who supports right to choose

[BJean 16]

And Green, don't you think that because Christians do all they can to force others to "live by their moral code" people with differing beliefs are scared that if they don't make a stand for separation of church and state, those Christians will one day be able to make it happen.

That makes it a very sorry state of affairs for so many of us who enjoyed the Manger scene in the town square and Christmas trees in schools and all the other things we grew up with, but that are now deemed politically incorrect.

[green 6]

And Green, don't you think that because Christians do all they can to force others to "live by their moral code" people with differing beliefs are scared that if they don't make a stand for separation of church and state, those Christians will one day be able to make it happen.

That makes it a very sorry state of affairs for so many of us who enjoyed the Manger scene in the town square and Christmas trees in schools and all the other things we grew up with, but that are now deemed politically incorrect.

Well, there some fundamental differences between our two countries, BJean. Canada is a profoundly secular country with respect to the separation of church and state. In this we are much more like many of the European countries, particularly the Scandinavian ones. To date we have never seen such right-wing religious pundits carry any political weight at all, most certainly there are no Jerry Falwells, Oral Roberts, and the like north of the border.

Indeed we have a tendency to lean over backwards in order to accomodate our pluralities and this is generally not a bad thing. But the government of Ontario was seriously considering recognizing Shar'ia law as a code by which our Muslim faction could deal with non-criminal issues between themselves. They were considering this because they had already granted Mosaic law this recognition. It was only when many of us protested that the government was forced to renege on Shar'ia and on their recognition of Mosaic law.

All of this lengthy blah-blah is to say that I sometimes feel that our government, one which is profoundly secular and is, moreover, sensitive to the feelings of our various social, cultural, and religious/a-religious folks, is inclined to go overboard in banning symbols which are as much cultural as religious from public life. The dramas which go on at Christmas time can be a little nutsy. And let us not forget that Christians are citizens, too.

What makes me uncomfortable when I observe the mindset south of the border is the assumption which a significant number of people hold that their beliefs must perforce be everyone's beliefs, that they are the only right beliefs, and that it is "my way or the highway." These are people who seek to shut down debate and ultimately wish to act in a most undemocratic fashion for they are not prepared to recognise that anyone else may have a valid point of view. I also feel that God really has no place at all in the business of the state. The state is the state and certainly none of the purely secular western European states, nor Canada for that matter, have immoral or repressive legal systems. (Those of you who wish to cite Communism as repressive should be aware that this system, originally an economic system, had been elevated by the tyrants who ran or still run those countries into something like a secular religion. They have done this for their ends: to keep the power in their own hands.)

Of course there are many, many splendid Christians! I just don't feel comfortable with the ones who act like bullies, either at home or abroad. (George W would have done much better reading up on the recent history, and the geo-political realities of the Middle East instead of reading his Bible before entering into this ill-advised war with Iraq.)

[BJean 16]

Amen again, sister Green.

[L8BloomR 1]

The American Civil Liberties Union and other leftist or atheist groups have been systematically dismantling every Christian symbol and every mention of God anywhere that it can in this country. They have gotten teachers fired for wearing a small cross on a chain around their neck or for reading a Bible quietly while their students take a test. They have gotten crosses off of county seals and taken manger scenes and historic crosses away from public property. They are the reason that stores are afraid to say "Merry Christmas" to their customers. So just WHO is bullying WHO into submission? The vast majority of people are not offended by these things and, in fact, enjoy them. I have not seen Christians force atheists to pray or worship anything. They would just like the freedom to enjoy what they did before. The right to view Christmas symbols, wear their religious jewelry to work, and read what they choose. No one is demanding that other religions not display their symbols. The agenda of the ACLU and others is very transparent to me, because while they dispise all things Christian, they defend the rights of Muslims, Jews, and others to wear, read, display anything they want.

Abortion and embryonic stem cells are another issue entirely. I see them as value issues at least as much as Christian issues. Many non-Christians are against abortion, also. If they see value in any human life, especially innocent and unborn, then they should be against the taking of it. I don't think they are trying to force this on others, anymore than I think that pro-abortion people are trying to force "killing" on the rest of us. Both sides just feel the need to stand up for it.

[BJean 16]

I thank God for the American Civil Liberties Union! It has been horribly maligned over the years. They really do fight for civil liberties whether you agree with every single lawsuit they file or not. It is easy to read the headlines and declare that they have gone off the deep end, but if you do an impartial, in-depth study of their actions, you will find that they are seeking to correct a very real injustice.

If it weren't for the ACLU, many acts of discrimination would have been committed by people who have the power and do harm to people who have no power.

We need a counter balance to actions made by certain judges, district attorneys and law enforcement officials when they make decisions that are unfair and based on their own personal agenda.

One of the most important persons right now that we need to keep in check is George Bush who is willing to utilize all of his power as president to employ a "faith based coalition" to ensure that his religious agenda is carried out, whether it is fair to all citizens or not.

[L8BloomR 1]

The ACLU has damaged the Boy Scouts and too many other wonderful organizations to mention. But they fight for the right of the ManBoyLove organization to continue their vile work to make pedephilia acceptable. I'm sorry, but I think they do much more harm than good.

As usual, we don't see eye to eye on this.... as I would much rather have George Bush make policy than anyone from the ACLU (shudder). No surprise there, eh BJean? :heh:

[green 6]

Ugh! This sure is an interesting as well as a complex issue. France has chosen to deal with all religious insignia by banning them in all institutions which are run by the government, including schools and universities. This has come about, I suspect, as a response to France's sizeable minority of Muslims. The French simply do not want to see girls and young women wearing hijabs, niqabs, jiljabs, or burqas attending their schools or working in their public institutions.

The Brits have responded in a different fashion to their own sizeable minority of Muslims. I have read that there are some towns or areas within cities which are almost entirely populated by Islamic immigrants and their children. These are folk who had started to migrate to England during the 1950s, after Britain had cut her former colony, India, loose. (France's sizeable population of Muslims is the result of the withdrawal from her former colonies of Morroco, Algeria, and Tunisia.) In the case of Great Britain it seems that the days of "Paki-bashing," for that is what they used to call their style of immigrant abuse, are long over. This is a very, very good thing. Much less good is that the Brits are so concerned about offending this particular group they have opted to edit all mention of the Holocaust when teaching modern history in those schools where there is a sizeable number of Muslim students. Even had I not lost most members of my father's side of the family due to this particular event I still would not feel that this is right....

I mention these two particular examples because it seems to me that these are two nations, both with blessed with democratic rule and a desire to ensure that their citizens live under rational and reasonable governance. Nevertheless, they have chosen to deal with this issue of religious liberty vs civil liberty in two entirely different ways.

As you may have gathered from an earlier post, L8, I certainly do have mixed feelings about this biz of political correctness. I do believe that Christian religious symbols are also very important cultural symbols, and whenever they are presented as such I have no problem with them. This is why I believe that the word Christmas should not be edited out of the dictionary and that we should still get to see the tree, the angels, the creches, and be forced to listen to the crappy music. So much of this is part of our culture and it would be foolish to choose to junk our culture, I think.

Of course should such symbols be presented as teaching aids I would find myself becoming kinda crazed with fury.

[green 6]

I know nothing whatsoever about the American Civil Liberties Union but I am inclined to think that all democratic countries still do require watchdogs, no matter how annoying you may feel their activities to be or how offensive the causes they choose to champion.

[L8BloomR 1]

Ugh! This sure is an interesting as well as a complex issue. France has chosen to deal with all religious insignia by banning them in all institutions which are run by the government, including schools and universities. This has come about, I suspect, as a response to France's sizeable minority of Muslims. The French simply do not want to see girls and young women wearing hijabs, niqabs, jiljabs, or burqas attending their schools or working in their public institutions.

The Brits have responded in a different fashion to their own sizeable minority of Muslims. I have read that there are some towns or areas within cities which are almost entirely populated by Islamic immigrants and their children. These are folk who had started to migrate to England during the 1950s, after Britain had cut her former colony, India, loose. (France's sizeable population of Muslims is the result of the withdrawal from her former colonies of Morroco, Algeria, and Tunisia.) In the case of Great Britain it seems that the days of "Paki-bashing," for that is what they used to call their style of immigrant abuse, are long over. This is a very, very good thing. Much less good is that the Brits are so concerned about offending this particular group they have opted to edit all mention of the Holocaust when teaching modern history in those schools where there is a sizeable number of Muslim students. Even had I not lost most members of my father's side of the family due to this particular event I still would not feel that this is right....

I mention these two particular examples because it seems to me that these are two nations, both with blessed with democratic rule and a desire to ensure that their citizens live under rational and reasonable governance. Nevertheless, they have chosen to deal with this issue of religious liberty vs civil liberty in two entirely different ways.

As you may have gathered from an earlier post, L8, I certainly do have mixed feelings about this biz of political correctness. I do believe that Christian religious symbols are also very important cultural symbols, and whenever they are presented as such I have no problem with them. This is why I believe that the word Christmas should not be edited out of the dictionary and that we should still get to see the tree, the angels, the creches, and be forced to listen to the crappy music. So much of this is part of our culture and it would be foolish to choose to junk our culture, I think.

Of course should such symbols be presented as teaching aids I would find myself becoming kinda crazed with fury.

Great post, Green. I agree with just about all of it. You touched on one of the things I have been trying to say but wasn't doing well. The idea that in trying to be politically correct and not offend anyone---this could, and sometimes does, affect our ability to tell our history. Holocaust deniers gain a foothold and the many good things that a people have done gets pushed aside if those people are not now in the "in" group. Thanks for bringing that up. And I appreciate your knowledge of global affairs! How do you remember all that?

[BJean 16]

L8BloomR: Yes, not surprisingly we do differ on this subject as well. There's no doubt in my mind that you and I are wired differently and this subject, the ACLU, is very complicated.

I don't know what litigation you've mentioned that relates to the Boy Scouts. I do remember a while back that the Boy Scouts had a terrible scandal about some of their leaders being pedophiles.

My point is, although I do not agree with every case that the ACLU pursues, I believe that we have a need for a "watchdog" as Green so appropriately calls it.

Unlike you, I would trust the ACLU quicker than I trust Bush and many of our politicians who have extremely personal agendas. But there again, the ACLU is made up of people. People are not perfect. People display bias. That's why we need to study both sides to most issues and not blindly believe all the headlines and spin that is spun by either side. To make it more difficult, many times we can't just lump everything into a neat pile that is aligned 100% with one side or the other.

Afterall, we're both reasonable people. If it were simple, we probably wouldn't disagree.

[BJean 16]

I have high hopes that when and if an organization like the ACLU has gone off the deep end, we the people, the judge and jury, will set it right. The ACLU doesn't really get away with much unless there is just cause.

But if you get a biased group of people who are in power, like the judge, the police and D.A., for instance, and you do not have the ACLU on your side, you have little chance of setting the thing right.

Thus the need, I think, for a watchdog group. And the ACLU isn't the only watchdog group, just probably the most controversial - except for maybe PETA.

[gadgetlady 4]

I prefer the ACLJ - American Center for Law and Justice - ACLJ • American Center for Law & Justice instead of the ACLU.

[L8BloomR 1]

I prefer the ACLJ - American Center for Law and Justice - ACLJ • American Center for Law & Justice instead of the ACLU.

I like the ACLJ, also, Gadgetlady! We get their literature and contribute occasionally, but I had forgotten about them here. Thanks for reminding me!

[BJean 16]

I promise not to complain about the work that the ACLJ is doing if you'll lay off the ACLU.

I think it is good that both sides have advocates.

[L8BloomR 1]

I promise not to complain about the work that the ACLJ is doing if you'll lay off the ACLU.I think it is good that both sides have advocates.

Weeel, I can't promise but I'll try.......and if and when the ACLJ becomes as big and powerful as the ACLU, you can complain all you want about them, OK? :biggrin1: