Then they came for the Jews.......

[scottinnj]

Story Here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303657,00.html)


A civil rights group is criticizing Florida Gov. Charlie Crist for hanging a Jewish symbol outside his capitol office, saying it could turn the state building into a shrine for other religious icons according to a report in the Palm Beach Post on Friday.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida said the hanging of a mezuzah, which contains Hebrew blessings, is the equivalent to the government's endorsement of a religious symbol, the Post reports.

For a bit of education for those who don't know what a mezuzah is or what it looks like:

It is a small decorative block on the door jamb of a Jewish home's front door. It contains Hebrew text that is meant to "bless" the person coming through the door. The Jewish equivalent of the "Bless all who enter" that you see on your neighbor's door. You've probably seen one on your friends' door or you may have one yourself, if you are a Jew. I see them on the doors of homes I deliver to in Lakewood, NJ and I think they are pretty cool.

Picture:

http://www.holylandmarket.com/p/n/Ami/6/mezuzah4.jpghttp://studentorgs.utexas.edu/cjso/Mezuzah/mezuzah.jpg



It really is getting out of control with the ACLU. I'm tired of people having the threat of a lawsuit hanging over them if they dare express any type of personal expression of goodwill.

It's not religious. It may be from the Jewish religion, but it isn't religious. It's more of a cultural icon used by Jews to say "Have a nice day" as a person enters or leaves the home or place of business.

[Fezticle98]

Did he hang it with a Christ nail?

[topless_mike]

or a noose?

im getting tired of these lib...


ok, im not going to rant. i will hush. there are too many haters around here.

he should really tell the aclu to eat the fat one.
or, he should hang it inside his office, which is not a public area, and therefore the aclu has no jurisdiction.

i wish i was a public figure and they rushed to my side. even if i did need them, i would still love to publicly embarrass them.

[epo]

Story Here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303657,00.html)

For a bit of education for those who don't know what a mezuzah is or what it looks like:

It is a small decorative block on the door jamb of a Jewish home's front door. It contains Hebrew text that is meant to "bless" the person coming through the door. The Jewish equivalent of the "Bless all who enter" that you see on your neighbor's door. You've probably seen one on your friends' door or you may have one yourself, if you are a Jew. I see them on the doors of homes I deliver to in Lakewood, NJ and I think they are pretty cool.

Picture:

http://www.holylandmarket.com/p/n/Ami/6/mezuzah4.jpghttp://studentorgs.utexas.edu/cjso/Mezuzah/mezuzah.jpg



It really is getting out of control with the ACLU. I'm tired of people having the threat of a lawsuit hanging over them if they dare express any type of personal expression of goodwill.

It's not religious. It may be from the Jewish religion, but it isn't religious. It's more of a cultural icon used by Jews to say "Have a nice day" as a person enters or leaves the home or place of business.

or a noose?

im getting tired of these lib...


ok, im not going to rant. i will hush. there are too many haters around here.

he should really tell the aclu to eat the fat one.
or, he should hang it inside his office, which is not a public area, and therefore the aclu has no jurisdiction.

i wish i was a public figure and they rushed to my side. even if i did need them, i would still love to publicly embarrass them.

Alright let me just state that a mezuzah, as shown in Curb your Enthusiasm, is indeed a symbol of religion.

You see this is why organizations such as the ACLU exist. To provide a non-partisan view of our federal instituations. You see the area inside of a public officials office is indeed...by definition a public space, hence making it by definition a non-religious space.

You see those most pro-religious iconography in this nation are funny that way. If you go that way...under a fairness doctrine of religion, this nation would have to provide equal access to all religions...that includes the Church of Satan, Scientology & the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/).

So what does our fair, democratic government do under the Constitution? Disallow all religious symbols from government space as to avoid it all. It's only logical.

[Yerdaddy]

It's the principle of separation of church and state and the ACLU's blind devotion to it that protects the right to openly worship as a Jew in the first place. You do not want a religious competition for influence over government insititutions simply because that's going to mean winners and losers and eventually the tyranny of the majority sect or denomination. This is why some of the loudest opponents of Bush's "faith-based initiative" were Jewish, Catholic and Protestand religious leaders. They also warned of the corrupting effect on their own religion from the obtainment of political power. And they welcomed and supported the ACLU's work against the politicization of religion as a protection of religious freedom - not a restriction of it.

Further, if you're Protestant Christian maybe you're willing to roll the dice because you may win out and gain the political power you want. But if you're Jewish you do not want that "wall" as Jefferson called it between religion and government to be torn down because you will be, (after Muslims, of course), among the first to find yourself with less freedom to be a Jew than you have now. As far as I know no Sinegogue, (or Christian or Catholic church), has ever been shut down or imposed upon by the government or the ACLU. Nobody of any legitimate religion has been prevented from private worship. Every modern battle over the restriction of religion into the public sphere has been a battle over the encroachment of religion into the realm of government which must be kept secular to protect both the religious and non-religious from religious dominance by the strong sects over the weak.

In short, religious freedom is guaranteed by the secular nature of the American government, not restricted by it. And I'd bet that most Jewish leaders, aware of their own history, fully understand and support the side of the ACLU on this one. Let the Governor hang the gift on his home door.

[scottinnj]

You see those most pro-religious iconography in this nation are funny that way. If you go that way...under a fairness doctrine of religion, this nation would have to provide equal access to all religions...that includes the Church of Satan, Scientology & the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/).

So what does our fair, democratic government do under the Constitution? Disallow all religious symbols from government space as to avoid it all. It's only logical.

But that would be just fine. The Government is not here to squish religious expression from elected officials. Why not have a Flying Sphaghetti Monster dude put a Can of Chef Boyardee on his desk? And when he has to make a tough decision, he can look at his holy can of sphaghetti and pray and get inspired by it. Didn't hurt you, didn't hurt me, but the spaghetti dude is now at peace that he made the right decision. And if any of his constituents come in and see the can, they'll know he is a member of the Flying Spaghetti Church, and if they think he is nuts for praying to a can, vote for the other guy.
Nobody got hurt, the Chef didn't strike you down for not believing, and the congressman gets to express his personal beliefs.

The ACLU is trying to drive religion from the square. And the argument of no churches were hurt by the ACLU is a moot point. We are not talking about churches. We are talking about a citizen's right to express himself. And the Constitution didn't say free speech except for religious talk. It just says the government can't endorse a religion. A congressman who has a religious symbol on his door is not government endorsing religion. In fact, it would be wonderful if the congressman next to the Jew, an atheist, had the right to put up the poster "Welcome to the God-Free Zone" on his door, and we already know about the Chef Boyardee can the Spaghetti Monster dude prays to, and then the Christian has his cross, and the Muslim has the Koran he swears an oath to the Constitution on, and so on and so forth. It would be an affirmation that the government doesn't endorse any particular religion at all and anyone should feel free to run for office no matter if they practice religion, what type, or not at all.

[Yerdaddy]

But that would be just fine. The Government is not here to squish religious expression from elected officials. Why not have a Flying Sphaghetti Monster dude put a Can of Chef Boyardee on his desk? And when he has to make a tough decision, he can look at his holy can of sphaghetti and pray and get inspired by it. Didn't hurt you, didn't hurt me, but the spaghetti dude is now at peace that he made the right decision. And if any of his constituents come in and see the can, they'll know he is a member of the Flying Spaghetti Church, and if they think he is nuts for praying to a can, vote for the other guy.
Nobody got hurt, the Chef didn't strike you down for not believing, and the congressman gets to express his personal beliefs.

The ACLU is trying to drive religion from the square. And the argument of no churches were hurt by the ACLU is a moot point. We are not talking about churches. We are talking about a citizen's right to express himself. And the Constitution didn't say free speech except for religious talk. It just says the government can't endorse a religion. A congressman who has a religious symbol on his door is not government endorsing religion. In fact, it would be wonderful if the congressman next to the Jew, an atheist, had the right to put up the poster "Welcome to the God-Free Zone" on his door, and we already know about the Chef Boyardee can the Spaghetti Monster dude prays to, and then the Christian has his cross, and the Muslim has the Koran he swears an oath to the Constitution on, and so on and so forth. It would be an affirmation that the government doesn't endorse any particular religion at all and anyone should feel free to run for office no matter if they practice religion, what type, or not at all.

Your hypothetical of all people of all religion using the right to worship in government spaces to use that space in harmony is unrealistic. The fact is religions if allowed to use that space will use it to compete for political power. The system was designed that way because that represents the realistic view of human nature in poltical forums as described so astutely by some of the Founding Fathers in The Federalist Papers. The fact is that once religions get into the sphere of our government they will compete to influence it, to establish thier dominance over each other and inevitably to restrict the religious freedom of the weaker sects.

And it would be impossible to express the infinitely complex myriad of ways people worship religion and therefore it would be impossible to express numerous religious views without excluding some. Therefore to express any is an endorsement of one or some over some others.

The fact, as expressed many times by the Supreme Court for good reason, is that expression of religion in the public sphere is by nature an endorsement of religion. That doesn't mean that an elected representative can't pray or keep personal religious symbols in his private office spaces. But to display religious symbols, even if of other faiths as a gesture of religious respect, is an endorsement and is necessarily exclusionary to his constituents who are not of the faiths on display. It would likely be intimidating to a Muslim consituent allowed to the Governor's office to exercise his right to petition his government to see a display of Christian and Jewish symbols and not his own given today's political environment with huge Christian churches alligning themselves with the Zionist movement with the view that Israeli occupation of their definition of "the promised land" would make way for the return of Christ. This is a powerful religious-political movement in America and should allow us to assume that this particular display of solidarity would be seen by any of the six million American Muslims as an endorsement of two religions against his own. That's how this particular religious expression is an endorsement of religion because it is guaranteed to be percieved as such by citizens of an excluded religion.

The ACLU is trying to keep religion from the public square. It is following the philosophy of the wall of separation that is one of the two concepts that Jefferson felt was so important that he wanted it on his grave site. That wall has been there - even if not in it's entirety - from it's establishment in the Constitution from the beginning. And had that wall not been establish with the Constitution you and I both know that Christianity in general, if not one particular denomination, could have conceivably been established as the official religion of America and we would have established the same religious persecution that we sought escape from in England. And that and not the ACLU is where the source of this wall of separation comes from - the desire for religious freedom that led America to be seen as an opportunity for freedom in the first place.

[Snacks]

Alright let me just state that a mezuzah, as shown in Curb your Enthusiasm, is indeed a symbol of religion.

You see this is why organizations such as the ACLU exist. To provide a non-partisan view of our federal instituations. You see the area inside of a public officials office is indeed...by definition a public space, hence making it by definition a non-religious space.

You see those most pro-religious iconography in this nation are funny that way. If you go that way...under a fairness doctrine of religion, this nation would have to provide equal access to all religions...that includes the Church of Satan, Scientology & the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/).

So what does our fair, democratic government do under the Constitution? Disallow all religious symbols from government space as to avoid it all. It's only logical.

It's the principle of separation of church and state and the ACLU's blind devotion to it that protects the right to openly worship as a Jew in the first place. You do not want a religious competition for influence over government insititutions simply because that's going to mean winners and losers and eventually the tyranny of the majority sect or denomination. This is why some of the loudest opponents of Bush's "faith-based initiative" were Jewish, Catholic and Protestand religious leaders. They also warned of the corrupting effect on their own religion from the obtainment of political power. And they welcomed and supported the ACLU's work against the politicization of religion as a protection of religious freedom - not a restriction of it.

Further, if you're Protestant Christian maybe you're willing to roll the dice because you may win out and gain the political power you want. But if you're Jewish you do not want that "wall" as Jefferson called it between religion and government to be torn down because you will be, (after Muslims, of course), among the first to find yourself with less freedom to be a Jew than you have now. As far as I know no Sinegogue, (or Christian or Catholic church), has ever been shut down or imposed upon by the government or the ACLU. Nobody of any legitimate religion has been prevented from private worship. Every modern battle over the restriction of religion into the public sphere has been a battle over the encroachment of religion into the realm of government which must be kept secular to protect both the religious and non-religious from religious dominance by the strong sects over the weak.

In short, religious freedom is guaranteed by the secular nature of the American government, not restricted by it. And I'd bet that most Jewish leaders, aware of their own history, fully understand and support the side of the ACLU on this one. Let the Governor hang the gift on his home door.

Thank you both for typing all that, you hav saved me an hour of my life.

I will add, there is so much hate for the aclu yet they fight for all people not just the "libs". I will throw this out again to Topless Mike. If it wasnt for organizations like the aclu you wouldnt be able to play your rock and roll or express yourself the way you want to. They help protect everyones freedoms and prevent elected officials from forcing their religious beliefs on people because it is against everything the country stands for. Separation of Church and state. Meaning NO RELIGION IN POLITICS. If your my senator and your a catholic, great put up all the crosses you want in your home, your car, or even on your body. But do not force me to look at a cross or anything else in your office/public or any place that taxpayers pay for.

[sailor]

this really is making a mountain out of a molehill. next you'll be saying he can't wear a chai pendant/pin when he's working. i don't think it's in any way state sponsorship of a religion. it's not the start of a slippery slope.

[Yerdaddy]

this really is making a mountain out of a molehill. next you'll be saying he can't wear a chai pendant/pin when he's working. i don't think it's in any way state sponsorship of a religion. it's not the start of a slippery slope.

It's really making a molehill out of a molehill. Is it molehill or mole hill, Chester?

A civil rights group is criticizing Florida Gov. Charlie Crist...

No lawsuits. No tarring or feathering. No public bukake session for the Gov.

[sailor]

It's really making a molehill out of a molehill. Is it molehill or mole hill, Chester?


surprisingly it is molehill. i was sure i had screwed that up.

i also didn't realize the governor was methodist. that makes it even less of a big deal to me. what's less than a mole hill? ant hill? yes, they're making a molehill out of an ant hill.

[booster11373]

If there was a Islamic equivalent of this what would the people who think the ACLU goes to far would be?

[sailor]

If there was a Islamic equivalent of this what would the people who think the ACLU goes to far would be?

huh? i guess you're asking if people would be bothered if it was islamic. myself, not at all bothered. as for others, i speak for none. they have the right to be bothered, as they have that right now. i just think being bothered by either is silly.

[Death Metal Moe]

http://www.oapedia.com/images/4/45/Anthony.jpg

Comment?

[TheMojoPin]

The ACLU is trying to drive religion from the square.

Because it has no place in the federal "square."

[LiddyRules]

Congratulations Jews, now the ACLU are against you. You have finally been risen to the level of the majority.

[A.J.]

A civil rights group is criticizing Florida Gov. Charlie Crist for hanging a Jewish symbol outside his capitol office, saying it could turn the state building into a shrine for other religious icons according to a report in the Palm Beach Post on Friday.


"Too Jewish."

http://www.fext.cz/film/blazing3.jpg

Separation of church and state baby.

[TooLowBrow]

i dont get it.
in this country we have 'freedom of religion'
its not 'no religion'
why cant we let people practice there religion in the open?
should all things religious be hidden?

[TheMojoPin]

i dont get it.

Clearly.

[epo]

i dont get it.
in this country we have 'freedom of religion'
its not 'no religion'
why cant we let people practice there religion in the open?
should all things religious be hidden?

Did you read any of the previous posts?

[high fly]

The ACLU is trying to drive religion from the square.

No, they are trying to maintain the sort of "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution that right-wingers always swear to be searching for when it comes to hiring judges.

If public officials would stop trying to sneak their religion into the workplace on government property, the ACLU and others would have no objections.

[TooLowBrow]

i think the mezuzah is only supposed to be put up in your house, not in your office

[lleeder]

:wacko:I always thought that was just on oddly placed doorstop.

[sailor]

i think the mezuzah is only supposed to be put up in your house, not in your office

my last office had them at every doorway.

[TheMojoPin]

It looks like a holy remote control to a really old TV set.

[FUNKMAN]

Then they came for the Jew.......

http://dannymiller.typepad.com/blog/images/2007/04/04/yul1.jpg

"Bring Me The Hebrew"

[scottinnj]

If public officials would stop trying to sneak their religion into the workplace on government property, the ACLU and others would have no objections.


They wouldn't have to sneak it in, if the ACLU had the correct interpretation of the Constitution.

To be fair, has anyone heard of an ACLU lawsuit in favor of religious expression? I mean, allowing a public official to be a human being so he/she could wear a cross or a yamaka in front of a constituent.

[TheMojoPin]

To be fair, has anyone heard of an ACLU lawsuit in favor of religious expression?

Yes. Quite a few, actually. (http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html)

The American Constitution and Bill of Rights introduced a new relationship between religion and government. Prior to 1789, almost every European country maintained a close relationship between church and state. James Madison, the principal drafter of the First Amendment, proposed that, unlike European states, the government should not tax its citizens to support religious activities, nor should it promote religious beliefs, and that all religious beliefs should be treated equally and fairly. He believed that religion would thrive best when the government did not promote some religious beliefs to the exclusion of others.

Madison’s ideals, now embodied in the Constitution, were exactly right. Americans enjoy more religious freedom than do people in any other country in the world.

Unfortunately, some people are now trying to use government power to promote religion in exactly the way the Constitution wisely rejected. The ACLU works to ensure that people remain free to choose which religious beliefs (or none) they wish to express and that governments, school boards, and legislatures do not become involved in deciding which religious beliefs should be promoted or in spending taxpayer dollars to support religious activities and symbols.

[Yerdaddy]

To be fair, has anyone heard of an ACLU lawsuit in favor of religious expression?

You said recently in another thread that atheism is just as much a faith as religion, so by that standard they're defending my religious expression.

[Snacks]

They wouldn't have to sneak it in, if the ACLU had the correct interpretation of the Constitution.

To be fair, has anyone heard of an ACLU lawsuit in favor of religious expression? I mean, allowing a public official to be a human being so he/she could wear a cross or a yamaka in front of a constituent.

no one sais the person himself couldnt wear a cross necklace or a jew couldnt wear a yamaka. They are saying you cant put crosses or anything else religious all over the office of public property. Why is so hard to understand no one care about what religion someone is or how they practice it? Just dont practice it or force it into politics.

[Bulldogcakes]

Story Here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303657,00.html)


It is a small decorative block on the door jamb of a Jewish home's front door.


I thought that when you work for the state, you're supposed to "Leave your religion at the front door".

Just can't please some people.

[scottinnj]

You said recently in another thread that atheism is just as much a faith as religion, so by that standard they're defending my religious expression.

Well, like I said earlier, if you are a congressman and an atheist, and if you wanted to put up a "Welcome to a God-Free zone" on your office door, have at it. It's your freedom of expression to do so.

[Zorro]

No, they are trying to maintain the sort of "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution that right-wingers always swear to be searching for when it comes to hiring judges.

If public officials would stop trying to sneak their religion into the workplace on government property, the ACLU and others would have no objections.

Nailing a goddam religous icon to your door is hardly sneaking anything.

[badmonkey]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[TheMojoPin]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And the beautiful thing is, outside of federal property, people can go nuts.

[Yerdaddy]

Well, like I said earlier, if you are a congressman and an atheist, and if you wanted to put up a "Welcome to a God-Free zone" on your office door, have at it. It's your freedom of expression to do so.

Which demonstrates the danger of religion to politics alreay. If I was an atheist I'd never get elected to Congress unless I lied and said I was Christian. Dispite the fact that the Constitution declares there can't be religious tests to be in government it is one of the strongest impulses of the American people to do just that. The Founders knew the reality of human nature and it's effect on politics from the experiences of the early American settlers: that if government is given the freedom to express religion then the people will soon lose that very same freedom.

[FMJeff]

It's a pretty clear violation, in my opinion. The mezuzah contains the Shema, it is extremely important to the Jewish religion. Although to non-jews, it may seem like the jewish equivalent of a doormat, it actually has significant importance in our religioun. There are ceremonies involved with the mezuzah, like kissing it indirectly before you walk in a room or home and saying a prayer before installing it. It's right up there with G-d bless America in my opinion, and has no place in or on a government building. It's indisputably an icon of the Jewish religion and very clearly states "this building is under the protection of the jewish g-d".

[high fly]

Originally Posted by high fly
If public officials would stop trying to sneak their religion into the workplace on government property, the ACLU and others would have no objections.


They wouldn't have to sneak it in, if the ACLU had the correct interpretation of the Constitution.


I believe they DO have the correct interpretation: No government sponsorship of religion.
Displaying religious items on government property implies the government favors that particular outfit to the exclusion of others.
Public officials need to stop trying to sneak around the Constitution and sneak shit in.

[high fly]

Which demonstrates the danger of religion to politics alreay. If I was an atheist I'd never get elected to Congress unless I lied and said I was Christian. Dispite the fact that the Constitution declares there can't be religious tests to be in government it is one of the strongest impulses of the American people to do just that. The Founders knew the reality of human nature and it's effect on politics from the experiences of the early American settlers: that if government is given the freedom to express religion then the people will soon lose that very same freedom.

Well said.
If you need the government to endorse your religion in order for it to survive, you got a crappy religion and a puny god.

The right-wingers, who so frequently avoid the commands to feed the hungry, give to the poor, clothe the naked and visit the prisoners, need to take a look at the Virginia Statutes for Religious Freedom linked below:

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/42.htm

[Chigworthy]

Next thing you know we'll have Lutherans hanging their feces over the front door of the white house.

[lleeder]

Next thing you know we'll have Lutherans hanging their feces over the front door of the white house.

Its too hot out to hang feces right now.

[sailor]

I believe they DO have the correct interpretation: No government sponsorship of religion.
Displaying religious items on government property implies the government favors that particular outfit to the exclusion of others.
Public officials need to stop trying to sneak around the Constitution and sneak shit in.

wouldn't the fact that it was a jewish symbol being displayed by a christian belie this statement?

[Hottub]

Is it really that difficult or offensive to acknowledge and respect someone's beliefs? I have no problem respecting the mezuzah, wearing proper headgear in the sanctuary, removing my shoes before entering the house, etc.
It is this person's office. His little space in the bureaucratic world. Is it wrong for him to display , among other family pictures, his son approaching the Torah for the first time?

I have found that a little tolerance goes a LONG LONG way in the real world.

Think about that!

[TheMojoPin]

wouldn't the fact that it was a jewish symbol being displayed by a christian belie this statement?

The idea of the seperation of church of state is not hinged on someone only supporting their own faith, so, no.

[TheMojoPin]

Is it really that difficult or offensive to acknowledge and respect someone's beliefs? I have no problem respecting the mezuzah, wearing proper headgear in the sanctuary, removing my shoes before entering the house, etc.
It is this person's office. His little space in the bureaucratic world. Is it wrong for him to display , among other family pictures, his son approaching the Torah for the first time?

I have found that a little tolerance goes a LONG LONG way in the real world.

Think about that!

Think of it this way...he is holding PUBLIC, not private, office. Government officials are the exception in that everything they have and do job-wise is totally reflective of what is "given" to them by the populace. Going into that field makes him beholden to the universal standards of government employees in this area and everything that comes with it, not vice-versa.

[Hottub]

I don't know his entire background, or constituency, but let's suppose he has been elected from a highly religious district.
Is he not representing his people?

[scottinnj]

I didn't think I would sway opinion on that. But I was surprised that so many of you wanted to make sure this personal display of faith should be disallowed. If the congressman had the Torah mounted on his door, or hanging above it, similar to the Ten Commandments in a courtroom I can see your point. But to me a mezuzah is like a Christian wearing a cross. You wouldn't tell a congressman not to wear a crucifix during the day right?

Yerdaddy, I disagree with you when you said you could never be elected to office because you are an atheist. There was a Congressman elected from Minnesota (Keith Ellison D) who is Muslim and swore his oath to the Constitution on a copy of the Koran, not the Bible.
And did so to the howells of horror by social conservatives like Dennis Prager. So I assert to you that you could be elected, if someone who is a member of the most hated religion in America can do it. I hate saying it, but it's true. Too many Americans can't distinguish between a Muslim and a terrorist, and even in the workplace, Muslims get a raw deal, which is unfortunate. But it emphasizes my point that anyone can make it to office. Look at Barney Frank, who has served in Congress openly gay for as long as I can remember. Bernie Sanders is a Socialist, and is in Congress.

[epo]

I don't know his entire background, or constituency, but let's suppose he has been elected from a highly religious district.
Is he not representing his people?

He would then be representing his people through the bills he presents & the votes he makes. Using public ground for religious iconography is simply not allowed, and for good reason.

[epo]

I didn't think I would sway opinion on that. But I was surprised that so many of you wanted to make sure this personal display of faith should be disallowed. If the congressman had the Torah mounted on his door, or hanging above it, similar to the Ten Commandments in a courtroom I can see your point. But to me a mezuzah is like a Christian wearing a cross. You wouldn't tell a congressman not to wear a crucifix during the day right?


I don't think anyone has made the point that this display of faith was personal....rather it was public. It was not on his person, but on government property. Big difference.

[TheMojoPin]

I don't know his entire background, or constituency, but let's suppose he has been elected from a highly religious district.
Is he not representing his people?

So we're expecting the government to run our religions now? If they want to be "represented" religiously, they can turn to their churches, not the government.

[Hottub]

I think you missed my point. His people elected him to have proper representation. Yes, there may be a religious slant, but he was elected to serve! Come on down to my neighborhood one day, and see "politics" in action.


And Punt!

[TheMojoPin]

I think you missed my point. His people elected him to have proper representation. Yes, there may be a religious slant, but he was elected to serve! Come on down to my neighborhood one day, and see "politics" in action.

But our government officials aren't supposed to "represent" any religion.

[sailor]

The idea of the seperation of church of state is not hinged on someone only supporting their own faith, so, no.

of course not, but his point was about government favoring a religion to the exclusion of others. ok, what if the president went to africa and was given some fertility idol? it would be nothing more than a pretty trinket to him even though it would be tied into someone else's religion. would that be allowed to be displayed in his office?

[TheMojoPin]

of course not, but his point was about government favoring a religion to the exclusion of others. ok, what if the president went to africa and was given some fertility idol? it would be nothing more than a pretty trinket to him even though it would be tied into someone else's religion. would that be allowed to be displayed in his office?



Nope. This really doesn't have to be complicated. If it's religious, keep it out of the public office.

[Hottub]

Nope. This really doesn't have to be complicated. If it's religious, keep it out of the public office.
Jesus, Mojo. You sound like me a few years back. Yes i agree if you want to keep it constitutional. (Defend the borders, deliver the mail, maintain the roads) But it is a whole new, post Imus world, son! I dare you to call The Constitution a "living doctrine" after that statement!
We are turning the founding fathers into pussies! Something troubles someone, bring it before the Supreme Court, or call The Right Reverend Sharpton.:wallbash:

[sailor]

Nope. This really doesn't have to be complicated. If it's religious, keep it out of the public office.

i worship office furniture.

[TheMojoPin]

Jesus, Mojo. You sound like me a few years back. Yes i agree if you want to keep it constitutional. (Defend the borders, deliver the mail, maintain the roads) But it is a whole new, post Imus world, son! I dare you to call The Constitution a "living doctrine" after that statement!
We are turning the founding fathers into pussies! Something troubles someone, bring it before the Supreme Court, or call The Right Reverend Sharpton.:wallbash:

How is it pussy-ish to essentially take them at their word? I'm just trying to keep it simple. If anything, it's "pussy-ish" to make all these lame little concessions here or there to appease people.

[SinA]

The point of "separation on church and state" and the First Ammendment is

freedom of religion, not freedom from religion


...so suck my balls atheists.

[epo]

The point of "separation on church and state" and the First Ammendment is

freedom of religion, not freedom from religion

...so suck my balls atheists.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

That very quote from the First Amendment is obvious....there should be a wall between religion & government. Originally it was put into place to protect religion from the influence of government, but now it would be in place to protect government from the influence of religion. Either way it is in place for a damned reason.

If you don't believe that wall was put there for a reason, then read the works of Thomas Jefferson.

[scottinnj]

How is it pussy-ish to essentially take them at their word? I'm just trying to keep it simple. If anything, it's "pussy-ish" to make all these lame little concessions here or there to appease people.


I wouldn't call it a concession to just accept that part of people's humanity is their religious expression. I would call it acceptance. Besides depriving this person of a religious icon on his office door, however incocuous it is, doesn't take away the fact that more then likely how he worships affects how he votes on legislation.

It isn't a concession to accept another person's view of the world and his role in it as a human being. That is his humanity, and to deny him the ability to express part of it in his public life is just plain wrong.

I would see it being a concession and you being offended if you walk into a congressman's office and he thumps your head with a Bible, or Torah or Koran trying to convert you. That of course is unacceptable, not just in government, but in the workplace as well.

And besides, like I said, you can strip away the religious icons, but you can't strip away the ideology. If you don't like religion in government, the only thing to do is vote out the religious people. Simply taking away a mezuzah on a door jamb or a crucifix on a desk doesn't take the "god" that person worships out of the room. That person is going to worship that "god" anyway. I think the justification you feel removing the religious icons in the room belies the deeper problem you have with the fact that there is someone in political office who is religious. I know that sounds accusatory, but it's not. It's just my opinion, but I couldn't find an easier way to say it.

[Recyclerz]

...
Yerdaddy, I disagree with you when you said you could never be elected to office because you are an atheist. There was a Congressman elected from Minnesota (Keith Ellison D) who is Muslim and swore his oath to the Constitution on a copy of the Koran, not the Bible.
And did so to the howls of horror by media whores like Dennis Prager. ...

Fixed that for you.

Point of interest - the Koran that Ellison swore his oath on belonged to Thomas Jefferson.

Although I'm a squishy agnostic myself I don't get too bothered by relatively innocuous displays of religiousity like the one at issue here. But I do respect the ACLU for holding to the bright line test. If somebody doesn't take the absolutist position then it becomes easier for the real Christianist nut jobs to start forcing their agenda onto local areas where they're in the majority. What I do think warrants very close watching is the gov't farming out social service functions to faith -based groups; I'm not saying that some don't do good work but the opportunity for abuse looms large.

Of course a lot of this debate is somewhat moot when you live in a country where the head of state claims to derive his authority from the two fundamental principles of "Because I said so" and "L’État, c’est moi" and the Legislative branch bends over and says "Please sir, I want some more". Paying attention to Constitutional integrity is so 18th, 19th and 20th century.

[TheMojoPin]

We're obviously not talking about preventing people from having their own "internal" faith or beliefs or however you want to put it. It was inevitable that someone was going to respond to us and acusse of being "anti-religion," though I appreciate it that you did as politely and as roundabout as you did.

Ultimately the goal is to keep religion and our public offices as seperate as possible. Since those offices are filled by people and most people are inherrently religious in some kind of way, you're obviously not going to completely seperate faith from government. That's why I think the theories about "seperation and church and state" end up being even more important...it allows us to at least limit religious influence in our politics. Bottom line, religions and governments, ESPECIALLY democratic governments simply do not mix. But that is light years away from saying that people can't have faith or be religious or however else you want to dress it up. What people do "inside" or outside of the public office is their own business, but IN the office, they're supposed to at least put up the front that they are as representative of the public as possible. This case in particular completely defies that, especially since the guy isn't even Jewish. It's base pandering to religious groups. Obviously, politicians pander their asses off, but our country has specifically tried to avoid putting itself into situations where religious groups are influencing our government OR where our government is influencing religious groups. It goes both ways.

[scottinnj]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

That very quote from the First Amendment is obvious....there should be a wall between religion & government. Originally it was put into place to protect religion from the influence of government, but now it would be in place to protect government from the influence of religion. Either way it is in place for a damned reason.

If you don't believe that wall was put there for a reason, then read the works of Thomas Jefferson.


Correct epo! And back then, many religious icons were brought into the Capital by congressmen under that protection. Guest preachers would come in and hold sermons for Congress when it was in session.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Sermon-cover-text.jpg

And it was perfectly accepted by even Jefferson, who coined the "Wall of Separation" statement. He went to church at Congress. So did Madison. And these were supposedly the two mainly focused keeping religion out of government. As long as Congress passed no law restricting religious freedom or endorsed one particular religion or had a state tax to fund a church. Other then that, you could be religious in government all day long as far as the founding fathers cared.

[TheMojoPin]

Fixed that for you.

Point of interest - the Koran that Ellison swore his oath on belonged to Thomas Jefferson.

Although I'm a squishy agnostic myself I don't get too bothered by relatively innocuous displays of religiousity like the one at issue here. But I do respect the ACLU for holding to the bright line test. If somebody doesn't take the absolutist position then it becomes easier for the real Christianist nut jobs to start forcing their agenda onto local areas where they're in the majority. What I do think warrants very close watching is the gov't farming out social service functions to faith -based groups; I'm not saying that some don't do good work but the opportunity for abuse looms large.

Of course a lot of this debate is somewhat moot when you live in a country where the head of state claims to derive his authority from the two fundamental principles of "Because I said so" and "L’État, c’est moi" and the Legislative branch bends over and says "Please sir, I want some more". Paying attention to Constitutional integrity is so 18th, 19th and 20th century.



Which it makes it so baffling why this mindset is accused of "pussifying" America.

And, to expand on what you said and to reiterate what I said in my own post, these limitations are also designed to protect religion in America from the government, not just religious influence and control in our government.

And it's not like hardcore Christianity would be the only faith to worry about.

[scottinnj]

We're obviously not talking about preventing people from having their own "internal" faith or beliefs or however you want to put it. It was inevitable that someone was going to respond to us and acusse of being "anti-religion," though I appreciate it that you did as politely and as roundabout as you did.



Thanks. I really labored over that last statement, because I know you aren't anti-religious. Then I reread the sentence after I posted it, and just knew I called you anti-religious. I apologize for that.

And the reason I know you're not anti-religious is because you're sitting there having a great discussion with me. If you were anti-religious, you would have told me to "fuck-off" on post one of this thread.

Midkiff-Where ya At? JK, Waka, Waka!

[epo]

Correct epo! And back then, many religious icons were brought into the Capital by congressmen under that protection. Guest preachers would come in and hold sermons for Congress when it was in session.

And it was perfectly accepted by even Jefferson, who coined the "Wall of Separation" statement. He went to church at Congress. So did Madison. And these were supposedly the two mainly focused keeping religion out of government. As long as Congress passed no law restricting religious freedom or endorsed one particular religion or had a state tax to fund a church. Other then that, you could be religious in government all day long as far as the founding fathers cared.

Which is true...but I'll ask you this Scott, based on logic only. "Why would the wall only exist one way?" If you need to defend one from the other, wouldn't the course of history tell you it will eventually swing the other way?

I would think people of faith would want the wall more than anybody.

[TheMojoPin]

Thanks. I really labored over that last statement, because I know you aren't anti-religious. Then I reread the sentence after I posted it, and just knew I called you anti-religious. I apologize for that.

And the reason I know you're not anti-religious is because you're sitting there having a great discussion with me. If you were anti-religious, you would have told me to "fuck-off" on post one of this thread.

Midkiff-Where ya At? JK, Waka, Waka!

I just wonder which hole he'd pick...

And in regards to the earlier religious overtones, I'm not gonna sit here and argue those guys were perfect. But based on some of their own words about keeping church and state seperate, I agree with that, and I think have a preacher give a sermon in congress is a blatant defiance of that. What else can I say? I think they screwed up there and it makes them look like hypocrites.

[Snacks]

I wouldn't call it a concession to just accept that part of people's humanity is their religious expression. I would call it acceptance. Besides depriving this person of a religious icon on his office door, however incocuous it is, doesn't take away the fact that more then likely how he worships affects how he votes on legislation.

It isn't a concession to accept another person's view of the world and his role in it as a human being. That is his humanity, and to deny him the ability to express part of it in his public life is just plain wrong.

I would see it being a concession and you being offended if you walk into a congressman's office and he thumps your head with a Bible, or Torah or Koran trying to convert you. That of course is unacceptable, not just in government, but in the workplace as well.

And besides, like I said, you can strip away the religious icons, but you can't strip away the ideology. If you don't like religion in government, the only thing to do is vote out the religious people. Simply taking away a mezuzah on a door jamb or a crucifix on a desk doesn't take the "god" that person worships out of the room. That person is going to worship that "god" anyway. I think the justification you feel removing the religious icons in the room belies the deeper problem you have with the fact that there is someone in political office who is religious. I know that sounds accusatory, but it's not. It's just my opinion, but I couldn't find an easier way to say it.

sounds similar to what the gays ask of politicians and society. They want to be able to live freely and express themselves as well as be openly married but these same politicians that want humanity for their religion even though it is against the constitution are the same ones who wont allow gays the right to express their beliefs and get married even though there is no such law anywhere every written. (other then the bible, but thats not a law)

[scottinnj]

Which is true...but I'll ask you this Scott, based on logic only. "Why would the wall only exist one way?" If you need to defend one from the other, wouldn't the course of history tell you it will eventually swing the other way?

I would think people of faith would want the wall more than anybody.

That's a good question and my gut reaction is that it would attempt to do so, but American History shows me that the people would never allow religious extremists to get hold of too much power. Just look recently at Pat Robertson's bid for President on the Religious Right, and Reverend Jackson on the Religious Left. Both were spanked quite nicely in their respective primaries.
Also look at the KKK, a hate organization that used Christianity to hide behind. It took hold in the South, but it's power never gained nationwide acceptance. Instead, the moderates and liberals who were in religion ruled the day, eventually defeating the power of the KKK in the 1960s and now have eradicated any thought that intolerance is acceptable.
And if it weren't for religious folk injecting their faith into their politics, we wouldn't have had a Civil Rights Movement at all, or at least have it move so quickly. And MLK quoted scripture when he was on the steps of the Capital.
Eventually everything swings back to the other side. Right now we are experiencing some over reactions (in my opinion) in religious tolerance. You should be worried that if this trend continues, the swing back religiously will be more then you bargained for.

[scottinnj]

sounds similar to what the gays ask of politicians and society. They want to be able to live freely and express themselves as well as be openly married but these same politicians that want humanity for their religion even though it is against the constitution are the same ones who wont allow gays the right to express their beliefs and get married even though there is no such law anywhere every written. (other then the bible, but thats not a law)


And you're right. And it will happen. Mark my word on that. More and more people like me are rethinking that whole topic and are coming around. It will just take some more time.

[scottinnj]

I just wonder which hole he'd pick...

And in regards to the earlier religious overtones, I'm not gonna sit here and argue those guys were perfect. But based on some of their own words about keeping church and state seperate, I agree with that, and I think have a preacher give a sermon in congress is a blatant defiance of that. What else can I say? I think they screwed up there and it makes them look like hypocrites.


But they weren't hypocrites. Doing what they did is exactly what they wanted, putting into practice the intentions of their words.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


It didn't say "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; except in government." It said what they meant. There is to be no prohibition of religious expression.

[SinA]

But they weren't hypocrites. Doing what they did is exactly what they wanted, putting into practice the intentions of their words.

It didn't say "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; except in government." It said what they meant. There is to be no prohibition of religious expression.

i agree. this guy was decorating his office with a religious ornament, not mandating judaism in his district.

the next still of the ACLU would be to object to elected officials being religious while in office.

[TheMojoPin]

But they weren't hypocrites. Doing what they did is exactly what they wanted, putting into practice the intentions of their words.




It didn't say "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; except in government." It said what they meant. There is to be no prohibition of religious expression.

But that doesn't reconcile with when some of them said explicitly that government and religion SHOULD be seperate, hence why I think it makes some of them hypocrites, or they just "went along with the crowd." That one quote is hardly the only thing written by important figures from that period, nor does it expressly say that there should be religious expression within public offices. From my standpoint, the idea of seperating religion from government definitively and almost totally makes sense based on the lessons of history. And since such a thing in no way actually prohibits people from having faith or practicing their religion on their own time, it jives totally with the idea of "religious freedom." Everyone wins. Why not keep the playing field level? I hate to generalize like this, but I'd lay good money that the only reason so many people don't have a problem with this is because the vast majority of this issues involve the two main "acceptable" faiths in this country, Judaism and Christianity. If all these little battles involved more fringe faiths or something scary like Islam (the swearing in on the Koran raised a MUCH bigger stink than it should), I have the sneaking feeling that more people would be flipped over to our side.

[TheMojoPin]

i agree. this guy was decorating his office with a religious ornament, not mandating judaism in his district.

So how do you define or draw the line at an elected official endorsing a religion through their elected office?

the next still of the ACLU would be to object to elected officials being religious while in office.

Don't be ridiculous. The cartoonish portrayal of the ACLU almost always indicates someone who has little to no awareness of their actual history and thei long history of defending people trying to practice their faith.

[scottinnj]

But that doesn't reconcile with when some of them said explicitly that government and religion SHOULD be seperate, hence why I think it makes some of them hypocrites, or they just "went along with the crowd." That one quote is hardly the only thing written by important figures from that period, nor does it expressly say that there should be religious expression within public offices.

But it didn't say there shouldn't be. And that segways into the main focus of what the Founding Fathers intended, which you stumbled upon:

If all these little battles involved more fringe faiths or something scary like Islam (the swearing in on the Koran raised a MUCH bigger stink than it should), I have the sneaking feeling that more people would be flipped over to our side.

That is exactly why it says what it says. Prager made an argument about not using the Koran because it is tradition to use a Bible to swear an oath to the Constitution. But he could not prove that the Founding Fathers intended that religious freedom began and ended with Christianity and Judaism. And when I first heard of this guy, I said "WTF" just like everyone else-but if you think about it, he showed a set of balls bigger then most people have shown for a long long time. And it wasn't a FU to Christians or Jews. This guy used Jefferson's Koran to swear to ALLAH he would uphold and defend the Constitution. He was using the office to say FU to radical Muslims, who don't want any religion at all except their own limited interpretation of the Koran. He might as well have shown up to the swearing in ceremony with a bulls-eye on his back. He is now a target to radicals who want him dead for swearing to Allah he will uphold the secular laws of the United States of America, who in their eyes is the Great Satan.

How wonderful is that? To be able to participate in the system of government that allows him to worship as he sees fit, and on top of all that, he has been given the right to begin his federal legislative career with his hand on the religious document he feels guides his life and helps mold his philosophy of law-making.

From church services in the Capital during the pre-civil war period, to a Muslim swearing an oath to Allah, to a congressman hanging a mazuzah, future historians will one day write that the greatest success of the American Experiment was in fact the religious tolerance we give to one another. And if it was not demonstrated among members of government, I dare say religious tolerance would not have taken hold among us citizens.

[high fly]

Originally Posted by sailor
of course not, but his point was about government favoring a religion to the exclusion of others. ok, what if the president went to africa and was given some fertility idol? it would be nothing more than a pretty trinket to him even though it would be tied into someone else's religion. would that be allowed to be displayed in his office?


Nope. This really doesn't have to be complicated. If it's religious, keep it out of the public office.


See?
They're always trying to sneak shit in.

That's why we need folks like the ACLU to stand up for the Constitution.

[Yerdaddy]

It's a pretty clear violation, in my opinion. The mezuzah contains the Shema, it is extremely important to the Jewish religion. Although to non-jews, it may seem like the jewish equivalent of a doormat, it actually has significant importance in our religioun. There are ceremonies involved with the mezuzah, like kissing it indirectly before you walk in a room or home and saying a prayer before installing it. It's right up there with G-d bless America in my opinion, and has no place in or on a government building. It's indisputably an icon of the Jewish religion and very clearly states "this building is under the protection of the jewish g-d".

Funny. I forget which thread it was in but this is just what Missy said about you. I think Pronto said it too.

[Yerdaddy]

I didn't think I would sway opinion on that. But I was surprised that so many of you wanted to make sure this personal display of faith should be disallowed.

At his home = personal

At his office = public. It's the public's office, they simply hired him to work there.

If the congressman had the Torah mounted on his door, or hanging above it, similar to the Ten Commandments in a courtroom I can see your point. But to me a mezuzah is like a Christian wearing a cross. You wouldn't tell a congressman not to wear a crucifix during the day right?

Jeff disagrees with you and he's a Red Sea pedestrian and proud of it! (As well as the Jewish equivalent of a doormat.) Read his post above.

Yerdaddy, I disagree with you when you said you could never be elected to office because you are an atheist. There was a Congressman elected from Minnesota (Keith Ellison D) who is Muslim and swore his oath to the Constitution on a copy of the Koran, not the Bible.

And did so to the howells of horror by social conservatives like Dennis Prager. So I assert to you that you could be elected, if someone who is a member of the most hated religion in America can do it. I hate saying it, but it's true. Too many Americans can't distinguish between a Muslim and a terrorist, and even in the workplace, Muslims get a raw deal, which is unfortunate. But it emphasizes my point that anyone can make it to office. Look at Barney Frank, who has served in Congress openly gay for as long as I can remember. Bernie Sanders is a Socialist, and is in Congress.

Pew Research poll: (http://www.pollingreport.com/politics.htm) would you be more likely or less likely to support a candidate for president who [see below], or wouldn’t this matter to you?

Is Muslim - more likely = 3%; less likely = 45%; wouldn't matter = 49%

Does not believe in God - more likely = 3%; less likely = 61%; wouldn't matter = 34%

More hated than Muslims. What does that say about religion in American politics? You're kidding yourself if you trust the benevolence of religious leaders who would be empowered if we do tear down that wall of separation between religion and government.

[EliSnow]

But they weren't hypocrites. Doing what they did is exactly what they wanted, putting into practice the intentions of their words.




It didn't say "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; except in government." It said what they meant. There is to be no prohibition of religious expression.

I agree with Yerdaddy and others for the same reasons that they have been saying, but let me also throw this out there. When people take public office, they do agree to give up/restrict certain of their rights in order to function as public servants. For instance, as a private citizen I can own stock in whatever company or take gifts from whomever. If the government were to take away such things from me, they would be subject to the Due Process clause and possibly eminent domain under the Constitution.

But a public official, such as Mayor Bloomberg, may have to divest ownership of property in businesses, stock holdings etc., resign from leadership positions, in order to act as a public official without any bias. And you know his ability to accept gifts is much more restricted than mine.

Same thing here, or in any case where a government official's ability to expouse his/her faith may be curtailed while that official is working in an official capacity or is at work. It's done so that the government is not giving the impression that they are favoriing one religion or another.

[scottinnj]

Jeff disagrees with you and he's a Red Sea pedestrian and proud of it!
:clap: I gotta remember that one.



Pew Research poll: (http://www.pollingreport.com/politics.htm) would you be more likely or less likely to support a candidate for president who [see below], or wouldn’t this matter to you?

Does not believe in God - more likely = 3%; less likely = 61%; wouldn't matter = 34%



That's too bad. A lot of dummies who are focused on abortion rights do not make me feel good. If you're an atheist who will concentrate on killing bad guys and keeping my kids safe will get you my vote over a guy who wants to keep abortion clinic protestor's rights intact. Even though I'm pro-life, I think I have to be ALIVE first to exercise my rights.

It's purely a hypothetical, but that is what I would do in that scenario.