Satanic Temple Unveils Baphomet Statue For Oklahoma

[Salokin]

I totally want one, preferably sans-children, just because it looks awesome.

 

[AgedGrunt]

Out of curiosity, how comfortable would you be with an exclusive religious display outside the government building if that display was Islamic? Or scientologist? How about if this was the case for many government buildings, and not just one random one?

Wouldn't be ok with an exclusive religious display; never have been. It's irrelevant when that's not what we're discussing here. I'm for recognition of religions through display or even a (for lack of a better term) non-invasive prayers at a town council meeting.

Speaking of prayer: [http://www.wtop.com/319/3616345/High-court-ruling-favors-prayer-at-council-meeting]

Snippet from the article: "The two residents filed suit and a trial court ruled in the town's favor, finding that the town did not intentionally exclude non-Christians. It also said that the content of the prayer was not an issue because there was no desire to proselytize or demean other faiths."

The bold pretty much sums up how my barometer on displays and prayer works. If it's not demeaning or proselytizing, I don't see any argument that an establishment is taking place. It seems more like people think existence is establishment, and for there to be displays or prayer in the "State's" domain is to say things like God or Satan actually exist, and that's the violation they see.

The argument that religious displays are establishments of religion, when involved in some way with the government, is far from thin. If it was, the Supreme Court wouldn't be using it as its jurisprudence for so damn long.

The Supreme Court often weighs its authority and isn't shy of refusing to hear cases, typically reasoning that said arguments are best left for lower courts or legislatures to hammer out. In sum, they do a lot of picking and choosing what they have an authority on and what they don't, and in so they're far from an infallible source of Constitutional authority (they're simply the highest ruling one).

Even so, most of the belligerence over displays has come from lower courts and civil suits, but even so a cursory glance of legal precedence doesn't appear hostile to religious display. Those lawsuits from sensitivity-trained citizens who can't stand them sure do, though.

Providing land, maintenance, and anything beyond general protections (fire/police) are all state support of religion and generally understood as establishing them. And that's not even mentioning the fact that this is a monument that is right the fuck in front of the legislature, which sends a very particular message if you're not willfully trying to ignore it.

Man, I'd hate to see your face when you read [http://chaplain.house.gov/] about chaplains. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_chaplain] The horror of providing public employees with access to actual, religious services!

But we're here drawing the line at a piece of rock on a Statehouse lawn. No, that's going too far.

I don't necessarily take a literal interpretation of the Constitution, but I do like to look at the words there and not invent the shit out of what it actually says. I go through this often with the 2nd amendment, it's not that different with these wild ideas about what the 1st actually says.

 

[Animyr]

Wouldn't be ok with an exclusive religious display; never have been.

Okay, sure. But what if one religion dominates society and politics and thus dominates religious expression to the point that it might as well have exclusive display rights on government property (obviously private or religious property is not the issue here), even if it doesn't explicitly forbid anyone else? Does that strike you as problematic, or permissible? Or both?

If it's not demeaning or proselytizing, I don't see any argument that an establishment is taking place. It seems more like people think existence is establishment, and for there to be displays or prayer in the "State's" domain is to say things like God or Satan actually exist, and that's the violation they see.

The government represents and works for the entire American people, of all creeds and religions. A government council that gives a christian prayer, even an innocuous one, has just elevated one religion above all others. After all, none of the other religions got a prayer. None of the other religions were honored, or got a public display of respect and faith from government officials (which even an innocent prayer would give), which sounds an awful lot like an endorsement to me. And if government officials are allowed to endorse one religion and not others while exercising their government duties (obviously they can endorse whatever they want in private, or "off the clock" so to speak), well, I fail to see how that isn't unequal treatment.

Now would you look at all the people that suddenly love this idea of religious display? Anyone who signs on to this satanist monument needs to immediately forfeit any argument for separation.

So far as I can see, the basic reasoning is this. The people who support monuments like these (atheists, etc) don't actually want any sort of endorsement of religion on public property. But so long as they are allowed, they intend to demonstrate why this rule is a bad idea. The fact of the matter is that many Christians (as would any dominant religion in their place, I'd imagine) pay lip service to the idea of freedom of expression while assuming that since most people are Christian, they won't have to actually accommodate anyone else. Putting statues like these up is a way of calling the bluff, publicly reminding Christians that other viewpoints exist and aren't afraid to hide it (thus making it harder for the christian majority to slide into christian nationalism, which definitely leads to unfair religious treatment), and maybe, just maybe, demonstrating to them that this whole religious monuments on government property thing is a dumb idea, by giving Christians an idea of what the rest of us feel when we see the ten commandments on a courthouse or something.

And even if such measures don't convince anyone to forbid religious expression on government property, if the government is going to give endorsements of religion like this, they might as well endorse them all equally, so encouraging non-christian monuments is the next best thing anyway.

Full disclosure: In case it wasn't clear alredya, I personally find this reasoning compelling.

 

[AgedGrunt]

/s

Separation generally hasn't been about neutralizing a religious climate brought on by a display or prayer, it's been about blocking them, so I'm not sure what you were trying to prove by suggesting that the thing to do is make sure things don't get "too" religious. It's pretty much been the line that any religion in the public square is too much religion, and that it's harmful and offensive.

And you continue to think the Supreme Court has done anything but write its own opinions. They're not parish priests to be listened to with sepulchral awe, "The Constitution says..." To be sure, they're political appointees with political leanings, and it's no surprise that recent polls are suggesting that the public thinks the current Court is too political for its own good.

In other words, their rulings are binding but they're not a reliable source of Constitutional scholarship.

The government represents and works for the entire American people, of all creeds and religions.

Good, then you should have no problem with it recognizing faiths in expressions devoid of material that infringes on or demeans people or other religions. That is the golden rule, correct? Your freedom is fine until it infringes on mine? That doesn't mean you have freedom from seeing or hearing others' freedoms.

In that town council meeting case there actually was mention of hosting other prayer services (even when, in the area, there weren't even respective places of worship), but the take-away is a ruling for neutrality, a compromise to make it fair and just while still allowing religious recognition. That's something everyone should be able to get behind. It's very clear who is working for fairness and equality when you look at who is willing to compromise.

And for the record I never have nor will defend a display of the Ten Commandments.

 

[AgedGrunt]

In other words, their rulings are binding but they're not a reliable source of Constitutional scholarship.

But you, of course, are.

I have no illusions that the opinions given by justices are merely constitutional justifications for ruling in a way that resulted in something they liked. That said, the Constitution is worded vaguely and open to gross interpretations, and the Supreme Court is the body tasked with interpreting it, not you, nor me, nor some idiotic politician who thinks he can get away with an establishment of religion just because he claims it's not religious. And, even if they're biased and hand down stupid rulings that go against reason and every precedent they've ever had, I'll take that over holding society to the exact wordings of a bunch of rich, bigoted, white men from centuries ago.

Never implied I was a source of anything. I just don't lean on a court of appointees in black robes to support my arguments. I sure don't get my principles or rights from judges. And I would emphasize that point about gross interpretations. Abortion comes to mind.

You also appear to be racist on top of your ignorance of the founding document. I'll refer you to the 10th amendment and the process of amending the US Constitution. It's a thing we don't do anymore because some people decided to let the government decide our rights.

This is all cute but the simple questions remain for anyone interested: Are you offended by certain religious displays or all of them? Are you willing to compromise on what you believe and work with society or do you just want things to go your way?

I think it's just as fair to point to the intolerance of an uncompromising secular point of view with an uncompromising religious one.

 

[Animyr]

you should have no problem with it recognizing faiths in expressions devoid of material that infringes on or demeans people or other religions.

The whole point in my last post was that even innocent prayer is problematic. I think we're just talking past each other here.

It's very clear who is working for fairness and equality when you look at who is willing to compromise.

So basically, you're saying that since all religions have the same legal rights to prayer at government meetings or what have you, it's truly fair and equal?

I have some objections to that, but I want to make sure that's what you mean first.

And for the record I never have nor will defend a display of the Ten Commandments.

Out of curiosity, why not? What distinguishes putting religious monuments in government and putting religious prayer in government?

 

[Therumancer]

[
That's code for "I have no proof but I don't want to admit that I'm wrong." If you're gonna make a claim, you'd best present evidence for it. That's how making an argument works.

.

No, it's not code for anything. It means that I am not going to spend hours trying to prove something easily verified for the sake of an internet discussion. Basically if your involved in an argument on things this basic then nothing I show you is going to matter anyway, you need to go out there, look at the facts with an open mind, and see the truth. I do not debate the absurd. When something is fairly obscure or needs reinforcement I'll usually oblige.

For example, I doubt you even bothered to look up Thomas Jefferson's connections to the freemasons (membership is questioned, but was a close associate, and is claimed by many chapters), which was the initial point. It's such a matter of public record that if you need someone like me to "prove" something that basic you don't even belong in a discussion about American history, the intent of the constitution, or how it was practiced by the founding fathers.

It's sort of like another argument I was in where I had someone who was a "constitutional scholar" on these very forums tried to argue that the original colonists started out as a commune without any defined leadership. I felt no real need to explain who John Carver or William Bradford were. This isn't exactly the same, but it's similar.

