Round 3: 'Tolerance' on American Universities???
POSTED BY: cartoon
UPDATED: Saturday, December 16, 2006 08:38
VIEWED: 5862
PAGE 3 of 6
Images or no images? Sacred ground or not? Speaking in tongues or not? These were the kinds of distinctions that could get you jailed, pilloried, or burned at the stake if you weren't careful, and exactly what the FF tried to avoid. One of the Swiss cities (I can't remember which, I'll have to look it up) circa 1500 went through no less than FOUR changes in official religion over the course of less than 20 years. Internal spies were on the lookout for people surreptitiously making the sign of the cross, or hiding banned sacred objects, or listening to out-of-favor clergy. Count in the 100-years-war, the changeover from Catholic to Anglican (part of the reason why anti-king messages were coded as nursery rhymes was because Henry VIII- and many English kings- had a huge network of internal spies that reached down to the lowliest serf.) and you get an idea why the FF wanted to avoid any semblance of state-sanctioned religion. And BTW- the FF knew about Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists and sought to protect them too.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
At the chapel, the old default was Protestant. Now the default is everyone. See how it pisses people off when they don't get the preferential treatment they are accustomed to?
Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
They removed a cross from permanent display in a chapel on a publicly funded college campus, SO WHAT!?
The thing which is seemingly ignored here is what the chapel was designed to be -- a Christian chapel. A Christian chapel in a Christian university, unless someone also missed that point.
Yes, the state did take over the university in the last century, but (as indicated by the quote provided below) the bylaws of their governing authority still recognize the authority of the initial charter (as long as its provisions are not inconsistent with Virginia law).
And what was the original charter?
"Forasmuch as our well-beloved and faithful subjects, constituting the General Assembly of our Colony of Virginia, have had it in their minds, and have proposed to themselves, to the end that the Church of Virginia may be furnished with a seminary of ministers of the gospel, and that the youth may be piously educated in good letters and manners, and that the Christian faith may be propagated amongst the Western Indians, to the glory of Almighty God; to make, found and establish a certain place of universal study, or perpetual College of Divinity, Philosophy, Languages, and other good Arts and Sciences."
This Christian University built a Christian chapel. What is the purpose of a Christian chapel? Maybe, some folks need to look that up. Is a cross inappropriate in a Christian chapel? No. Should visitors to a Christian chapel expect to find objects therein, which are used to typify a tenent of the Christian faith? Yes. If visitors don't want to see objects used to typify a tenent of the Christian faith, they shouldn't be entering Christian chapels, as by definition, that's what you're likely to find there.
Would one expect to find objects related to FDR in a building dedicated to FDR? If someone were to walk into such a building, would they be surprised to see something so associated with FDR prominently displayed there? Would conservatives visiting such a building be offended by such objects, and demand they be removed?
Would people walking into a gymnasium be shocked to find exercise equipment therein??!?! ZOUNDS!! Quick! Get rid of it before someone has their feelings hurt. Who put that in here in the first place?! Imagine finding exercise equipment in a gymnasium!! Who'd have thought?!
This is laughable, and should be a no-brainer, except for the fact that the objects in view relate to "Christianity". Christianity is a viable target at the altar of Political Correctness, and the prejudice against Christianity is so rampant (as evidenced by many of the responses within this thread), that certain people cannot see for the forest for the trees.
So who is seeking "preferential" treatment here? The ones who expect to find objects associated with the Christian faith in a Christian chapel, or the ones who expect to find nothing associated with the Christian faith in a Christian chapel?
To reiterate my personal feelings on this, I could care less about the object removed. I could care less about whether or not the university even had a chapel. What I do care about is that this university, which had been founded as a "Christian" university, which built a "Christian" chapel, now considers it inappropriate to display an object identifiable with both the initial purpose of the univerity and the purpose of a chapel.
If they don't like having a "Christian" chapel on site, tear it down and put up a meeting hall, then fill it with whatever objects they please. Just stop designating the building as a "chapel" if it is no longer to function as one.
