-
It's the same thing with those darn commercials for christian worhsip music such as the one that was shown on CARTOON NETWORK this morning. I'm so sick of having to look at it. It's everywhere. I don't see any commercials for Pagan music or shows for Pagans such as the 700 club for Christians. On Sundays they have the Hour of Power on tv. I would like to see things geared toward other religions once in a while.
-
-
08-26-2003 07:18 AM
# ADS
Circuit advertisement
-
I am sure if other religions wanted to produce such programming, there is no law against it. No one is stopping them, except themselves. Those are not produced by the networks.
-
-
Originally posted by Ravenlost
It's not an old monument. Judge Roy Webb was ordered to take down a framed copy of the ten commandments he had displayed in his courtroom. He did so and retaliated by putting up this monument. This isn't a new issue...it's been going on for some time now.
My mistake. I thought it had been there for years. Sorry.
But, I still stand by what I said. It is hurting no one.
-
-
The monument has been there for two years. He snuck it into the courthouse in the wee hours of the morning after the other justices had left.
I do not believe this is a case of freedom of religion, freedom from religion, or freedom of speech.
I believe it is a case of the law.
Judge Moore swore to uphold the law. He did not. Just in case anyone was in doubt, a higher court ruled on that point, and said, yes, he should remove the monument. An injunction was issued, and he still would not follow the law - not just the law of the land, but a law that was explicitly explained and applied to him.
He's a judge. How can I expect him to be a fair arbiter of the law if he will not follow the law himself?
-
-
It does't matter if it's not hurting anyone. There is a law against it and that law should be upheld regardless of what Judge Moore thinks.
-
-
Yeah, but too bad the law didn't give a rats rear end when some Muslims were allowed to teach Islam in the public schools after 9/11. It seems the law is terribly biased. JMO. But, I guess, although I disagree with the law, the monument needs to come down. But I guarantee you if I see any displays in public that are of any other religion, for holidays or whatever, and especially if I find out other religions are being taught in public schools, I will be raising heck about it.
-
-
Originally posted by Ravenlost
I personally believe that religions should be taught as part of history - all religions helped to form the events of the past and, obviously, current events as well.
But that's off the topic.
I agree! If a history teacher taught about all religions that would be great. That's what I do at home with my kids. Even though I'm Pagan I still try to teach them about all religions so that they can decided for themselves what they want to believe. I have never believed in forcing religion on anyone.
-
-
Oh I agree. Religions should be taught. I read up on other religions a lot so I know what I am talking about and don't sound stupid! (lol)
I am just saying that if they are going to teach Islam, then other religions need to be allowed too.
-
-
I wonder though if they were actually teaching Islam, as in how to be a Muslim, similar to Catholic catechism, or if they were teaching about Islam, to mitigate anti-Muslim fervor.
I think the schools should teach about religion in a historical sense, because religion is important in the history of the world, and I assume always will be. But if the school was actually teaching the students to be Muslim, of course that was wrong. But I am not sure it actually went that far.
I went to Catholic school, so of course we had more scope to learn about religion. But our textbooks were state-approved textbooks, and our history books discussed religion, in the context of history - Islam and Christianity especially. So not just one religion was discussed.
-
-
Doesn't matter. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If Christianity cannot be taught in public school, then Islam shouldn't either.
-
-
lol, I'm not saying I want people to teach the kids how to be one religion or another. And I'm not out to persecute Christians or Christianity.
Teaching about how religion played a part in history is much different from teaching religion, or from teaching children how to follow one particular relgion. You can't hardly discuss the Middle Ages in Europe without talking about how Christianity played a role in, say, the Crusades. You can't discuss the formation of modern west Asia without discussing the expansion of Islam. Those are just two big examples. Students need to understand that Islam is a monotheistic religion to understand why its spread was so radical for the times in that geographical area. They need to understand historical Christianity, i.e., a claim to the Holy Land, to understand the Crusades. Knowing things about religions is very different from teaching someone how to practice a relgion. I can see how discussions about Islam might come up in a history or geography class, especially if the class was discussing current events, but that's not telling the students to practice the five pillars of Islam or to start attending a mosque.
I'm not advocating teaching Islam in the schools, nor am I advocating teaching Christianity. Nor am I advocating persecution of any religion.
I don't want anyone else teaching my child how to practice a religion. But I do want my child to fully understand history, geography, and literature.
I don't, however, want my judges advocating one religion over another in a public capacity, nor, and most especially, do I want them flouting the law.
Judges are required to uphold the law. Every law. They know when they take their oaths that there are laws they do not like or agree with - abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment. Some of them may have ideological problems with mandatory minimum/maximum sentences. It doesn't matter - they are sworn to uphold the law. If they can not do that, then they should not take an oath saying that they will. To me, in this case, it is that simple.
-
Reply With Quote