
While looking at the article, I saw a book being promoted entitled "Backfired: A nation born for religious tolerance no longer tolerates religion". While it would actually be pretty reasonable to presume that this was talking about Christian intolerance against other religions such as the protest against a Hindu giving a prayer in the senate and the promises of hellfire by the Westboro Baptist Church, the book is actually suggesting that Christianity is being discriminated against. I say 'Christianity', but the word used is simply 'religion'. The list of examples of this discrimination, however, shows a very definite emphasis on Christianity.
Every item on the list is quite clearly NOT discrimination.
1. "Ten Commandments taken down"
Disallowing the ten commandments being displayed in court was because the first amedment prohibits the creation of a "state religion". Preventing the state from asserting a particular religious stance is not intolerance against anyone's religion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700416.html
2. "“Under God” removed from the Pledge"
Actually the words 'under God' were inserted into the pledge as late as 1954; so if a pledge with those words removed is intolerant towards Christianity, the original pledge would also be similarly intolerant.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm
3. "Prayer prohibited"
Actually prayer in schools in the US is not prohibited, and it is certainly not prohibited in the country as a whole. What is not allowed is for the state to insist that a group recite or accept a certain prayer, and this is clearly because such a requirement would go against their personal religious freedom and would be pressure from the state authorities to adhere to a particular religious belief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer#United_States
4. "Nativity Scenes banned"
Actually the only example I can find on the internet (and maybe I'm not looking hard enough) of complaints against a nativity scene not being resolved by local authorities 'in favour' of the nativity scene, is this:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-flbnativity1218sbdec18,0,2996589.story
Strangely enough though, this shows a group called the "Committee to Bring Jesus Back to Christmas" had been pressurising the local malls to display their nativity scene, and only ONE mall had resolved not to bow down under pressure. Is it really intolerance?
Another quite funny example was where a nativity scene had finally been allowed because they were prepared to include 'secular symbols' (i.e. snowmen) in their display. Sounds like the dispute was a mere legal technicality when it comes down to it...
5. "Salvation Army defunded"
I can't even find anything related to this on google. The nearest thing I found was this:
"The Salvation Army..asked the White House to change federal regulations to allow religious charities receiving federal funds to engage in employment discrimination against gays."
http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/85922/index.php
Oooooh, feel that tolerance!
6. "Boy Scouts sued"
Do they mean this?
"The US Government is suing the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) for nearly �8m, for allegedly starting a forest fire.
"The government says the scouts let a fire get out of hand in a forest in the Uinta Mountains in Utah, which burned down 14,000 acres of woodland."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/world/newsid_3856000/3856161.stm
Or this?
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0327867520071004
"Dykes was allowed to continue in positions of trust and continue to abuse boys for four or five years after he was first arrested or investigated as early as 1981, said Clark."
Okay, so obviously they don't mean these cases, but it goes to show that suing the Boy Scouts Association isn't always a sign of decline...
It's more likely that they are referring to this case:
http://www.timcurran.com/scouting/
http://www.timcurran.com/scouting/nytimes.htm
"The California Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Boy Scouts of America can exclude gay people, agnostics and atheists from its ranks because it is a private membership group not covered by the state's civil rights law."
And this case is supposed to show intolerance towards Christians? How precisely did they reach THAT conclusion?
7. "Christmas Carols stopped"
Well actually there is an example of this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1753422/posts
"A high school choir was asked to stop singing Christmas carols during an ice skating show featuring Olympic medalist Sasha Cohen out of concern the skater would be offended because she's Jewish.
""This request was simply made by a staff member who was attempting to be sensitive to the celebrity guest, without considering the wider implications ... or consulting with her supervisor for guidance," Graham said in an e-mail to the newspaper."
The thing is though, the ice-skater wasn't offended. This is not a case of INtolerance, but actually ULTRA-tolerance. The singers were stopped out of fear of offence to religion, not as means of preventing religious expression.
This article shows an example of christmas carols being banned, but the reasoning is pretty similar to the 'group prayer' example. Sometimes being expected to sing the same song can enforce a certain group identity on people which they might not be willing to be involved in.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6745305/
As a Jewish boy growing up in Texas, Joel Schwartzberg performed many traditional Christmas songs in the elementary school choir.
Uncomfortable about singing evangelical versions of songs like “Silent Night,” Schwartzberg kept his lips sealed during those parts. He remembers being told by his teacher that he had to sing all the words if he wanted to participate.
...Schwartzberg said a line can be drawn.
“When students are compelled to engage in evangelical activities — even without intent or proselytizing — with the alternative being nothing except to sit out, I think that’s not appropriate.”
8. Bible called ‘hate speech,’Oddly enough, most of the news articles on this seem to come from the worldnetdaily website itself. No one else seems to have seen anything. Their article claims that they are simply afraid that the Bible will become hate speech if it is illegal to demean someone on the basis of their sexual orientation. In spite of this they still have the headline: "'Bible as hate speech' bill passes".
Strangely enough a woman who writes books with titles like "Jesus on Parenting" has nevertheless got some very interesting things to say on this issue:
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitehurst01252005.html
While intolerance was considered a grave sin back when America was marching towards civil rights instead of away from them, today that vice has become-presto!-a virtue. This means that conservative Christians must become increasingly intolerant in order to demonstrate their faith, and the more in-your-face the intolerance is, the better.
Hmmm, funny how we've managed to reach the exact opposite conclusion of the book worldnetdaily were promoting.....
Here are some more examples of Christian intolerance in the US:
> Religious conservatives have been known to write heavily biased and deliberately misleading books on neopaganism, often claiming personal experiences which are clearly fabricated.
> Until recently, it was illegal for Native Americans to practice their traditional ceremonies.
> Jews have long been excluded from organisations like golf clubs in the US, and in some places this discrimination continues
> A troop of boy scouts was found to be destroying priceless petroglyphs on the Mexican border because they claimed they were pagan symbols of satanic orgin.
> Ritual abuse seminars have been known to accuse a variety of groups from Jewish and Pagan religious groups to mutual support and self-help groups of 'ritual abuse' without any evidence to back up their accusations. This appears to be because of religious prejudices.
> It used to be necessary to claim belief in a personal deity in order to be a conscientious objectors.