Quote:
In 1906, W&M became a public institution within the Virginia university system.NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cartoon, you seem to have glossed over this important point: as long as its provisions are not inconsistent with Virginia law So, I went and looked up Virginia law and religious freedom. The Virginia statute was written by Jefferson and promoted by Madison. (If you look up what both of these Virginians had to say about religion you'd already know how this story is going to end.) The statute says in part:
Quote:In other words, and to make this point pellucidly clear, state taxes CANNOT be used to maintain religious properties. In fact the statute specifically and intentionally addressed taxes, so nobody can argue that the chapel was sideswiped by an unrelated law or ruling.
... Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religiousworship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/42.htm
Quote:BTW- the Church of Virginia was officially Anglican, not generically Christian. Shall we stand on history and force all Virginians to be Anglican?
The thing which is seemingly ignored here is what the chapel was designed to be -- a Christian chapel. A Christian chapel in a Christian university, unless someone also missed that point.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Just out of curiosity, NewOldBrownCoat, is the consecrated-space-not-used-for-anything-secular thing part of the Anglican tradition? Or, I guess it would be more accurate to ask about the Episcopalian tradition since the chapel was in use after the Revolution.
Hafta admit that I can't claim that that's the official position of any organized church that I can cite, but my own.
But isn't that the fundamental POV of all traditional religions?
Quaker, Catholic, old line Protestant. Isn't that why churches aren't used for other purposes every day except SUnday. ?
Only folks who don't practice that are Islamics, who think it's OK, after all, to store weapons in their mosques, and shoot at Christian soldiers from them, but then expect then not to be attacked in retaliation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
For whenever two or more of you are gathered there am I also.
Not sure if I'm quoting exactly, but I think the whole idea of "consecrating" properties was to take it out of the hands of the kings and tax collectors.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cartoon,
You seem to be consistently avoiding SignyM's clear and historically researched points. I'd certainly like to see your take on them.
----------------------
From the last thread, where evolution was cited as one example of anti-Xtian hostility, I never got an answer to my question:
Where do you draw the line between acceptable science and heresy?
Any answers from the Xtian contingent?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
None of us like to see changes to what we're used to, and the demotion of Xtianity to "just another religion"... to be treated under the law like ANY OTHER religion... is a bitter pill to swallow. But that is exactly what the big-name Founding Fathers (Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, Paine, Ethan Allen etc) intended. http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id9.html
That does not prevent a church or a person from putting up a creche on their property. It DOES prevent "the government" from using tax money to support religions; and generally the various state constitutions follow the Federal Constitution.
It can be argued that those big-name Founding Fathers were the "secular progressives" of their day, the "liberal elite" that the right-wing today is always railing against. And they're prolly correct: MOST people in the early USA were Xtians of one sort or another and were unfamiliar with the French Enlightenment and all the philosophical thought behind it. But nobody can argue that the United States was intended to be a "Christian nation" in it's founding, and to do so is to totally misrepresent the concepts behind the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And that wall between Church and state is what makes this nation (here comes the dirty word) secular.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just to further elaborate on my question:
"Where do you draw the line between acceptable science and heresy?" I find it odd that Judaism doesn't seem to have a problem with evolution. (And I see Judaism as closer to the OT than Xtians.)
When it comes to Xtians, back in the day, when ordinary people routinely slaughtered animals for food (and each other in wars for that matter) it was heresy to autospy a human. So despite common experience there were all sorts of fanciful ideas on human blood circulation. If you wanted to know about it you referred to the bible. If you were enlightened (and literate) you looked to the Greeks and Romans - the classical writings.
Science provided an alternative - if you wanted to know, you looked - for yourself. But the idea that humans were somehow like animals was heretical. And back in the day, autopsies were illegal as well. So the people who looked were miscreants of the worst sort. But look they did and founded modern medicine.
Now we all take modern medicine for granted. And we acknowledge that humans have common biochemistry and functions with mere animals. That's why people study and experiment on bacteria, rats, rabbits, and chimps rather than humans.
So where do you draw the line between 'bad' heretical science like evolution and acceptable science like medicine?
"Eppur si muove" - it still moves.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cartoon- the silence from your end is deafening. Shall I take it that this particular outrage of "hostility" to the Xtian religion has been determined to be nothing more than a w/drawal of the privilege, in accordance with the state Constitution-mandated separation of church and state?
