Today is Tuesday
November 1st was Monday
Time to cast ballots!
I’m pretty excited to be able to be able to cast my vote for Senator twice this race. 🙂
Out of curiosity, does anyone know the history behind votes being cast the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November? Is it to avoid voting on a holy day of obligation (i.e. All Saints day?) Some other reason?
Thought it was a Grecco-Roman lunar kind’a thing, and how far a horse could carry a 250 lb man in 6 weeks. Such an ancient colonial custom. Little wonder that we’ve probably lost track of the actual reason over the centuries. We can probably also now move it to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January, but the way the pin heads in Washington and the economy are going, we may want to re-think our chances of NOT falling back to the Middle Ages. Isn’t the world supposed to end in 2012 anyway? Bye! Gotta’ VOTE, VOTE, VOTE!
Here’s one answer. Can’t attest to the validity, though.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/whenwevote.htm
No idea re: the voting but I’m impressed to see that at last visiting aliens are leaving signs that are a bit more accessible to us in the mainstream!
September UAH is +0.419C.
err… sorry that should be October.
You mean October 2010.
Whoops . . . sorry, missed your correction.
“Out of curiosity, does anyone know the history behind votes being cast the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November? Is it to avoid voting on a holy day of obligation (i.e. All Saints day?) Some other reason? ”
I’m looking up the reason, but I would say that the chances that they wanted to avoid a DoO are about 0% because there has been, and continues to be, a powerful anti-Catholic tendency in America (the difference now a-days is who the Catholic haters are-less the mainline Protestants and more the political and disaffect atheists (to distinguish from more “live and let live” atheists like our host))
According to Wiki, Tuesday was chosen because it coincides with neither the Sabbath, nor the Market Day of many small towns, Wednesday. Additionally, the law on electors from back in 1792, states could conduct their presidential elections any time in a 34 day period before the first Wednesday in December, and in order to make the period set up by 1845 law not exceed 34 days, conflicting with existing law, they changed it from the first Tuesday to the first Tuesday after the first Monday.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Day_%28United_States%29
similar to will’s link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Day_(United_States)
Some of the time allotted for the election process was due to the slow nature of travel back in late 1700’s. Faster travel led to the 20th amendment in 1933 which changed the start of Congress and the Presidential inauguration from March to January.
In the days of slow travel a voter could be at home on Sunday, travel all of Monday and then vote on Tuesday.
We have faster travel today, but spend more time in post-election lawsuits.
In the land of the free
I don’t get why
Healthcare can’t be included
The climate changes
I guess right now but
Tea-partyists still scare me
AnyColor,
I’m a Tea Party Vet. The reason you are afraid of Tea Partiers is because you’ve been propagandized. The Tea Party believes in lower taxes, smaller government and the rights endowed by our Creator.
We are percieved by statists as a threat to their agenda, that’s why we are painted in a negative light by politicians and media. But, I am happy to testify that it’s political smearing. Such are times we live in.
Andrew
Oh yeah, the President said something t’other day about Americans being motivated by fear.
Could you be a little more honest about who’s playing that card Mr. President?
Global Warming ring a bell?
Andrew
Andrew_KY (Comment#58334) November 3rd, 2010 at 6:44 am
I’m not afraid of you.(my husband the geologist, is retired disabled army infantry and my father, Korean War, Marine, purple heart recipient, disabled at 19 yrs old) Good morning and thank you for your service! I just spent some time on jury duty. Let me just say; don’t do anything to get into a court in California. The jury pool here is chalk full of really really clueless people. People who don’t even understand what being on a jury means or how a court or trial works. I am not over stating this. The election results and the state of this state reflect this clueless condition as well. 😉
AnyColourYouLike (Comment#58240)
This is not the land of free stuff.
Doctors and nurses pay thousands upon thousands of dollars for their own education to become what they are and do what they do for a living. So in other words, slavery is your cup of tea? Maybe you are the scary one.
Hi liza! 🙂
I’m not a military vet, although my dad served in the Air Force. At one point, he was stationed in Korea. Radar tech. The basement at Mom and Dad’s used to be strewn with electronic parts, various tools and diagnostic devices. 😉
Andrew
Andrew_KY
So you are telling me that part’s not anti-tea party propaganda?
That’s the part that scares the c*ap out of me about the Tea Party. If the tea party pushes the “endowed by the creator” aspects too hard and lets it infect legislation, then next time around, I’ll find myself voting straight “whatever party does not include the Tea Party”.
“So you are telling me that part’s not anti-tea party propaganda?”
lucia,
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” -The Declaration of Independence
If you want to decide that the words of the Declaration are propaganda of some type, that’s your choice. But to a lot of us, those words actually mean something real. Our Founding Fathers started the USA on these words, and the Tea Party is in agreement with them.
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
a) That’s not the Constitution
b) Jefferson was not religious.
c) Of course the Declaration of Independence was propaganda! Sheesh.
d)
No. The USA started by the words in a Constitution. The first constitution was The Articles of Confederation. The second, our current Constitution starts the USA as we know it.
lucia,
a) I didn’t say it was The Constitution
b) Who cares? ‘Creator’ is in the document.
c) You can call it propaganda, but it was the document that started the USA.
“We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.” -The Declaration of Independence
As you may note, in this part there is already a United States of America.
Andrew
Lucia:
Actually it was one of the most important and influential statements of the individual rights of men ever written.
Of course it was heavily plagiarized from the writings of John Locke.
I’m sure the crack crew of Deep Climate, Eli Rabbet and John Mashey will be all over this, now the plagiarist Thomas Jefferson has been outed.
Lucia,
The Declaration was many things, and perhaps a bit ‘propaganda’…. but I think not so much. Remember that those who wrote and signed were in effect signing their own death warrants, should the revolution fail. Jefferson struggled with what to include, and was clearly troubled that British actions had pretty much forced a political break. You can sense a tone of regret the situation had reached the point it had; the signers said in effect that ‘we act not out of malice or anger, but out of necessity’. The reflection and humility of the Declaration is present in most all great political statements, and in all great political leaders. But sadly, it is seldom seen in contemporary politicians.
AnyColourYouLike (Comment#58240)
This is not the land of free stuff.
Doctors and nurses pay thousands upon thousands of dollars for their own education to become what they are and do what they do for a living. So in other words, slavery is your cup of tea? Maybe you are the scary one.
===============
Liza
I’m not quite sure what your point is. Perhaps you aren’t either?
I live in the UK where we have had free healthcare for all since 1948. I think you’ll find our doctors are not exactly slave labour and that medicine is a fairly lucrative career, whether for those in private-practice or attached to hospitals. Comparitively, nurses have,on the whole, long been underpaid for the invaluable job they do, however wage-structures in the caring professions still don’t come anywhere near to being “slavery”!
I think you’ve been misinformed. Maybe you should try a holiday in Europe, in one of the many countries that believe free or affordable healthcare is a fundamental right of every citizen, and that you shouldn’t have to lose your home to pay for cancer treatment, for instance.
AnyColour>
“Maybe you should try a holiday in Europe, in one of the many countries that believe free or affordable healthcare is a fundamental right of every citizen, and that you shouldn’t have to lose your home to pay for cancer treatment, for instance.”
Not the UK, then, if you’re in the wrong post-code with the wrong cancer.
Lucia>
I’m not a Tea Partier in any sense, but I’m not bothered where they get their principles: I’m worried (or not) about what they actually are. If they think off their own bat that, say, eugenics is the way to go, I’ll be much more worried than if they believe in a god-given right to free speech.
Dave–
On the one hand, I agree with you that I don’t care where they get their ideas. But on the other hand, we’ve had a history social conservatives trying to get prayer in school, reduce access to contraceptives, outlaw abortion and work to interject religion into government.
So, my position is: The rhetoric about the creator scares me– because I worry that if the party becomes more popular, it will try to advance a more theocratic agenda or even merely socially conservative authoritarian positions, which it end to find dangerous. However, I’ll keep my mind open and as long as they don’t try to advance theocratic laws or intrude on private lives, and stick to limited government, I’ll likely vote for them.
That said, I will never join or donate money to a party that spouts theocratic rhetoric. I will not donate money to a candidate who does so. I might vote for them if I judge them the lesser or two evils. But I find the thought of eventually only being able to chose between the lesser or two evils scary. If the tea party wasn’t spouting theocratic rhetoric, I would worry less about where it might be going.
“prayer in school” – Horrors! Many Catholic/Christian and other religious schools have been doing this for hundreds of years if not thousands and no one was injured. Localities should be able to determine this issue.
“reduce access to contraceptives” – People individually can buy these. Citizens shouldn’t be paying for them through taxes if they are viewed as immoral. Whomever wants to use them can pay for them.
“outlaw abortion” – LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
“and work to interject religion into government.” – Environmentalism seems to be a religion that is OK for government. Why not any other?
Andrew
Andrew_KY
If parents what to send their kids to private schools with agreed on policies, that’s fine. I sat in the back of mass at Woodlands and read novels — you are correct this did not harm me.
But no, localities should not be able to call for prayer in public schools and impose any religion on other people’s kids.
Yes. It took a supreme court ruling to have the right recognized. See Griswold and connecticut. It’s been outlawed in the past, and I have no doubt that a sufficiently theocratic party, if it gained power, would try to change things in the future.
You do know that there were no laws against abortion in the 1700s, right?
I’m against injecting any religion into government and won’t vote for anyone who is for it.
lucia,
“But no, localities should not be able to call for prayer in public schools and impose any religion on other people’s kids.”
We aren’t talking about imposing religion on other’s kids. We are talking about being allowed to pray in school if desired. Teachers and students. If you don’t want to pray, don’t.
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
I assume you don’t think I’m worried about some kid, silently going about praying quietly on his own, with no encouragement from teachers? That doesn’t bother me.
I am against any time wasting teacher-led or student-led prayer in class rooms with non-participating students given the “option” of sitting silently granting some sort of respect to the prayerfulness of those praying.
I might be willing to change my view if, during the prayer, the teacher is blindfolded and students are permitted to do whatever the want including shooting spitballs, throwing paper airplanes, chattering with their friends, reading books, or devoting their time to some diversions of their choice which could include praying.
Injecting any sort of formal lead prayer into school is disrespectful of the non-religious who might prefer that time in school be spent on education rather than waiting for the religious to get around to teaching or learning. Those who wish to pray have plenty of opportunities to do this on their own time without forcing other people to stand around indulging them with their silence.
If a teacher wants to get up 10 minute earlier to pray the rosary in her car before class starts, fine. She has ever right to do that. Parents who want their kids to pray can organize 10 extra minute in the morning to say the rosary over breakfast.
But there is no good reason why a Teacher should waste even 10 seconds of a students time asking them to stand quietly to pay respect to her devotions while she does so publicly in school, when should ought to be spending time teaching kids to read or do math.
Andrew_KY,
I think you lack perspective on the influence of religion on politics. I my youth (in Massachusetts) it was illegal for unmarried people to purchase contraceptives, and the church authorities pressured local pharmacies to not sell contraceptives to anyone. In the mean time, the local parish priest was abusing the alter-boys… at least until he was arrested for public sex at a local highway rest stop. The charges were ultimately dropped, with the understanding the priest would move on to some other parish.
Many couples (with multiple children already) ended up sleeping in separate rooms to avoid more. My mom convinced her doctor to cut her fallopian tubes after her 5th child, but this had to be done on the sly… such a procedure was heavily frowned upon by the local medical authorities, even if not specifically illegal.
History has shown a hundred times that people who believe they are absolutely right are capable of absolute horrors. You must be quite young to believe otherwise.
Time wasting? Oh bull. Geez lucia. I am in a bad mood and sick of all this stuff forced down my throat by the “liberals” or “non religious” whatever minority. Your comments about the Declaration of Independence and now about prayer are embarrassing to me as a woman and your peer. I am positive teachers waste time teaching what you think to children as well. I’ve heard it myself; the Christian and religion bashing; founding father bash etc etc was all hip in my own school days, the whole abortion “your body rights” nonsense was too. I fell for it and I suffered because of it. Kids should be afraid of getting pregnant and it should be HARD for them to be full on sexually active because is wastes their time and life! . I am surrounded by teenagers because I have one at home; and she is just as appalled as we are by the things her peers get into and waste time on. And you say Tea party members who may like prayer are “scary”. Maybe a little spiritual time and knowing that they are “perfectly loved” perfectly deserving child of this planet already would be a good thing to teach or know as a kid no matter how it is done.
Obviously you’ve never felt any connection with any group taking the time to quiet their minds together and thinking high thoughts or hopes out loud or in silence as one; unless it was your idea . Making wishes or prayers to God or the Moon or just nothing; who the eff cares which and when? you did it right here about the tsumani headed toward Hawaii and used the words “for those that pray”…. I remember that. It’s the intention that counts.
BTW I see talking “Global Warming” is a replacement for this need to connect; debate and to believe in something. There IS NO difference- it has all the same characteristics a religion has including an all powerful being called C02.
Liza,
Wow. That was really weird. CO2 and religion? Come on now, chill a little.
SteveF (Comment#58414) November 3rd, 2010 at 3:15 pm
and Andrew_KY,
There is and should be a happy medium. I am not suggesting that people not be allowed contraceptives at all.
Liza #58421,
Good. Sex is too nice to relegate to only procreation.
SteveF (Comment#58420) November 3rd, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Um not at all. Maybe not by people on this blog but just google “list of things blamed on global warming”.
BTW hubby reading here with me says your parents must of just told you “it was illegal for unmarried people to purchase contraceptives” And you fell for it. LOL Going to look that up.
Liza– The declaration of independence was propaganda. It’s role was to garner support from other countries.
Forcing people who are disinclined to pray while you do is wasting their time. I don’t think forcing a kid who doesn’t want to pray to stand around while others pray makes that kid feel perfectly loved. In fact, if the kid is rational, it may well make the kid feel the opposite–not accepted for who he is.
Like what? Math? Reading? Physics?
If you want to pray on your time when you want to pray, I have no problem with that. I just don’t think kids should be required to spend time standing around quietly while you or others do so and I don’t think they should be robbed of 30 seconds of school time so you can pray during his time instead of your own. You have time at home, school etc. Pray then.
Liza,
You and/or hubby were resident in Massachusetts in the late 1950’5 early 1960’s?
Neither of you know of what you write.
Liza
Before 1965, it was illegal for married and unmarried adults to buy contraceptives in Connecticut. This changed when the Supreme Court found that law illegal. See Griswold v Connecticut
SteveF was born before 1965. What does your husband think SteveF should look up to discover that his parents lied when they told him it used to be illegal for ummarried people to use contraceptives in Mass?
Here’s the bit for unmarried people:
Guess whose law got thrown out:
Steve was born well before 1972 and lived in Massachussetts. Prior to 1972 it was illegal for unmarried people to possess contraception in Massahussetts. Steve’s parents told him the truth. Go tell your husband.
Lucia,
No need to refer to what my parents told me. My high school classmates could not buy… and they told me so. A few people I knew managed to get contraceptives from out of state (New York, if I remember right).
My parents were far too conservative to tell me (or my siblings) any of these details until I was in my 30’s and already a father myself. I tell their story now only because both are dead.
SteveF (Comment#58426) November 3rd, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Well no, never and I am glad I don’t live there the way it is now either. I’ve read and it was true aout the law! hard to believe! so I apologize for laughing.
Oh shush with your “rational” stuff Lucia, Rational kid wouldn’t not be all dramatic and get upset about stuff like that either.
Teachers have wasted my time when I a kid bashing religion plus whatever was the “politically correct” fad of the time.
You can think of the Declaration of Independence however you want but I find your views disingenuous per usual.
Lucia,
Thanks. I had neither the energy nor inclination to look up the legal cases to refute such non-sense.
SteveF (Comment#58432) November 3rd, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Geez lighten up. I said I was going to go read about it.
Glad lucia “helped” you,poor thing. It took me two seconds to look up the law and then I took time to read it; then post. You sure had the energy to type “Refute such non sense”. I am so sorry laughed and the Catholics tormented you and your family so bad but they haven’t ever represented me or what I believe; nor tormented me and my mom lost two babies after my sister and I were born. “Far too conservative” was normal back then. To condemn people in the past for what we know now is irrational. Everything happens for a reason. BTW my mom LOST two babies after me and my sister were born; and she would have given anything to have more kids.
Lucia:
You asked Andrew_KY if he knew that there were no laws against abortion in the 1700’s.
The US operated under British Common Law during most of the 1700’s and abortion after “quickening” was against the law (as of 1765 anyway).
See 1 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAW OF ENGLAND 125 (The Legal Classics Library ed., Gryphon Editions, Ltd. 1983) (1765).
Just wanted to throw that correction out there.
Sorry that’s all chopped up typing..I had trouble posting; I copied … had to go stir dinner; then I pasted and double typed …what I had already said again… Sheesh. I am pissed off and non sense too!
Liza
I didn’t say the kid would get dramatic or upset. I said this:
I do think kids who are required to stand around acting respectful toward other religions while their beliefs (which could include atheism) go unacknowledge might well fell not accepted for who he is. People saying “hush” or pretending they have no right to their feelings, or suggesting simply feeling not accepted is the same as being “dramatic” or “upset” isn’t going to make them feel loved for their specialness.
Well, I’m against teachers bashing religion in class too. I think the topic should be avoided in public school. But if they can lead prayers, fairness would require permitting them to bash. So, I prefer the “no prayer/no bashing” rule.
RickA–
I stand corrected. I always forget about that commonlaw stuff. (Which is silly, because that was most of the law back then, wasn’t it?)
I know we started having non-common law laws in the 1800s– with the earliest having to do as much with killing the mother by giving patent medicines as anything else. (Not that they weren’t trying to avoid abortion too. But abortion wasn’t exactly safe in the past.)
Out of curiosity, when was “quickening”?
Liza,
It seems you have a very hard time accepting at face value what people tell you, even when that is based on personal experience. I do not know why that is, but since I am for certain more than old enough to be your father, let me give you a small dose of fatherly advice: it is best to take people at their word, especially when they tell you something that is based on personal experience. Few people (outside of politicians) would ever lie about such things.
You and Andrew_KY would do well to be much more careful about pronouncements on such issues.
Re: Carrick ,
Yes. That’s because it was good propaganda. Especially the first bit.
Here are some definition:
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=propaganda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
The purposes for the information in The Declaration of Independence was to garner support for the cause of independence both in the colonies, in England and with possible allies in Europe.
Look at the list of abuses of the king. Mind you, I’m not saying he wasn’t guilty. But do you think the list wasn’t a bit selective? This wasn’t intended as a fair and balanced treatise explaining that on the one hand, the king was bad. But on the other hand, the declaration of independence was written primarily to garner support for a cause: A decision to rupture from England. A war or independence.
SteveF (Comment#58440) November 3rd, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Oh yes sir. I said it was hard to believe and I apologized. I usually do take people at their word. I also see that your parents were timid or “too conservative” I don’t have ANY experience in that either. Seems to me you and lucia have a personal problem with an old church THAT I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH. I said I was going to look up the law; I made no pronouncements and just told you what my husband thought; and I did’t say I believed him either. Geez. It was much more fun to think just for a little bit; the “conservative” parents you had were not some sort of poor helpless victims as you make them out to be and had just pulled the wool over their sons eyes. Sheesh.
Liza
You seem to be jumping to odd conclusions:
I have no problems with the church. (I assume you mean Catholic.)
As far as I am aware, neither the old church nor the new one are trying to get prayer in public schools. They’ve followed the reasonable alternative of running Catholic schools and encouraging parents to send their kids there. That’s fine with me.
Lucia (58441),
Propaganda?
Honestly, I do not think so. As I noted before, these folks put their lives on the line. Of course they wanted to influence their fellow colonists (who risking their life would not?). But the Declaration stands apart from most political documents, not for the (smallish) propaganda content, but rather for the explicit affirmation of the rights of individuals, as had been earlier exposed by John Locke and others.
Lots of people outside the USA have appreciated the importance of the Declaration…. as opposed to say, the Brazilian constitution, which runs to hundreds of pages….. and says very little of import.
“Declaration of Independence”
I can look up definitions too.
Declaration: An explicit, formal announcement, either oral or written.”
Explicit: Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied. Forthright and unreserved in expression.
Independence: Freedom from dependence.
A forthright and unreserved expression written down on paper and distributed by men who wanted to live free.
The Declaration of Independence.
“they’ve followed the reasonable alternative of running Catholic schools and encouraging parents to send their kids there. That’s fine with me.”
Red herring and or not even true lucia. There was prayer in public school and Catholic schools were alive and well at the same time in my childhood and even past it. Even when my daughter was a kid I am pretty sure; and she’s 29 years old. Catholic schools were created to give children a purely Catholic education not for a “reasonable alternative” to public school that didn’t have prayer.
Seriously I can’t believe anybody could be so intolerant of something as innocent as a few minutes of prayer and at the same time there public school initiatives that have our kids be tolerant of all manner of people, behaviors, beliefs and activities. It makes NO sense to me at all.
SteveF
Sure. And I admire them for that. I like The Declaration of Independence. I’m glad they wrote it.
Yes. It has more content that people would also put in documents that are not propaganda. Writing documents to persuade people to your side is easier when more of the info lines up with your position and there is less to leave out. But that particular document was written specifically to persuade to a cause.
I don’t consider all propaganda bad. I still use it in the original neutral sense– stuff written to persuade.
Liza–
Didn’t suggest there was no prayer in school when your daughter was a child or when Catholic schools existed. (They still do). Although, I’m 51 and there was no prayer in my public school.
I didn’t say they were created to provide a reasonable alternative to schools with no prayer.
Maybe you should post counter arguments to what I actually say.
Forcing kids to sit through other peoples prayers is not innocent. I don’t know what other things you think kids shouldn’t be forced to tolerate. If you named them, you might find I’m against forcing kids to sit through those activities too.
I don’t think filling school days with time consuming pointless non-educational activities to achieve some irrelevant social goal is useful. Time wasting activities should be avoided. This includes forcing kids who are not members of a particular religion to stand around while people who are religious say their prayers. The religious can perfectly well say their prayers without occupying the time of the non-religious or those who are of other religious. You think 2 minutes is enough time for prayer? Ok. Cut those two minutes out of the school day, let all the kids go home, and have your kids pray at home.
SteveF
Many countries have made the mistake of turning their constitutions into propaganda documents. It’s sad.
Liza —
Consider how you’d feel if the shoe were on the other foot. You happen to live in a predominantly Islamic neighborhood, and the school decides it’s a good thing to have all the classes pause at noon — everyone gets out his prayer rug, kneels, and starts muttering the appropriate words from the Koran. Your kid is the only one who doesn’t join in the “Allahu akbar”s.
Does it still seem to you to be innocent? That’s a real question, not intended to be rhetorical.
well, so much for this blog. It was nice knowin ya Lucia. Bye now
“We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
“We will never give up.”
“Ask not what your country can do for you”
“The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.”
“Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Sometimes thoughtful speech, even political speech, is much more than propaganda.
“Does it still seem to you to be innocent? That’s a real question, not intended to be rhetorical.”
I see your point HaroldW really I do. .There’s a word I like called discernment. We don’t have public schools like you describe at all with one religion taking over the whole school that I know of. Just lots of people, maybe a majority of Americans who believe in one form or another of Higher Power . And I wouldn’t think well of it or think it was “innocent” if it were that extreme as you describe in your question. Also would depend on what they were praying about. Maybe me and my kid would respect and observe the ritual with no worries at all; like respecting a culture; maybe not. Discernment is a good word.
And my kid would be finding another school if all of it didn’t feel right. We are also free to do that too. I just said that to someone I know who lives in Utah and who is not from there. He didn’t have to move there; yet he complains about certain people who lived there first.
lucia (Comment#58452) November 3rd, 2010 at 5:43 pm
you said:
“As far as I am aware, neither the old church nor the new one are trying to get prayer in public schools. They’ve followed the reasonable alternative of running Catholic schools and encouraging parents to send their kids there. That’s fine with me.”
I’m sorry but that reads as they follow an “alternative”. Alternative to what? Well I guess it all depends on experience then or where you live. And in my experience a prayer doesn’t hurt anybody or make them feel bad; that notion comes from somewhere else; kids were TAUGHT to feel bad about it.
liza–
Running your own schools is an alternative to trying to make the public schools fulfill the role of providing a good Catholic education. Once you do that, you don’t need to try to do silly things like make public schools provide good Catholic educations– including trying to persuade schools to include prayer or anything similar. So, Catholics generally have not been campaigning to get prayer in schools, keep prayer in schools or worrying about prayer in school.
In my experience, playing bowling doesn’t hurt anyone either.
But it hardly follows that kid who find watching or playing bowling irritating and feel bored if forced to watch it need to be o TAUGHT to feel bored (i.e. bad). The fact that bowling doesn’t hurt anyone doesn’t mean kids who dislike bowling might not feel bad if adults tell the bowling averse kids they should enjoy bowling or insist that kids should stand still and pay respect to while bowling enthusiasts engage in bowling
If bowling enthusiasts want to bowl, I say they should go ahead and do it. On their own time. Same with prayer. I’m against forcing kids to waste time standing around watching people engage in either activity. Let the kids out of school; then people can go home and the bowling enthusiasts can bowl on their own time.
SteveF
It can be propaganda and yet become more. I don’t think we happen to have a word for “propaganda that happens to say something noble and becomes inspirational long after it’s immediate purpose was fulfilled.” Maybe we need such a word.
Liza
Public schools are the ones the supported by the public. It’s odd to suggest the solution for kids who don’t want to have someone else’s religion imposed on them is to find another school. Also, in many communities finding another school is a practical impossibility. You may have your pick of schools, but not everyone can afford to send their kids to boarding school. This is really not a solution to the problem.
I’d suggest a more accurate term for an eloquent argument to advance an ideological goal is “polemic.” “Propaganda” is less good, and not merely because it has a strongly pejorative connotation. “Propaganda” tends to imply a mass campaign in which messages are hammered home via ubiquity and repetition. The Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, and the “I Have a Dream” speech are examples of polemic, I would argue, rather than propaganda.
I think you just like to argue lucia. LOL First it’s a waste of time for kids; then it’s makes them feel bad; now kids are bored or irritated, and of course Harold argues that prayer could become a non innocent thing. Of course all of it could be happen to the poor atheist kid but why don’t you just spit it out. People who believe in God or a higher power are just beneath you and are even probably irrational.
Look, its’ late and all I remember about prayer and God in school involves the pledge and maybe a food blessing or team prayer before a game or something. Big woop. What I object to is the irrational label people who believe in God and using politics as an excuse to put them in the place you want them to be which is out of your sight. I understand. Really I do. I feel the same way about Al Gore, his minions and his movie being shown to my child via the school board deciding to, mandating it with no alternative view at all given with it (even the teacher didn’t like it!); the political indoctrination that goes along with it and how skeptics are treated as well for that matter.
Robert–
Well, I think polemic has the same connotation as propaganda. The Declaration of Independence was replicated numerous times and distributed. I don’t know how that affects your categorization. But if you prefer polemic, that’s ok with me too.
Still, you’ll find plenty of historians– including fans of the American revolution and the founding fathers who consider The Declaration of Independence propaganda of the noblest most successful sort.
Liza–
Forcing kids to spend unproductive time being bored and irritated is a waste of time.
Once again, you are deciding to insist on putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say people who believe in God are beneath me and don’t think it. I don’t need them out of my sight. I just don’t want prayer imposed on kids in school. I don’t know why you think this is equivalent to wanting all religious people to vanish.
Lucia,
“It can be propaganda and yet become more. I don’t think we happen to have a word for “propaganda that happens to say something noble and becomes inspirational long after it’s immediate purpose was fulfilled.â€
I don’t know that word, but I think what it describes it is at least consistent. It is always calm. It is always honest, always humble. It always appeals to our better selves to come forth and do what is right, in spite of our many faults,weaknesses, and frailties. Noble and inspirational seem right, but then, not nearly enough. I honestly do not know the right word.
As much as am down on public education in general, I have to say that I think this debate about prayer in schools is missing something important. That is simply this: there is an enormous difference between requiring prayer and allowing it. In focusing on initiatives to have time set aside for prayer, in the classrooms, we neglect the fact that prayer is often disallowed at school events that are not classes, during down time, just on campuses in general. I hardly think that is right. I perfectly well understand the argument that taking other student’s learning time for that is not appropriate. But preventing the establishment of religion by the state, should not interfere with the right to free exercise thereof.
lucia (Comment#58439)
You asked – Out of curiosity, when was “quickeningâ€?
I believe that it was considered the stage of pregnancy at which the mother first feels the movements of the fetus.
RickA (Comment#58488),
That is right. Heard the resulting exclamations myself several times…
Lest we forget; there were other schools established that were “church” related other than Catholic. And there were also non-sectarian private schools (albeit rare).
Andrew–
I think prayer led in front of a captive audience who is expected to sit there quietly is not merely “allowing”. It is requiring prayer. That is: either the audience must sit their granting their “respect” for the activity or leave. So, someone getting up and leading a prayer at graduation wastes the time of those students on the podium and those guests in the audience who do not wish to engage in prayer and also forces them to either accept this behavior or not attend graduation.
But I do think prayer should be allowed. If some guy wants to stand up in the middle of the bleachers during a kids basketball game and start praying while everyone else is allowed to mill around, drink cocktails, chat with their neighbor, take flash photos, wave banners and do whatever they want, I have no problem with that.
Similarly, if while a graduation ceremony is going on, some individual guest wants to pray quietly in their seat, this should be allowed just as much as parents sitting in their seat not praying. If a kid sits down and prays before eating– allowed. ( A few people did that in the college dorms. No one ever objected.)
So, yes, praying should be allowed, but not imposed on captive audiences.
Gilbert K. Arnold
There were a few within driving distance of my house. Lake Forest Academy was for boys. Ferry Hall was for girls. (I think they merged.) A friend of mine went to North Shore Country Day School; she got religious instruction and Hebrew at a Temple school on weekends.
There was no prayer at North Shore Country Day.
lucia (Comment#58535)-I am please to see we completely agree! 🙂
Lucia,
It seems to me that your position is that any public institution should impose atheism (that is, to conduct all their business based on the belief that God does not exist) in any and all cases. Is that correct?
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
No. Why does it seem this way to you?
Lucia,
Because it seems like you insist that public institutions suppress any expression of a belief in God (blindfold and all that nonsense). However, so seem to think that your preferred religious belief (atheism) should be the norm.
Is that right?
Andrew
Andrew_KY
Nonsense. I don’t insist public institutions suppress expressions of belief.
Please read comments Re: lucia comment-58535 just before your comment telling me Comment#58549 it seems to you I want to impose atheism. In 58535 I specifically say expression of beliefs should be allowed. If some kid wants to pray on his own before lunch– fine. If individual parents want to bow their heads and pray during a graduation, basket ball game or whatever they like– fine. Prayer and non-prayer are on an equal basis with no one forced to defer to others.
Neither religion nor atheism should be suppressed or imposed on anyone.
Andrew_KY (Comment#58554)-“Because it seems like you insist that public institutions suppress any expression of a belief in God”
See her reply to me where she said: “I do think prayer should be allowed. If some guy wants to stand up in the middle of the bleachers during a kids basketball game and start praying while everyone else is allowed to mill around, drink cocktails, chat with their neighbor, take flash photos, wave banners and do whatever they want, I have no problem with that.” That hardly sounds like asking public institutions to suppress belief to me.
“So, yes, praying should be allowed, but not imposed on captive audiences.”
Even just a few words and moment of silence if somebody dies?
You guys are missing my point. I’m talking about the public institution itself and it’s own expressions: the teachers, the staff (not just the students), displays, the curriculum, etc.
If the principal decides to wear a gold cross around the campus… Yea or Nay?
Andrew
My head is spinning. Especially being told by high ranking politicians and their supporters for a long time now (and see the same fever in the classrooms!)that the new president of the USA is a gift from God and he will stop the rising seas! LOL During the last admin these same people made fun of the last president because he said he just talked with God!
Schools are banning Christmas songs too aren’t they? Then only allow those deemed “winter holiday” tunes. It’s a shame. Rituals and traditions that are long lived in the USA that brought people together in many ways are suppressed by a handful that think:
Lance (Comment#35607) February 28th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Also thanks for throwing in the “those of you who pray†before the prayer request. As a long suffering atheist living amongst sometimes arrogant believers I appreciate the acknowledgement that some of us don’t try to send magic messages to deities by closing our eyes and thinking.
Did that sound too sarcastic? Maybe I’m too sensitive on the topic.
Thanks any way.
lucia (Comment#35616) February 28th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Lance–
Most of my regular readers are aware I’m an atheist. 🙂
That exchange is from an old topic of the tsunami headed toward Hawaii: Lucia says in the header”The first email I read this morning announced the earthquake in Chile. It hit 8.8 on the Richtermoment magnitude scale and triggered a tsunami. The reports I read say at least 76 dead. Those of you who pray, pray it won’t be many more.”
Why even say something like that, make a topic to discuss it at all if you don’t believe in the “magic thoughts” of a group of people united with a common desire, hope or idea whether expressed as words or just a shared feeling does anything and is a waste of time? I think you made that topic to fill a need you yourself have lucia, to connect with others and share some “magic thoughts”. 🙂
Liza
Are you suggesting you would allow it even if it literally killed people?
Andrew_Ky
Wearing a gold cross, rosary, scappula, pentagram, ying/yang symbol, budah, flying spaghetti monster, star of david, OM Aum Hindu symbol, “Vibrant Hamsa Necklace to Protect from the Evil Eye”, worry beads, “Sterling Silver Chakra Cubic Zirconia Gem Stone Cuff Bracelet – Polished”, “Sacred Chalice Well Symbol of Avalon in Glastonbury Sterling Silver Pendant”, “Bismillah-In The Name of Allah-Necklace Chain” and even the “Weight Loss Amulet” are all fine.
Wearing a mantilla, shawl, veil, burqua, yamulka, religious undergarments, Sikh turban… all fine.
Wearing them all at once is fine. Wearing none is fine.
You wearing these things, or a principle wearing these things does not impose on anyone else.
Liza
This has nothing to do with me, my opinion, or my stand on teachers leading prayer in school.
Some may be. I have nothing against Christmas songs or mixing “Oh come, oh Come Emmanuel” with “Dreidel, Dreidel, Dreidel” or “Grandma got run over by a reindeer”.
I didn’t say your praying is a waste of your time. If you get something out of it, it clearly is not a waste for you.
I think making kids stand around watching you pray is a waste of their time. I think if the religious imposing this on them then the religious are being disrespectful of the non-religious or other-religious children’s time, inclinations and religious views. These children should not be required to devote their time to watching you, their teachers or other students pray.
You can perfectly well pray without forcing others to devote their time to activities. You can also watch tv, bowl, knit, comment at blogs and do any number of other activities without forcing others to devote their time to these pursuits. Forcing them to do things like this is a waste of their time.
“things like this is waste of their time”
Thus Spaketh Lucia, who decreeth Wastes Of Time. 😉
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
Forcing people to spend their time on in religious activities they do not agree with does waste their time which they could otherwise devote to pursuits of their own choosing.
If you think this is not wasting their time, you might want to explain why instead of adopting Eli’s silly method of arguing by snark.
Sheesh Lucia do you think pretending you don’t understand people makes you look smarter and lets you avoid a question?
This disingenuous stuff is getting old. lol
Btw, remember when you couldn’t even imagine fires burning across Africa and the USA in a past discussion we had about CO2 being added to the system on Earth constantly; naturally? I’ve been meaning to share I found upon further research online Africa has a nick name “The Fire Continent” and there are plants all over the world that grow across vast spaces of land that may actually biologically transform and grow to encourage fire to happen or need it to. Natural and man made fires are a problem all across Africa in the present day.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fire/plants.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/images/content/69993main_biomass3.jpg
Lucia,
I’m sorry about the snark. I’ve been reading the teachings of Mother Theresa and she repeatedly says that is exactly the thing I SHOULDN’T be doing. So, you can delete it, because I retract it and apologize.
Like I said no one has to participate in prayer if they don’t want to. They can do like you did and read a book. Not a waste of time, unless it is a trashy romance novel. 😉
Andrew
What I see is some people spend more time arguing that prayer is a waste of time in school then the time a prayer would take; “moment of silence” is just a moment after all!
Liza–
Seems to me you want to spend time arguing about this too. Non?
It can only seem that way to the math averse.
For each kid, multiply the time for the moment of silence by the number of days in school a year times the number of year of school attended. For the nation, multiply by the number of kids going to public school. A kid could do other things during that time.
If you really think this is just some unimportant “only a moment” thing, why not just drop this request for a moment and let kids who want to pray, or parents who want to persuade their kids to pray do it on their own instead of enlisting teachers to do it?
By the way, that’s a real question, not rhetorical.
Liza–
Who do you think I pretended to misunderstand? What question do you think I avoided answering?
No one has suggested there are no fires in Africa.
No one has– including me. I said they are being prevented from using their time on activities they would find more useful in deference to those religious who not only wish to pray, but wish to force others to devote their time to sitting with the religious while the religious pray.
“This has nothing to do with me, my opinion, or my stand on teachers leading prayer in school.”
Never said it did. I said my head is spinning from this topic and all the other nonsense forced upon me that I have to process to form an opinion. I would totally support your stance if I saw a balance in every manner of subject taught in public schools-taking things out ; leaving things in. Unfortunately I don’t see that and feel religion; especially the in christian form; is being targeted in a very zealous manner nowadays in order for certain OTHER ideologies and political beliefs to prevail in the minds of our children in school and forces upon society. I could tell you things forever; including experiencing myself the back handed way teachers and professors teach for example that being successful in a business makes you some kind of a bad person. You should see the posts my peers are making on Facebook just because of the election; and they are of my generation. Whatever I don’t perhaps possess the skills needed to articulate my complex thoughts good enough for all the smarty pants here 😉 and maybe you don’t even care…but I do have complex thoughts!
And I like Enya too! 🙂
“What question do you think I avoided answering?”
Do you even object to a moment of silence; lets say at a graduation; in honor of a fellow student who has died in the past year?
Liza–
I have no objection to moment of silence specifically stated to be in honor of a fellow student who died last year. That is not in anyway in invitation to prayer. It’s in recognition of the student, not god, a creator, a universal spirit or anything else.
I also have no objections to people requesting appropriate silence before or during a choir performance provided there is absolutely no intimation that the purpose of the silence is to contemplate anything of a spiritual nature. Frustrated teachers are allowed to scream “Shut up and listen!” (It’s not a sign of a skilled teacher.. but they get to do it!)
lucia,
I don’t want to get too wrapped up in the current debate, but I am curious why you are so afraid that the Tea Party is going to result in a theocracy.
My parents both belong to a Tea Party group, as well as a 912 group. They are both retired public school teachers. My Dad taught Chemistry, Geology and occasionally Physics for 30 years and my Mom taught American History, Economics, Goverment and English for 35 years. They would not support a theocratic agenda of any stripe, and they are both intelligent and well-informed enough not to have been hood-winked into such an organization.
I think that the Tea Party supporters have a much broader base than what you may believe. In my experience, they are not dominated by an evangelical movement. In fact, many that I know would probably have been described as liberals, decades ago. Such is the evolution of the current politics.
As far as Jefferson, you are correct, he was not “religious” as in the practice of such or the devotion to mysticism. He did, however, hold the morality of Christianity in very high esteem. Which is why he created his own “Bible” with the mysticism removed. I feel a great deal of empathy for his views, since he had worked to develop a personal understanding of God (his Natural God/Creator) as well as the development of human morality. “Religion” as a practicehas never fit well with me and my science background negates belief in the mystical aspects, but I have great respect for the Christian concept of morality.
Unfortunately, I believe that Jefferson’s wall of separation (a quote taken from a letter he wrote) has been stretched and abused in our secular society. I agree that kids should be learning and not wasting time, but the activites that are now prohibitted in schools have gone well beyond the two minute prayer.
I’m actually surprised. I think Lucia is being entirely reasonable about this, and I think Liza and my well named compatriot are being pretty unfair. If we can agree that people can pray if they so choose, as long as this doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s freedom to not do so, um, where is the beef? Such an arrangement seems to be the perfect fulfillment of both parts of the Freedom of Religion in the first Amendment: It neither Establishes a Religion, nor prohibits the Free Exercise Thereof.
Tamara
I’m not “so” afraid. This came up when Andrew_KY posted:
I told Andrew_KY that the religious rhetoric is what scares me about the tea-party. Right now, I’m not all that worried because
a) I’m not sure Andrew_KY is correct. He may be assuming the whole tea party aligns perfectly with his views and
b) the religious aspect might always remain something that is not implemented.
What I wrote was:
Conversations being what they are, Andrew_KY and Liza seem to want to discuss why prayer in school is ok; I think it’s not. I’m not sure this conversation tells us anything about the Tea Party’s current stand or where they are going. But, if we do get back to the Tea Party, I support or don’t on the same basis as other parties: To the extent they align with my views, I vote for them and donate. To the extent the support things that are against my views, I don’t vote for them and donate to the other guys. At all times, I monitor certain rhetoric and try to gauge where the party is going.
Excess religious rhetoric scares me because I think theocracy is a very, very dangerous thing. Is the tea party going there? I don’t know. Based on newspaper reports, I would not think so. But Andrew_KY, a self described tea partier, describes their agenda as theocratic. The party is growing. If what he says is correct, that scares me.
I should add:
This was my general impression but Andrew_KY says otherwise. If what Andrew_KY says is true, and/or if the party evolves in that direction, I will not be supporting the tea party. If it is dominated by people more like your parents and remains that way, I likely will support them.
Andrew_FL,
I can can only conclude that lucia would like public institutions to prefer atheism over other belief systems.
She may want to be nice about it, but that seems to be what her position is.
I agree this is an unsolvable dilema, as one size does not fit all, that’s why I prefer localities work it as they see fit.
Andrew
“If what he says is correct, that scares me.”
Ah, liberal scaremongering. Who’s propagandizing now?
Andrew
Anyway, lucia doesn’t like ‘Creator’ or other references that don’t fit her worldview. The Founding Fathers obviously recognized that rights don’t some from nowhere.
Lucia must think they do.
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
The difficulty is you interpret government not injecting religion into certain public forums where you wish to inject it as injecting atheism. I see huge areas were there is no reason to inject religious language, or observance of any sort; keeping religion out of these things is not imposing religion. Examples of places where laws not requiring injection of religious language are not imposition of atheism include:
* current laws do not require real estate contracts to prefaced with an invocation to the creator to make them legally enforceable by courts. Failing to require this religious language is not imposing “atheism” on real estate contracts”
* current laws do not require wills to include any spiritual language to be legally enforcable. This does not inject “atheism” into wills or death.
* the public library are not currently required to provide a Prie-dieu in the corner to help people who feel the sudden need to say the rosary. This does not inject “atheism” into reading or library lending.
* my village board doesn’t begin each session with a prayer or moment of silence. This does not inject “atheism” into our discussions of zoning, noise pollution, are redevelopment of the town center.
* my village doesn’t say a prayer before setting off firecrackers on the 4th of July. This does not inject “atheism” into our fourth of july celebration.
I suspect nobody advocates injecting prayer into public forums in these non-sensical ways and few would claim that failure to do so injects “atheism”. Even very religious people can manage to make it through the day attending fireworks without the need to impose prayer on others who want to enjoy the fireworks.
Failure to actively inject prayer in public places is not injecting atheism.
Lucia,
If a local authority/school/fire department wants to pray or have a moment of silence before they start the day, they should be able to. If they don’t want to, then they don’t. They should decide… not you.
Andrew
Lucia, what are your views on things like pledging allegiance to the flag at school. When I was 6 turning 7 (1954-55), I went to a public school near Boston and every day, the students stood up and pledged allegiance to the flag as well as the national anthem. I was expected to do so as well. We didn’t do anything like that in Canada. I still remember my surprise even though I was very young. Do people still do that in US schools?
Andrew_FL (Comment#58599) November 4th, 2010 at 9:36 am
I am not trying to be unfair and I tried to express where I was coming from. And I do understand what lucia is saying. I am not trying to say prayer is ok and I trying to find out why it is not; even in rare small instances. This subject (in my view) way more complicated then just a prayer. When people say “the rights endowed by our Creator” it isn’t just a theocracy belief; and it was just expressed that way. Our forefathers wrote that to express the idea that our rights come (or are endowed from) a way higher thought/energy/truth/power then ever deemed by any human being/king/queen/ruler, etc . That’s what “under God” in the pledge means as well. Calling it religious rhetoric is just petty IMHO.
AndrewKY is also defending his culture.
I actually see no difference right now between lucia (and people like her) saying they are “scared” of the Tea Party members (and I’ve heard that statement EVERYWHERE) if they use these words or are mostly Christians; and the progressive Christians of long ago (which is what they were) being scared of Native Americans.
These progressives idea of “change” and “what is best” wiped out a whole people and culture and did not make those human beings “better” citizens at all. Conservative Christians throughout history actually tend to want to be left alone and tend to leave other people alone. Maybe that’s a stretch in my thinking…but like I said…I see this issue as way more complicated and I am trying to express it (and you chose to not understand me!) Tamara’s question to lucia is completely part of my thinking and a question I had as well.
Steve McIntyre (Comment#58613) November 4th, 2010 at 10:18 am
I think they do in most schools (not sure); but if they do say it everyday; kids are allowed to opt out.
(Another example of wiping out original American Culture!)
lucia,
Thanks. There is a lot of rhetoric floating around about the Tea Party movement; a lot of propaganda :). I was just wanted to make sure you understood its position from my and my parents’ perspective.
I was pretty confident you would have a fair approach. Just wasn’t sure if you were hearing the right voices.
SteveMc–
I don’t know if people still say the pledge. I think they must somewhere because suits trying to end it keep popping up.
We didn’t say the pledge in Catholic school in Buffalo where we lived from jan-june of 1st grade.
We said the pledge of allegiance when I was in 2nd grade and maybe 3rd grade. (I moved around– so this was at Highland School which housed 1-3rd grade and 7&8 at the time.)
Having recently moved to the country, I found the pledge puzzling and specifically asked the teacher what the flag had to do with God and whether El Salvador where I was born was also under God and what saying the pledge actually meant (especially vis-a-vis any pledges I might have taken in El Salvador). I think she told me the pledge was just a pledge, it didn’t really mean much and we were required to just say it. My parents told me to go along with it, so I did. But I thought it was pretty weird and pointless.
I went to Rockland in the same district in 4th grade where we weren’t required to say the prayer. We moved across town and I went to Copeland for 5th grade– also not required to say it. Then, back to Highland… didn’t say it.
I don’t know if parents threw the pledge out of Libertyville schools or if it was just individual schools.
As for what we should do: I think throwing it out would be much wiser than keeping the confusing waste of time ceremony. I definitely think kids shouldn’t be required to pledge to icons of any sort– including flags, and certainly not mutter invocations involving saying the country is somehow “under god”.
As a political issue:
I prefer the pledge not to be scheduled in class at all.
At the same time, I don’t understand the few parents who devote lots of energy to the pledge issue taking it to court. So, I think even though my parents thought it was a waste of time, and my teacher’s answer to my question suggested she did too, I think most were wise not to devote huge amounts of time fighting this. There is a difference between being against something and saying so and spending time and money in the court system.
As for earlier political moves: I don’t understand why Congress injected the confusing “under god” words into the original pledge or why those who want the pledge don’t revert to the original language. (Making kids say the pledge is weird even in the original language. )
I much prefer to sing the national anthem, which we traditionally trim to the first stanza only (thereby eliminating any problematic bits) . It’s not a pledge. It’s some history in it. I especially like ”
“.. that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?”
At ballgames, I always take off my hat and sign loudly. It’s fun. No one is required to sing, most don’t, some don’t stand if they don’t want, quite a few are eating their popcorn. Everyone seems to be having fun so that strikes me as fun. Having kids sing the anthem would be preferable to saying a pledge.
Re: Steve McIntyre
I know you didn’t ask me, but yes, at least around here, kids still say “the pledge” in school. Also, the national anthem is usually sung at the open of school sporting events. I don’t like it because I think it is mostly for show and so shallow. We will all “stand united” for the anthem, but then it’s everyone for themselves as we cut each other off to be the first out of the parking lot. Same thing at church. Drives me nuts.
Andrew
I never said they couldn’t. If a few teachers want to come before school starts and collect together in the teachers lounge I have no problem with that. If a few firemen want to collect together to pray in the station– also no problem. If members of village board wants to collect together before the official start of a meeting, and before they begin business, and before the head of the board has a right to kick people out of the meeting for misbehaving or making excess noise, of course they can do that.
Their right to meet and pray on their own time is not questioned. What should not be required is a public figure (teacher, village board member, fire marshall) leading a captive audience in prayer or requiring citizens who wish to exercise their right to attend public meetings to stand respectfully during their prayer.
Tamara
As I wrote: The position you describe is the one I have mostly understood from news reports. As it happens, when I told my husband what Andrew_KY wrote, he suggested Andrew_KY must be a liberal spewing anti-tea party propaganda because that’s precisely the accusation of many of the anti-tea party Democrats.
The theocratic language is intended to scare moderates away, and it’s likely to work.
Lucia,
The head of the board may want to pray as part of the meeting. I I think he has the right to ask if anyone wants to join him.
If the entire board is Muslim and wants Allah with them in the meeting, I have no problem with that, even if I was there as a Catholic Sore Thumb.
Maybe you are just a little sensitive.
Andrew
Liza
I didn’t say I was scared of Tea Party members at all. I’m also not afraid of individual people using the word “creator” nor that many members of the Tea Party are Christians. (I suspect many Democrats are Christian too. Heck, I know some!!! )
What I am afraid of is the possibility of a strong political party that includes theocracy as a major plank in its platform. If it happens: Bad. If it doesn’t: Good.
Tamara assures me her tea-party parents would not support theocracy of any stripe. That’s the impression I gather from news reports. However, what Tamara says seems contradicted by statements by Andrew_KY who self identifies as a tea party member.
“As it happens, when I told my husband what Andrew_KY wrote, he suggested Andrew_KY must be a liberal spewing anti-tea party propaganda because that’s precisely the accusation of many of the anti-tea party Democrats.”
I’m a liberal because you’re husband thinks I’m lying when I say I agree with the Declaration of Independence?
Wow.
Andrew
And impose silence on the audience during this? And require the other board members who do not wish to pray to be present during their prayer?
I think this would represent an imposition of his religion on them. I don’t think this right or power is granted to him by virtue of being elected Mayor. I don’t think Lisle voters have the power to grant him the right to impose attending his prayer session on other board members or individual citizens of Lisle who wish to exercise their civic right to attend these meetings.
I don’t think it is appropriate for him or you to even imagine he has the right to impose his prayer or any unnecessary delay to devote to a “moment of silence” on citizens who wish to exercise their civic right to attend village board meetings. (These are open by Il. law.)
He not only has no such right, and if he were decide he has the right to eject someone for laughing, talking, hissing or clapping loudly during this prayer, he would be way out of line. I don’t know if it would be illegal– but it would be way out of line.
“I think this would represent an imposition of his religion on them.”
I don’t.
Andrew
Andrew_KY
No. I told my husband what you said and he suggested you must be liberal engaging in scaremongering echoing untrue rhetoric designed to alienate moderates from supporting the Tea-party.
I told him you were a self-proclaimed tea party member, and he said he thought you must be in some confused fringe and he didn’t think you were correctly describing the tea party. We both hope your fringe doesn’t overwhelm the more sensible branch that includes Tamara’s parents.
Through the whole of my childhood we did say the pledge every morning in school. In the early grades, still the 1950’s, we also all recited the Lord’s Prayer… which must have seemed odd to any Muslim kids, if there were any. The joint praying stopped after the courts prohibited it, but we always had a moment of silence, which was OK with me… I just closed my eyes and thought about some pretty girl. Probably some people imagined I was praying, and in a sense I was… just not for the things they might have expected! 😉
.
This is a subject I can’t get too worked up about. Little harm (and probably little good) is done by the pledge or by a moment of silence. The pledge is I think mainly a result of the Civil War; its author (Francis Bellamy) was born in 1855, and his childhood and formative years were during the war and reconstruction. With the true allegiance of many perhaps still in doubt through all of Bellamy’s youth, the need for an explicit pledge probably seemed more relevant than it does today. In the process of a foreign national becoming a US citizen, requiring a pledge of allegiance to their new home country seems completely reasonable.
.
It is OK with me if some people want to pray during a moment of silence, and a moment of peace and quite in a classroom has some intrinsic value for most everyone, even the non-believers like me. Certainly for the teachers.
So Lucia, since you were born in El Salvador, were you a foreign national when you came to the USA?
I agree that there is no reason to have a moment of prayer/silence at the beginning of the school day. I think the people who insist on it must have a very unrealistic idea of what occupies the minds of children. I doubt that even the devout ones would spend much of that moment actually praying, and not daydreaming, giggling, passing notes or just spacing out. I’m a fairly patriotic person, and I don’t see much point in making kids take the pledge either. I can remember doing it, and I,as an elementary schooler, had no idea what the string of syllables “I pleg a leegence” meant. I can remember arguing with a classmate who thought we were saying “4 witches stands”. We are not a society that pledges allegiance to things or people, and I think the practice has overtones of our monarchical roots. I understand that there is a desire to develop patriotism in our children, but we would be better served by improving the teaching of government and the Constitution.
“he suggested you must be a liberal engaging in scaremongering echoing untrue rhetoric designed to alienate moderates from supporting the Tea-party”
Yes, and Bankrolled by Big Oil… or not. Whichever he prefers. 😉
Andrew
SteveF
No. Both my parents are American citizens from birth, and so am I. I could go claim El Salvadoran citizenship, but I never have.
I have no problem with that. Though, I think a pledge to the country would make more sense than a pledge to the flag.
What are people required to pledge when they naturalize? Anyone know?
Tamara
I remember a friends kids singing
“Oh we love cheese. Oh we love cheese”.
Andrew_KY
Why would big oil bankroll someone to spread lies about the tea party and weaken it?
SteveF–
I looked up the answer to my own question. This is evidently Oath of Allegiance (United States) required on naturalization:
Also:
More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_%28United_States%29
lucia (Comment#58617)-I am ambivalent about the Pledge, personally. I don’t think people should be required to say it. I also don’t think it reflects well on people that they are unwilling to pronounce their loyalty to their country (not something I would want to require, I again reiterate) just because they don’t like two words in it. I think that there is something good about teaching young people love of country. But I also think there is a strong bit of authoritarian crap to the Pledge, given that it was originally written by a Socialist (who, despite being a “Christian”, was not responsible for the “Under God” part). That being said, I always stood respectfully and even put my hand to my heart those mornings. And all the while I was thinking “there really is something strange about what this tradition represents now, given it’s past”.
I tend to think that the pledge, even the God part, is mostly harmless. In fact, many kids probably just recite the words without ever contemplating either their meaning or being offended or heartened by any religious element. But I think, really, perhaps the Anthem would be better.
I also am ambivalent about God on money. I used to think it was stupid that people even thought that it was offensive. But now I see their point: We are saying to God that we trust in him, on this worthless crap? That’s an insult to the Lord if ever there was one.
“Andrew_KY
Why would big oil bankroll someone to spread lies about the tea party and weaken it?”
lucia,
You and your husband evidently know me better than I know myself and can more accurately present my views better than I can, so I’m sure you can figure out the answer and let me know. 😉
Andrew
Andrew_Fl
If I believed in God, I would think forcing atheist to pray to god, or saying things like “in god we trust” was insulting to God too. Of course, that’s rather theoretical since I don’t believe in god.
My impression is that was the way other kids in 2nd grade recited the pledge. They’d started at a younger age when they were less likely to give it a thought. Reciting it didn’t seem to instill any more patriotism than participating in show and tell.
As it happens, I think our views are pretty close on this.
I’m not on a big campaign to eradicate all these things. This came up because Andrew_KY related what he believes to be the platform of the tea party. I said I wouldn’t support the religious aspect and wouldn’t vote for them if it’s dominant and that I oppose certain things– which I do oppose.
Of course, if people come in and start explaining why I should not oppose those things I’m going to answer and explain that I do, indeed oppose these things and that I think they do cause some harm– I do. Answering here doesn’t mean I am devoting my life or much energy to eradicating these things or that I think they are the most important topics of the day.
But I’m not going to vote to support or impose things I don’t like, and I’m not going to support parties who want to impose things I don’t like.
I assume Liza and Andrew_KY wouldn’t support parties that advanced positions they oppose either, and I don’t go around vilifying them for it. Unlike Liza, I’m not going to accuse her of thinking people who do not share my believes are beneath me. (See liza Comment#58474). I assume she hold her beliefs without thinking those who think differently are beneath her.
Andrew_KY
Huh? Neither my husband nor I said we know your views better than you, yourself do. I assured him that you were not a liberal but that your words espouse your views, and that you think these are shared by the Tea Party.
It appears some others in the Tea Party don’t share all the views you ascribe to the full party. My impression is most don’t share your views. I hope not. I hope most Tea Party members focus on the fiscal aspects as Tamara’s parents do.
Lucia,
“If I believed in God, I would think forcing atheist to pray to god, or saying things like “in god we trust†was insulting to God too.”
I’m not so sure. If you believed in God, you might not be at all similar to who you actually are, including how you think. 🙂
“I assured him that you were not a liberal but that your words espouse your views”
Whew! I can be myself again. 😉
Andrew
SteveF–
Well, that’s why what I would think if I believed in god is rather theoretical.
Once I was old enough to come to certain conclusions for myself, I always just skipped the “under God” part of the pledge. [And emphasized the “the Republic” — all too often people forget that’s what form of government we’re supposed to have, not a democracy.]
No lightning bolts struck me down, which is consistent with the hypothesis that there is no God. [No, that’s not meant as a jab at the theists here, it’s an allusion to climate science claims that non-confirming (but not conclusively disproving) evidence “is consistent with” whatever hypothesis is being promoted.]
Here is some interesting history on the origins of the “In God We Trust” motto:
“The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read:
Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.
One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.
You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.
This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.
To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.”
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml
It is interesting to understand how our perception of religion’s role in our government has changed over such a short time, and to remember that Jefferson’s “separation” phrase did not become a major part of our legal framework until the 1940’s and is still not universally accepted as the correct interpretation of the establishment clause. In my view, James Madison’s statement is more instructive: “We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt.”
Perhaps he would have felt that prayer in a state supported venue would be distorted or diluted. Of course, both Madison and Jefferson could have been wrong. They could not have forseen the secular society that we have today.
HaroldW–
Evidently, when my husband was a kid, some other kid thought it would be funny to substitute “under bugs bunny”. This resulted in a lot of giggling. The teacher got mad. But the next day, a different kid thought it would be funny to say “under bugs bunny” and so on. The contagion spread. . .
Of course, we don’t know what happened at the teacher/parent level. But, evidently, back when Jim was a kid, the teachers resolved the problem by dropping the pledge. Or at least that seemed to be the reason as far as Jim could tell. Maybe there was also an ongoing dispute at the adult level.
It’s a powerful piece of rhetoric, to be sure. As you say, it has no legal meaning, and it’s profoundly disrespectful/ignorant of the principles of constitutional self-government to conflate our sovereign Constitution with any and all nice-sounding essays our Founders produced.
As to the beliefs and goals of the “Tea Party”; since they lack any founding documents or governing bodies to say “this is us” or “this is not us,” I think what one is left with, beyond anecdotal evidence (which is obviously pretty worthless) is polling: what do self-identified members of the group say they believe in. As those polls suggest your concerns are well-founded:
Among people who have been to a tea party rally or donated to the cause, 77% get their news from Fox, 50% feel Sarah Palin would be an effective president, and 32% feel violence against government authority is justified today.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_tea_party_041410.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Tea Partiers are far more likely than members of the general public to claim the US is a “Christian nation” (55%), to believe the Bible is the literal word of God (47%(, and to believe that public officials do not pay enough attention to religion (48%).
http://www.publicreligion.org/objects/uploads/fck/file/AVS%202010%20Report%20FINAL.pdf
The good news is that people who have been to a rally or donated money to the tea party constitute only 4% of the US population (first link). They are a disturbing fringe movement, but at this point (touch wood), nothing more than that.
“Christian Nation”
Top 3 Largest National Christian Populations:
USA – 224,457,000 (85%)
Brazil – 139,000,000 (93%)
Mexico – 86,120,000 (99%)
http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/p/christiantoday.htm
Andrew
Robert–
I don’t have any issues with people watching Fox news vs. MSNBC.
So, in april, 18% of the US population self identified as Tea Party? Then 20% said don’t know and only 62% are identify as not in the Tea Party? Interesting.
How did they verify people belonged to the tea party? (I lie to phone polls all the time. Especially political ones. It’s a policy of mine!)
Also, which question corresponds to “32% feel violence against government authority is justified today.”? (there are 77– help me out here.)
Nobody said you did.
Other than asking people, how would you suggest we find out who considers themselves a tea partier and what they believe?
Took it out of the main body of this article: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002536-503544.html
The question itself, q74, reflects the 24% figure, while the 32% is in the crosstables, which I’m having trouble locating. More significantly, when I read the question itself, it asks if violence is “ever justified,” not (as the article seems to me to imply) whether it would be justified today. So that figure is not really as striking as it seemed to me at first.
Robert
No but you wrote this:
Why would I consider watching Fox news to provide evidence that anyone’s concerns are well founded? Fox news, CSNBC, who cares?
I don’t know. All I know is I do answer the phone, respond to surveys and if they are political, I lie about political affiliation. I think Mike Royko suggested it when I was a teen, and I decided I like the idea.
That explains why I didn’t find the question. Looks like CNBC reworded when presenting results, then reworded further. You wrote “32% feel violence against government authority is justified today.” which made me think they answered a question that 32% think violence is justified today. As in “conditions as they currently exist justify violence”. Seems you agree that seems unbelievable that 32% of the tea partiers think that!
I’m not surprised that people who admire the founding fathers and the American revolution would answer “yes” to a question asking if violence is ever justified. I’m surprised the fraction answering “yes” wasn’t 100%. (I would answer yes to a question worded that way. I think violent actions against some governments are sometimes justified. )
So do I.
. . . which was a mistake on my part, as I said:
That’s a different thing. It’s still interesting that tea partiers answer “yes” to this question far more frequently than the general public, but I incorrectly put my trust in a poor summary of the findings and passed on a misleading interpretation which, hopefully, I have now corrected.
lucia (Comment#58439) November 3rd, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Out of curiosity, when was “quickening�
First perceived movement of foetus.
Meanwhile, the uncertainty of canon lawyers allowed English law to give its own twist to the concept of animation. In the thirteenth century St. Thomas Aquinas had said that life is manifested principally in two kinds of actions: knowledge and movement. It could be taken to follow that animus, soul, or life, enters the body of the unborn infant when it first moves or stirs in the womb. This became the rule of English law. “Quickening” (literally, “coming to life”) was held to occur not at a fixed time after conception, but at the moment when fetal movement is first detected—an event that varies with each pregnancy, but which usually happens near midterm, around the twentieth week.
It is not known exactly when this became the rule in England. The early twelfth-century text known as the Leges Henrici Primi took it for granted that animation occurs forty days after conception: abortion (which was treated only as an ecclesiastical offense) was said to be subject to three years’ penance if it took place within those forty days, ten years’ penance, as “quasi homicide,” if it took place after animation (quickening). The identification of quickening with the first perception of fetal movement has been thought to date from the time of Henry de Bracton, a thirteenth-century judge and contemporary of Aquinas, who wrote the first systematic treatise on English law.
Read more: Abortion – Abortion In English Law – Fetus, Quickening, Homicide, Century, Quickened, and Act http://law.jrank.org/pages/445/Abortion-Abortion-in-English-law.html#ixzz14M4TE45q
Thanks Phil. Now I’m going to have to figure out what common law dictated as penance. When I was a kid, the priest usually assigned a few Hail Marys as penance. I notice adults were sometimes assigned a full rosary, but I never pulled anything that harsh.
Robert–
Maybe the general public lies to themselves more? 🙂
Seriously, I find it difficult to believe fewer than 32% of the population of one of the most war mongering countries ever think violence is never justified. So, a “no” can’t spring from our general pacifism. And we’ve had violent riots in the past– with a fair amount of sympathy for rioters from the public. And I think most people can envision some hypothetical circumstance where violence against ones own government is justified.
So, it seems to me by the time they hit Q74, either people aren’t really listening to the question or they want to see themselves as more gentle than they really are.
Oh. BTW. I sometimes answer telephone surveys after drinking wine. So, the theory of not listening to the question. That could include me.
Actually, seriously, imagine answering a phone survey where they ask Q 73 which permits 18 option to the answer “When someone says the country is moving toward socialism, what does this mean to you?” (And it looks like you pick one. You can’t pick both “communisms” and “bad thing”. Interestingly, 49% of tea partiers picked Gov’t ownership/control while only 26% of total picked that.
So, Tea Partiers must agree with wikipedia:
lucia (Comment#58654) November 4th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Geez. I never had that experience about saying the pledge and I hated smart ass disrespectful kids in class. They WASTED my time. Maybe because I was a daughter of a disabled soldier maybe because of I was just smart and understood the meaning of the ritual and respected it. The men and women who risk their lives for you to spout your opinions with abandon might think EVERYTHING good is represented in that flag and sometimes it’s the only thing they have when they are far from home. Most of them I know do. Go read for example the story about Senator McCain as a pow, the pledge, and the making of a flag by his fellow captives just as an example.
Just disrespectful shallow; petty, slow; smart ass kids is what you described there from your youth lucia. Nothing much else.
Seriously; you guys go deep in your thoughts to trivialize the traditions and or symbols that have evolved in this country over time and describe your little burdens about them, like waste of time, boring, blah blah blah should think about other people who took on bigger ones. That’s what the flag represents.
“The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins”
That’s right. Soldiers and their families probably.
“I find it difficult to believe fewer than 32% of the population of one of the most war mongering countries ever thin violence is not justified”
I am done with you lucia. Holy cow.
Andrew_KY (Comment#58627) November 4th, 2010 at 11:19 am
“I think this would represent an imposition of his religion on them.â€
I don’t.
And you would hold the same view if he said a Jewish, Islamic, Hindu or Buddhist prayer?
Regarding the Pledge of Allegiance I recall my daughter causing consternation at school when she was ~5yo by asking the teacher why she and her Japanese friend had to say the Pledge when they weren’t American!
I also think that saying that the US is “warmongering” country is a little extreme (if not, since I feeling reasonable today, very much so). I’ll grant that many on principle don’t like how the US has engaged some preemptive wars. For my part I think that we shouldn’t have gotten into the first World War. But in the history of the world, in spite of some bad marks on our record, we are relatively peaceful:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/War_deaths_caused_by_warfare.svg
lucia (Comment#58705) November 4th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Thanks Phil. Now I’m going to have to figure out what common law dictated as penance. When I was a kid, the priest usually assigned a few Hail Marys as penance. I notice adults were sometimes assigned a full rosary, but I never pulled anything that harsh.
That was under canon law, common law didn’t regard abortion even of a quickened foetus as an indictable offense. (See Blackmun, Roe vs Wade). The first Law regarding abortion in the USA was Connecticut in 1821, prior to that it was covered by common law, i.e. not a crime (ibid.).
Andrew_FL–
You’re right. Warmongering is not the right word– hyperbole. But we’ve gotten into quite a few wars and we aren’t exactly pacifists, are we? Not exactly Swiss-like. Who in the heck are or were the Jivaro?
Liza,
“one of the most war mongering countries”
I am not sure, but I think Lucia may have been joking with Robert.
According to wiki, the Jivaroan peoples are:
“indigenous peoples in the headwaters of the Marañon River, and its tributaries in northern Peru and eastern Ecuador.”
I have a feeling that this chart is based on data which are actually pretty uncertain. But the margin is huge anyway.
Maybe that figure, given the region, is partly related to Spanish War-mongering? I hate to rag on my Grandfather’s people, but Spaniards are real hot-heads. It’s not clear what wars these figures are related to, or the time periods, except for US and Europe, 20th century.
Phil,
It wouldn’t bother me to hear the prayers of Jews, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Hindus, or any sincere spiritual expressions of just about any kind.
I would probably find it quite interesting, to experience it in person.
Andrew
SteveF— Well, using hyperbole. I don’t think we are the most warmongering country of all time.
Andrew_FL- That’s a list of the % who many died, right? They may have been more warmongering, but they weren’t very good at it because the other side seemed to kill an awful lot of them.
The poll question (#74) was “Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to take violent action against the government, or is it never justified?”
I’m surprised that such a question didn’t get a 100% response. I rather suspect the Founding Fathers would all have said “yes” to that question, even when speaking of the new U.S. government. They knew that governments tend to get corrupt, and “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [the securing of unalienable rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”
So, as Robert implies, a far better question would be to ask whether violence *now* is justified. I’d give a different answer to that; can’t speak for the Founding Fathers. I wonder if the poll was designed to get a larger percentage response, and thereby make the Tea Party seem more out-of-the-mainstream. The article’s box summary of results abbreviates the question to “Violent action against gov’t is justified”, which rather significantly changes the context.
lucia (Comment#58733)-“they weren’t very good at it because the other side seemed to kill an awful lot of them.” Well, there are actually several different Jivaroan tribes, I think that in their case they may well have been killing each other. They were, together, probably all too good at killing each other.
Andrew_KY,
Brazil – 139,000,000 (93%)
Mexico – 86,120,000 (99%)
Having spent a lot of time in both countries, I suspect these are the percent “nominal” Christians, not practicing Christians. My personal observation is that there is a substantial fraction of both countries that might be most accurately described as CINOs….. Christians In Name Only.
By the way… the population of Brazil is in the range of ~194 million; your number is way too low.
Andrew_FL,
“They were, together, probably all too good at killing each other.”
Yup. Every Jivaro needed a shrunken head to carry around you know.
I guess you couldn’t just inherit a shrunken head from your Dad?
Andrew_KY
If you are really interested, you can attend many of these services.
I’ve attended Mormon, Jewish, Lutheran (both synods), Catholic, Episcopal, Unitarian, Presbyterian, a variety of Orthodox and possibly more. I haven’t attended Hindu, Islamic or Buddhist services, but I would if the opportunity presented itself in a somewhat natural way.
I sang at the Unitarian services. The first time I picked three psalms because I knew some protestant groups don’t cotton to the virgin mary. But then someone stood up and invited the rest of the people to a witches coven and I drank coffee after the service. One of the members of the congregation said it was refreshing to hear something from the Bible. I learned the Unitarians are pretty open to anything. The next time, I was invited for earth day, so I sang a psalm and a song about a cherry tree blossoming and some other song with a nature theme.
I sang with the Mormon choir for an Easter Cantata because my voice teacher needed a soloist. I learned about the Angle Moroni and a number of other interesting things.
Lucia,
“But then someone stood up and invited the rest of the people to a witches coven and I drank coffee after the service. ”
Say what?
Sounds like to do a lot of singing in churches… for a non-believer. Churches do at least provide a reliable and receptive audience.
I’m listed the sum total of my church singing experience. (Not counting the choir in grad school.) I like singing… but church is pretty much a snooze. I was taking voice lessons and a friend asked me to sing at the Unitarian church, so I was glad to do so.
The unitarian church is not like other churches.
lucia (Comment#58805)-“The unitarian church is not like other churches.”
I think this is my nomination for “understatement of the year”! In the 1890s the American Unitarian Association began inviting non-theists to join their already pretty unorthodox Church, and arguably they are not really even “Christian” anymore since, according to wiki:
“As a result, people who held no Unitarian belief began to be called “Unitarians,” simply because they were members of churches that belonged to the American Unitarian Association. After several decades, the non-theistic members outnumbered the theological Unitarians.”
So I think I am going to assume that the Church you were talking about was Unitarian Universalist-which no longer bears significant relation to the simple rejection of the trinity and divinity of Jesus and pre-human person-hood. I don’t mean that to be an insult or anything, I am simply saying that they are very different.
The wiki article on Unitarianism claims that Jefferson and Locke were Unitarians, which may suggest if true of the former, that they were actually already very tolerant of not-quite-theist views very early on. And it does make me respect them even if I find such views to be strange (along with others it claims such as Susan B Anthony, John Adams, etc). But I think that a member (C Killick Millard) being the founder of the Euthanasia Society probably speaks to how different the Church is from pretty much any other denomination…
They actually have a history of a distinguish and quite unusually varied flock:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unitarians,_Universalists,_and_Unitarian_Universalists
Andrew_FL,
They may have been unitarian-universalist. But, with regard to the whole “trinity” thing, I should point out they had numerous printed pamphlets discussing the history of the “Arian Heresy”– that kerfuffle over the trinity. I do think the encouragement to attend witches coven stuff came from a more “universalist” oriented member.
I’ve been to other unitarian-universalist churches, and it does seem a sizeable fraction are people who want to belong to some sort of group who has some sort of service each Sunday, and then discusses some sort of spiritual stuff over coffee after the service. I may be mistaken as to their beliefs, but only fixed theological issue I can identify is that it seems important to them that one should not tcriticize anyone’s theology or beliefs.
Jefferson was not a Unitarian, or never attended that church as there was none near him (a point which he lamented). At one point he commented that if he were to belong to a church, it would probably be that one. He also thought that the Unitarian church would one day be the dominant/preferred church in America…
Lucia,
Do you have any recordings of you singing you’d like to share/link? 😉
Andrew
Andrew_KY– no solos. There might be some choral music. I would have to look!