That said I'm not even sure what your trying to argue any more, except trying to argue for the sake of doing so. Your opinion is fairly reasonable overall, that there should be no religious iconography in state buildings. I mostly question it's practicality. What's more you seem to miss the entire point that this argument exists because it was legal for "The Ten Commandments" to be shown in Oklahoma state buildings, there is no doubt about this according to state law because it's right there. The entire debate here is about whether they can push an argument that freedom of religion allows them to demand a state of Baphomet. The whole "nothing religious should be depicted" side isn't even involved in this conflict right now because obviously Oklahoma has work arounds already that allowed The Ten Commandments. I told you why this likely was, and you can kick and scream about the likely standard, but it's right there. I've merely been saying that I don't think they can justify Baphomet using the usual loopholes a lot of states use, which are based on "depictions of order" or rules declaring something "historic", such as a case where a Cathedral might have also doubled as the Town Hall (sharing space in olden days due to only being able to support more than one building), or cases where say a church might have sold buildings to the government, or whatever else. In such cases it might actually be illegal to remove the religious iconography in order to preserve the historic sites as close to how they had been for centuries to begin with.

Primarily, I'm guessing you don't like the fact that I believe state rights trump federal guidelines... and no, you won't win that one with me. Indeed the whole state vs. federal argument, and how The Constitution is used is one of the most divisive things in the country and is actually the biggest line between Republicans and Democrats.

 

[AgedGrunt]

The whole point in my last post was that even innocent prayer is problematic.

I just don't see this argument holding water when a neutrally-conceived prayer neither infringes upon individual rights nor establishes a religion. It seems to be a problem for people who just don't want to listen to them, and I think there was even a statement from a justice in that link that if people didn't they could go out in the hallway and have their freedom from religion there, away from the rest of civil society. That's not meant to be derogatory, I just think people need to mature and co-exist rather than shape society into their own ideal. That's true for both theists and non-theists.

So basically, you're saying that since all religions have the same legal rights to prayer at government meetings or what have you, it's truly fair and equal?

I think working out compromises such as neutral prayer and displays while being open to all faiths is the kind of work society should be doing rather than getting into bitter legal battles and juvenile schemes. Equality and fairness are subjective.

Out of curiosity, why not? What distinguishes putting religious monuments in government and putting religious prayer in government?

I think both can exist if they're arguable neutral. The Ten Commandments is a list of rules to live by and does suggest an establishment. It's preaching. Displays and prayers don't have to preach.

 

[Animyr]

a neutrally-conceived prayer

Could you define that? And is that the only prayer you find acceptable?

I think working out compromises such as neutral prayer and displays while being open to all faiths is the kind of work society should be doing rather than getting into bitter legal battles and juvenile schemes. Equality and fairness are subjective.

So you support this course of action not because it's fair or equal (which it may or may not be; not saying you made a statement about that either way) but because it satisfies the largest amount of people and minimizes dispute?

 

[AgedGrunt]

Could you define that? And is that the only prayer you find acceptable?

It can only be my interpretation. Generally I believe it's a test of advocacy and tolerance. Advocating for people to follow one religion or appearing intolerant toward other beliefs would be violating neutrality. Because neutrality is to neither establish nor demean, that's what I accept. Maybe you can answer why you would still find this "problematic" for society.

So you support this course of action not because it's fair or equal (which it may or may not be; not saying you made a statement about that either way) but because it satisfies the largest amount of people and minimizes dispute?

I'm saying it's impossible to make anything truly fair or equal since a minority will always be offended no matter what course is taken. Fairness is often debated by perception, which is misguided.

My goal isn't about satisfying people and minimizing dispute, it's to create a climate of tolerance and respect for each other. That can't happen with a doctrine of segregation.

 

[Animyr]

It can only be my interpretation.

That was all I was asking for.

It can only be my interpretation.
Advocating for people to follow one religion or appearing intolerant toward other beliefs would be violating neutrality. Because neutrality is to neither establish nor demean, that's what I accept.

Okay. For a second I thought you were saying that only nondenominational prayer is acceptable. So for the record, you're saying that denominational prayer that is not aggressive or openly proselytizing is acceptable?

Maybe you can answer why you would still find this "problematic" for society.

I will when I'm sure exactly what it is I'm objecting too. Unless you'd prefer that I not care about that?

My goal isn't about satisfying people and minimizing dispute, it's to create a climate of tolerance and respect for each other.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the latter is worth pursuit primarily because it leads to the former? I'm still not sure how my assessment of your position is inaccurate.

So as far as I can tell, this is your position: since somebody is going to be offended either way, we might as well avoid offending (and satisfy the expressive desires and freedoms of) the most amount of people, and since most people are religious, on this issue they should have right of way over secularists and the non-religious, provided that the prayer is sufficiently inoffensive/tolerant and becoming of a multicultural democratic society. Is this fair to say?

 

[AgedGrunt]

For a second I thought you were saying that only nondenominational prayer is acceptable. So for the record, you're saying that denominational prayer that is not aggressive or openly proselytizing is acceptable?

Yes.

I will when I'm sure exactly what it is I'm objecting too. Unless you'd prefer that I not care about that?

The whole point in my last post was that even innocent prayer is problematic.

I don't know what you're doing, but you seem to have a lot of questions for me about my clear positions for someone that has something to explain.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the latter is worth pursuit primarily because it leads to the former? I'm still not sure how my assessment of your position is inaccurate.

So as far as I can tell, this is your position: since somebody is going to be offended either way, we might as well avoid offending (and satisfy the expressive desires and freedoms of) the most amount of people, and since most people are religious, on this issue they should have right of way over secularists and the non-religious, provided that the prayer is sufficiently inoffensive/tolerant and becoming of a multicultural democratic society. Is this fair to say?

At this point I'd just like someone to explain how they can oppose what I've put forward without either being phobic of religion or plainly bigoted, because there's nothing inherently harmful or oppressive about it. It's time for you to explain your position.

 

[Animyr]

I don't know what you're doing

I?m asking questions.

I don?t mean to be snarky, by I?m practically letting you have the floor here. I?m giving you the chance to outline your reasoning, without interruptions or distractions from me, and possibly nip this argument in the bud. What if I find your reasoning compelling? And if not, I?ll have enough information to make a reasoned response to your position and avoid/minimize misunderstanding you, misrepresenting you or talking past you, which just wastes time. I fail to see how I am acting improperly here. I?m not sure what you think I?m doing, but I hope this makes it clear that my intentions are not dishonest, and that my questions have a constructive purpose.

you seem to have a lot of questions for me about my clear positions

What you believe is clear. Why you believe it, a bit less so. I think it?s because you think it is the most socially expedient and (in terms of freedom of expression) liberating position is the best one, but you said that wasn't it, so now I?m not sure, and I think I made that clear to you, and I?d rather not write a long post oriented around countering reasoning that you don?t subscribe to. Nor would you, I?m sure. But you seem to have lost interest in helping me understand, which seems like the entirely wrong way to go about persuasion.

someone that has something to explain.

And I would be doing that right now if you hadn't refused to answer some very simple questions about your position and motivations for holding it.

If you truly do not wish to answer any more questions, then I?ll respect your wishes and go into my own position on this, as requested. But I?d really appreciate it if you at least responded to the questions at the end of my last post. Hell, that?s my counterargument taking shape right in front of you. I?m giving you the chance to kill it right here.

 

[AgedGrunt]

And I would be doing that right now if you hadn't refused to answer some very simple questions about your position and motivations for holding it.

I actually have answered your questions.

You were mistaken about denominational and nondenominational prayer (for some strange reason, this was never discussed before). I said yes, denominational prayer = acceptable.

You asked what it was you had objected to and I quoted you: innocent prayer.

You asked if I would be ok with an exclusive religious display and I said no, and I've repeatedly outlined my position as being open to displays and prayer so long as they're neutral, which I've also gone on to explain with my own opinion.

My goal isn't about satisfying people and minimizing dispute, it's to create a climate of tolerance and respect for each other.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the latter is worth pursuit primarily because it leads to the former?

It's worth pursuing tolerance and respect for people because that makes a healthy society. I do believe tolerance is a precursor to respect, which is why recognition (through displays/prayer) should be tolerated in the "State" and why I believe separation is a doctrine of intolerance that only divides and creates conflict.

Everyone understands religion and politics are massively controversial topics; do you ever ask yourself why that is? It's unlikely it's because people have too much tolerance for different beliefs.

So as far as I can tell, this is your position: since somebody is going to be offended either way, we might as well avoid offending (and satisfy the expressive desires and freedoms of) the most amount of people, and since most people are religious, on this issue they should have right of way over secularists and the non-religious, provided that the prayer is sufficiently inoffensive/tolerant and becoming of a multicultural democratic society. Is this fair to say?

No, that's not fair to say. I'm not treating the conflict by minimizing the number of offended people, like a multicultural or politically correct person would do. This is about freedom, culture and government being a representation of its people. To not tolerate any dosage of religious recognition in the "State" is to pretend there are no religious people and reflects a position of intolerance.

 

[Animyr]

You were mistaken about denominational and nondenominational prayer (for some strange reason, this was never discussed before).

You said neutrally-conceived prayer, which implied that it was a prayer designed by all parties to satisfy all parties, ie nondenominational. I wanted to make sure about that, because denominational and nondenominational prayer are different beasts, and that difference would change the nature of the debate substantially.

And like I said, I understood what policies you are supporting when you listed them the first time. I was not clear WHY you advocated them, what social purpose you thought those policies would fulfill, and why the reasons you advocated them mattered the most to you. Ironically, I thought I'd made THAT pretty clear, but I guess not.

At any rate, you've cleared up most of my confusion, so thanks for the clarification. My full response is forthcoming.

 

[Animyr]

snip

Let me start by saying that my intention is not to prove I?m right. Would be nice, but I realize that arguments like these rarely end with conversion. I merely wish to show that there are many reasons to oppose or at least disapprove of the ruling aside from petulance and paranoia, as you implied earlier.

I?m going to lay out the principles of my position point by point;

Firstly, free religious access in government favors Christianity. Consider this analogy?-some adventurers are in a race to the North Pole, and all are issued the same gear and vehicles. One of them, a rich man with vastly superior gear, lobbies for this standardization to be overturned, and for the racers to be allowed to use their own gear. Even if all participants are equally free to use their own gear, are things made fair by this ?freedom?? Quite the contrary; it effectively forces the poor adventurers out of the running in all but name.

So it is here. In this country Christianity?s size, funding, political clout and political ambition outstrips everyone else by a massive margin. Hell, one of our two political parties is pretty dedicated to Christian sectarian and nationalist interests. Any rule that allows religion in government, be it in a significant or an insignificant capacity (the latter arguably being what this prayer issue is), effectively favors Christianity above all others, since they?re in by far the best position to leverage such freedom. Since this ruling allows for government prayers, we?ll be seeing a deluge of Christian prayer happily dominating that kind of discourse. Even if it is true that prayer is a harmless gesture, the government will inevitably be giving such gestures to Christianity far more than any other faith. This is religious favoritism in practice, if not intent.

Secondly, even if the type of prayer allowed was inconsequential (and thus, you might argue, it?s not a big deal if Christians are favored), the ruling opens up plenty of room for abuse. As I recall, the supreme court supported the ruling in part because they didn't believe that, but it?s only been a week and we?re already seeing Christian nationalists pouncing all over it. It?s a lot harder to tell what kind of prayer is acceptable now. Like it or not, whether it was meant to or not, this ruling has clearly advanced the interests of religious partisans. This alone makes me disapprove of the ruling, even if I were to accept that the ruling itself was valid and sensible.

Thirdly, I deny your assertion that prayer must be demeaning or proselytizing for it to establish religion.

First example: official denominational prayer. That qualifies as religious ritual, and so far as I can tell, the government performing denominational religious ritual is a clear violation of separation of church and state.

Second example: prayer with any form of praise? and so far as I can tell, even humble, improvised prayers involve some sort of praise or adulation to a god. Whether one is denigrating the religions of others or singling one?s own god out for praise, one faith is still being set above all others either way. Non-aggressive endorsement is still endorsement. Combine this with a fact that such displays will be mostly Christian and we have a problem.

Fourth, I feel a ban on government prayer does not conflict with or meaningfully hinder the people?s right to religious recognition from their government, as you allege. Lawmakers are free to be openly religious and to politically act in accordance to their beliefs. And as this country has freedom of religion, citizens of course have the right to the government?s acceptance of their beliefs, both implicitly through fair policy, and explicitly through statement. They do/ought not, however, have the right to demand the government explicitly PRAISE their faith or participate in their rituals, no matter how religious either the general population or the lawmaking bodies are.

This in no way forbids religions from receiving endorsement or praise but the public government, in which all religions are equal, should not be the venue for such sentiments. Nor does this stop Christianity from being the majority religion and thus the defining one in our society. But that does not give it the right to a Christian-defined government. Remember, a government that is Christian leaning but accepting of other faiths is still not an acceptable position for a secular government to take, no matter how benevolent Christianity's domination may be.

Fifth, prayer symbolically and implicitly marginalizes non-believing lawmakers. Lawmakers performing an action, regardless of offensiveness, that forces their fellows to either undergo a religious conversion or be excluded from the group sends an unspoken message to those sitting out that they are, in fact, outsiders because of their religious beliefs. Even if this message was unintentional, it is still highly questionable to, in the government sphere, where all religions are ostensibly included, engage in activities that exclude all other religions. Again, there are plenty of venues for exclusionary activities, and the government should defend them, but it itself as a servant of all people should not be one.

Sixth, there is no viable way to both allow free religious expression from the government and have the government praise all religions equally. What could we do? Use affirmative action to force minority religions into government? Compel Christians to honor all other religions? I fail to see any solution to this that isn't impractical or immoral. Yet as noted, letting everyone praise their own god just means Christianity gets to dominate government sentiment on religion.

Seventh, there?s a better solution in terms of fairness and constitutionality. Give everyone the same vehicle on their race to the North Pole, and bar all religions from getting government fist-bumps equally. Evangelicals will get just as many prayers from government officials as pagans do--zero. I agree with you that perfect equality is impossible to achieve at the end of the day, and I am not claiming that this option is necessarily perfect. But I think it?s clearly the most equal and elegant option, and certainly superior to an option that?s so wide open to abuse or corruption, while doing no damage to substance to freedom of religion, and indeed actively hlepn preventing a tyranny of the majority.

Finally, if you think that this would just be trading religious favoritism for secular favoritism, I deny that the two are equivalent in nature (talking generally here, not specifically in regard to the subject of prayer). The core problem with religion in government is that it causes a division in loyalty, allowing lawmakers to use their power to serve their god and not their people (which is the purpose of our government, even if all of it's people were loyal to the same god). The non-religious, by their very nature, have no division of loyalty (in this situation) because they have no god to split their loyalties between (or in the case of religious secularists, do not wish to). Thus, favoring secularists in this case does not risk compromising the government?s purpose, or if it does, not nearly so much as favoring the religious would.

I brushed over some points to make things as concise as possible, but I hope this at least helps you understand the case and the logic against the ruling a bit better, and demonstrate that bigotry is not required. To the contrary I think separation of church and state, including on the subject of prayer, defends against bigots better then the course of action you support.

 

[AgedGrunt]

@Animyr

Spoiler: Part 1

Firstly, free religious access in government favors Christianity.

You're presuming in this point, and I'll refer you back to the link I posted. The town council recognized other religions even when the town was so Christian these other religions didn't have places of worship. They were still allowed representation in their town government.

Secondly... the ruling opens up plenty of room for abuse.

That's inevitable with basically anything in government. I'll answer this how I would any argument about regulation: it demands good judgment. If there's a dispute, we have courts.

Thirdly, I deny your assertion that prayer must be demeaning or proselytizing for it to establish religion.

I don't know whether actual public servants are the ones giving prayer, but we can't debate without content. Even so, if a town is recognizing different faiths with different prayers, it's not establishing. You can think of it as addressing the respective people: Christian prayer for the Christians, Jewish for Jews, Hindu etc. Acknowledgement != establishment.

Fourth, I feel a ban on government prayer does not conflict with or meaningfully hinder the people's right to religious recognition from their government

I agree that it doesn't technically hinder or infringe on rights, but I was very clear when I said that outright bans are in keeping with historic segregation society has worked to dissolve; they contribute to a climate of aversion and intolerance, which is unhealthy for society.

Fifth, prayer symbolically and implicitly marginalizes non-believing lawmakers. Lawmakers performing an action, regardless of offensiveness, that forces their fellows to either undergo a religious conversion or be excluded from the group sends an unspoken message to those sitting out that they are, in fact, outsiders because of their religious beliefs. Even if this message was unintentional, it is still highly questionable to, in the government sphere, where all religions are ostensibly included, engage in activities that exclude all other religions. Again, there are plenty of venues for exclusionary activities, and the government should defend them, but it itself as a servant of all people should not be one.

You've lost me here. I've explicitly stressed non-proselytizing, non-demeaning, neutrally-conceived prayer. So long as we can have something resembling that, whatever symbolic or implicit meanings come out of that are peoples' perceptions, and we can't regulate based on what people think things mean. Not sure what else to say.

Spoiler: Part 2

there is no viable way to both allow free religious expression from the government and have the government praise all religions equally.

I don't think it's about praise or equality, I think it's about representation. If not a single person in a room is Jewish, it seems pointless to hold a Jewish prayer at a meeting. This is generally solved with a form of democracy.

there's a better solution in terms of fairness and constitutionality. Give everyone the same vehicle on their race to the North Pole, and bar all religions from getting government fist-bumps equally. Evangelicals will get just as many prayers from government officials as pagans do--zero.

We're talking about neutrally-conceived prayer/displays and recognition of religions (the people) in their own government. You're presuming a Christian majority rule, therefore majority privilege, oppression, corruption and abuse will follow. Given the context, that's nonsense.

The core problem with religion in government is that it causes a division in loyalty, allowing lawmakers to use their power to serve their god and not their people

There's neither loyalty nor favoritism through religious recognition. Not sure where you are getting any of this from a position of neutrality, but it reeks of paranoia.

To the contrary I think separation of church and state, including on the subject of prayer, defends against bigots better then the course of action you support.

Quite the contrary, indeed. I think separation of church and state has been taken by many people as a legal tool, if not justification for their bigotry and intolerance. Your continuance of presumptions against Christians in many of your points are extreme.

I found most of your opposition an argument that Christians will take over without separation, and quite frankly it reminds me of anti-Semitic propaganda.

 

[Animyr]

I have numerous issues with your post, but I?m just going to focus on the big ones for now. The ones that threaten to derail this argument entirely.

You can think of it as addressing the respective people: Christian prayer for the Christians, Jewish for Jews, Hindu etc.

I just finished explaining the numerous problems with that exact system, at length. I?m sorry, but the fact that you?re presenting one of the very issues in contention as a solution, as well as the fact that you think I needed it explained to me, tells me that you really don?t understand what I?m talking about. Be it my fault or yours. Or if you do understand, you have an awfully counter-intuitive way of showing it.

Acknowledgement != establishment. There's neither loyalty nor favoritism through religious recognition.

Whether or not prayer is in fact just acknowledgment, or something more, is precisely the issue in contention. Again. You?re not even beating up a strawman here, because at least someone who strawmans their opponent admits their opponent made an argument. You?re just restating your conclusion and treating it as proof you?re right, which is both circular and pretends I made no rebuttal. You do this several times, actually.

Your one method of actually demonstrating that prayer cannot possibly equal establishment or be unfair, so far as I can see, is this talking point;

The town council recognized other religions even when the town was so Christian these other religions didn't have places of worship. They were still allowed representation in their town government.

But this is ALSO in contention--not what the town council did, but whether or not that entails that prayer is not endorsement. I argued that legal equality of opportunity in religious expression does NOT make establishment of religion impossible. I?ve explained this at least twice, because it?s a major point. I even gave an example with the polar race. Even if you still disagreed, you should have at least been aware I made the argument by now! But again you just take its falsity for granted and go on your merry way.

I agree that it doesn't technically hinder or infringe on rights, but outright bans are in keeping with historic segregation society has worked to dissolve; they contribute to a climate of aversion and intolerance, which is unhealthy for society.

I argued that the ruling cannot be intolerant because it does not infringe upon rights, and you all but agreed to the second part! But, you added, it?s still intolerant because?well, I?m not sure. You made a vague statement about how we should work to reduce segregation. What could you mean by this? Surely not all segregation. We segregate criminals from the population, for instance. I assume you mean that we should oppose the ban because the segregation is UNJUST (and therefore intolerant)---but whether that?s true is the exact issue we've been debating this entire time. I'm starting notice a pattern here.

So the fact that the ban is unjust proves it is?unjust? I don?t think I?m the one with problems with assumptions in my argument here. That, or you?re being really, really vague and just expecting me to ?get? it.

You're presuming a Christian majority rule, therefore majority privilege, oppression, corruption and abuse will follow. That's nonsense (and) reeks of paranoia and anti-Semitic propaganda.

I?ve a more inquisitive response here: are you?re saying it?s nonsense because Christians would never abuse their majority rule, or because they have no majority rule, or because majority rule could not lead to such things? Or a combination? Do you deny that a Christian nationalist movement exists and also has substantial political clout? Whichever one, you seem to just be asserting it as fact, yet again. Do you think that such ideas are self-evident that it is permissible for you to assume them to be true until I prove otherwise? You certainly seem to think that even suggesting them implied bad things about my character (thanks for that, by the way.)

And also, I thought I made it clear that I would still oppose the ruling even if majority privilege didn't lead to abuse or corruption. So I?m presuming nothing.

In summary: is my writing really that confusing? You certainly appear to be confused. Please read carefully, and don?t hesitate to ask for clarification.

At any rate, so far as I can tell, you're just assuming you're right and I?m wrong right out the gate and arguing from there. Why bother debating if you?re not even going to engage your opponent?s argument? Until that changes, or you can explain to me how your position is not one giant tautology and I?ve just got it all wrong, I don?t see this discussion going much further.

Here's some other questions. I don?t really need an answer except for the last one, but at least consider what your position is;
What do you think the function of the wall between church and state ought to be?

Why is it the government?s duty to give religious addresses? Certainty it is its duty to protect other?s right to give religious addresses, but why the government itself?

What, exactly, is ?recognition?? I think we really need to get our terms straight at this point, if we are going to proceed.

 

[AgedGrunt]

You can think of it as addressing the respective people: Christian prayer for the Christians, Jewish for Jews, Hindu etc.

Analogy time. Classroom announcements: student news, clubs, athletics, honor society... Are you really so offended to listen to things that just don't apply to you? Is this harmful to everyone because some students might not be affiliated with any of the above things?

I argued that legal equality of opportunity in religious expression does NOT make establishment of religion impossible.

I'm not saying it's impossible, that's just an absurd reason to ban any religious expression or recognition in government. You appear to allege that an oppressive Christian establishment is a likely outcome without a basis.

So the fact that the ban is unjust proves it is unjust? I don't think I'm the one with problems with assumptions in my argument here. That, or you're being really, really vague and just expecting me to "get" it.

I don't need proof to allege a ban is unjust, I only need common sense. There's great divide in society because of intolerance, and while no one should have to walk a mile in everyone's shoes, wear their clothes and join them in prayer, the least we can do is recognize, tolerate and learn to respect each other. It's sensible to allow well-meaning, neutral prayer and displays because they don't impose harm or infringe upon anyone's rights. To ban them is to take offense to their existence, and I find that toxic to a society's ecosystem.

To be blunt, we should not care that people are offended by others for who or what they are, we should throw out their logic that says their offense should be reflected in law.

are you're saying it's nonsense because Christians would never abuse their majority rule, or because they have no majority rule, or because majority rule could not lead to such things? Or a combination? Do you deny that a Christian nationalist movement exists and also has substantial political clout? Whichever one, you seem to just be asserting it as fact, yet again. Do you think that such ideas are self-evident that it is permissible for you to assume them to be true until I prove otherwise? You certainly seem to think that even suggesting them implied bad things about my character

I do believe suggesting these things has negative implications for your character, and if you don't want a response that indicts you for them then I suggest you stray from extreme prejudice.

Your condescension isn't helping, either, and in reaching the line that I'm no longer "engaging" (as if I haven't built this up by answering several of your posts so you can project everything onto me at once) I'm cutting this off here. I'm not even a Christian and the bigotry, phobia and downright conspiratorial contempt too many people here have is as despicable as it is a waste of time to debate.

 

[Animyr]

Ending this is fine by me. I'd like to give some closing comments though.

Analogy time. Classroom announcements: student news, clubs, athletics, honor society... Are you really so offended to listen to things that just don't apply to you? To ban them is to take offense to their existence

I'm not saying it's impossible, that's just an absurd reason to ban any religious expression or recognition in government.

Both of these quotes are disingenuous misrepresentations of my position (if I opposed prayer for its mere ?otherness? to me I would oppose Churchbells and Mosque criers).I?ve gone to great lengths to set you straight and now I?m honestly starting to suspect that you?re doing it on purpose.

On the first one, the classroom analogy comes nowhere close to representing the situation with religion (you think a prayer asking for God?s mercy is no substantially different in content than announcing a club meeting at 3:30? Truly?) either. At any rate, you're just restating your own position in different ways, as if I don?t "get" it. Sorry, but I got it some time ago (remember those questions?)

On the second, that wasn't meant as a reason for the ban. You brought up the subject of freedom of opportunity to show that my concerns establishment were impossible. I said you were assuming that without basis. You just admitted I was right, so you cannot dismiss my concerns with appeals to that fact. That is all that was about.

You appear to allege that an oppressive Christian establishment is a likely outcome without a basis.

It?s more accurate to say that I don?t entirely disregard it as impossible, as you seem to do, and without basis oddly enough. With any sort of government imbalance in power(including the power of the majority, as is the case with Christianity here) oppression is an inherent risk, even if it?s unlikely in practical terms. Our government was deliberately structured to regulate this advantage. To borrow a page from you, I think the ruling fosters a climate of government insulation, implying it?s by the majority (Christians, in this example) for the same, dedicated to the same, that is contrary to this regulation. How else can the government dedicating its work to the Christian god far more than any other be seen? And how does that not foster intolerance, even if in abstract? Even a mild imbalance (as this issue of prayer arguably is) is worth righting.

In summary, my concern about Christianity stems not from the fact that they're Christian but from the fact that they're a powerful majority. I also notice that you try to criticize me for making my argument both too long and too short.

There's great divide in society because of intolerance,

Only now am I starting to suspect that you think religion is being systematically, not just incidentally, persecuted in this country, one of the most fiercely religious countries in the first world. If that's so, you're really not the one to be throwing around accusations of paranoia, or entitlement.

It's sensible to allow well-meaning, neutral prayer and displays because they don't impose harm or infringe upon anyone's rights.

The love of the script is strong with this one.

recognize, tolerate and learn to respect each other.

I agree, and I?m still waiting for you to show that government prayer is required for that. And didn't you admit that it really wasn't, when you get down to actual rights and liberties? You know, the social basis on which toleration is built?

suggesting these things has negative implications for your character, and if you don't want a response that indicts you for them then I suggest you stray from extreme prejudice.

Since your representation of my position strays so far from the real thing, I suspect you are set on indicting me regardless. Also;

Your condescension isn't helping, either

I believe your reasoning is pretty weak, and if you don't want a response that indicts you for that I suggest you stray from circular reasoning and blind assertions. See? Two can play this game.

Also, considering you're the one who claimed that anyone who opposes you MUST be insane or immature and then took requests to demonstrate that as an indication of both (and then refused to do so, even though it should be easy), I could say the same of you. I restrained the urge to point that out to gave you the chance to both understand my position and explain your own reasoning, and repeatedly you've failed to do either. You?ve also used circular logic, blind assertions and have misrepresented me, many times now. I don?t know whether that?s a reflection of your reading comprehension or your character, but either way, you've done your position a disservice.

Even so, I?d like to say that for the record, I?ve nevertheless enjoyed this conversation as a whole. Sour notes and all.