Quote:. I don't think there is a problem with religious displays in "public" (ie easily viewable) places, just in government-funded ones. Whether businesses, homes, churches, or private organizations choose to display religious symbols is pretty much up to them. The fact that businesses seem to be downplaying religiosity is simply because they're going after the broadest market. In other words, they're following the money.
one thing that bothers me is that christian symbols and references no longer seem appropriate in public places
Quote:"in god we trust" was not present on most currency until relatively recently. It was added to some coins during the Civil War, and to most currency during the 1950's (anti-Communist McCarthy scare)
meanwhile we allow outright luciferian occultism to go unnoticed throughout government(and corporate america). i hate to beat a dead horse about this, but people know that our founders were masons... i think its time theyre told that MASONRY IS A RELIGION, and our government has, down to the T adopted its image- we just never here any cries about it. the reason 'in god we trust' is still around is because their god, Lucifer, is still alive and socially acceptable
I haven't specifically looked it up, but some of the Founding Fathers were prolly Freemasons. Whoever designed the currency certainly was! But I'm not sure that is a potent organization any more. While I agree that there is a conspiracy to "take over the world" I tend to lay that at the feet of capitalists, not Freemasons. And capitalists make a religion of money, not Lucifer. (Altho, come to think of it, Hugo Chavez said he smelt sulfur at the UN. Maybe he's on to something....)
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Cartoon- the silence from your end is deafening.
Firstly, I didn't realize that I was obligated to respond instantly. I can't speak for anyone else in here, but I happen to have a job, as well as responsibilities around my house, which have far more precedence in relation to the expenditure of my time than does answering questions for people which I've already answered, but seem to be beyond their comprehension.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Cartoon, you seem to have glossed over this important point: as long as its provisions are not inconsistent with Virginia law So, I went and looked up Virginia law and religious freedom. The Virginia statute was written by Jefferson and promoted by Madison. (If you look up what both of these Virginians had to say about religion you'd already know how this story is going to end.) The statute says in part:
Quote:
... Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religiousworship, place, or ministry whatsoever...
For the fifteen millionth time (slight exaggeration applied due to intense frustration)...
Having a cross on government-owned property meets not a single one of the Constitutional restrictions -- neither federal, nor (as you pointed out) Virginian.
In the event anyone seems to have trouble comprehending this -- putting a cross on government-owned property is not "compelling" anyone to "frequent or support" the religion from which the symbol is derived. Nor is putting a cross on government-owned property "Congress establishing a religion."
The very fact that anyone would (in any way) construe it to mean such, underscores the level of bias toward Christianity.
Meanwhile, the FDR-dedicated building and the gymnasium analogies are ignored, because the analogies were both right on target. The point being...
Why would anyone be "offended" at finding objects typifying Christianity in building specifically built for a Christian purpose -- which is what a "chapel" is?
"Oh, there's sex in that porno film!" Duh!! What does one expect to find in a porno film? Instruction on carpentry?!?!
One expects to find symbols of Chrisitianity in a Christian CHAPEL. If one is threatened by those objects (which obviously many in here seem to be), then tear down the chapel and build a meeting hall. The soul purpose of a Christian chapel is for Christian assembly.
Apparently, this is a concept beyond comprehension, as so many seem to be missing it -- a Christian chapel for Christian assembly. Oh, maybe if I say it fifty thousand more times...
P.S. I haven't seen photos of the chapel, but given its age, I would guess it probably has stained-glass windows, as well. (I don't know, I'm just guessing.) If it does, I imagine they would (as most chapels or churches do) contain images from the Bible. If this is the case, I'm wondering if the university is going to remove those, as well? Liberal forbid anyone is offended by stained-glass images of Jesus or dead Jewish prophets -- particularly in a building erected for "Christian" worship (where one would certainly ever expect to find such things).
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
For whenever two or more of you are gathered there am I also.
Not sure if I'm quoting exactly, but I think the whole idea of "consecrating" properties was to take it out of the hands of the kings and tax collectors.
I hate to admit it, but you're actually correct about this.
As I've also stated previously (my posts must be invisible, because I have to keep repeating the same things over and over and over), place of worship isn't important, nor designated as such in Scripture. Christians may worship God anywhere, and do not need a "specific" building for this purpose. You are correct.
The only thing in Scripture which falls even remotely within this category would be the old Jewish Tabernacle, then subsequen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME