Near one of the places I deliver on my truck route is the Gideon House. In big huge letters, the Decalogue is painted on the front. (at least, one version of the Decalogue. There are 3 different ones)
I drove by and thought "oh that's nice." And it hit me, why was I okay with this, but against posting them in a publicly owned space, like a courtroom?
The answer is public versus private.
The Gideon House is private property. Even if they post the big ten where all can see, it is still private property. I have a choice of entering it or not.
A courtroom, on the other hand, is public property. It is open to all, not just Judeo-Christians. And in this country, Other is about 25% of the population.
As a for instance, blacks are 15% of the population. If a black person enters a courtroom and sees a noose hanging atop a Confederate battle flag, it's pretty much a guarantee that "justice for all" is not going to be dispensed from that bench.
If a Christian entered a courtroom and saw a large, decorative Green Man on the wall, that Christian would be wary about getting equal treatment under the law.
Same here. A need to display the Ten Commandments tends to line up with a certain style of Christian belief. And those that hold that belief style have no interest in protecting the legal rights of non-Christians, gays and sometimes even women. As a member of all three groups, I would have great difficulty expecting a fair shake in such a courtroom.
On to prayer. I'm against prayer just on principle, so that's what you need to know about my biases. The God of my understanding is a vicious abuser with a sometimes-fatal sense of humor and praying only draws attention so he can zap you again.
But the people who insist on praying in public, in front of groups don't see it that way. What galls me is that they never stop to think not everyone in the crowd believes like they do. Or if they do, they figure, "it'll be good for the heathens to have some exposure to real belief." (full disclosure: I did this more than once myself in my nastier fundy days)
The problem is, this tells us we are not part of the community. It breaks down trust and cooperation between members of the group. In a situation where we cannot escape (say public school), it sets us apart as an untrustworthy minority and tells us we are second-class and deserve to be.
Last I checked, this was America. The First Amendment, written by men who had seen Quakers hanged and flogged, Jews executed and Puritans exiled, guarantees freedom of belief to everyone. Jefferson spoke in his letters to a group that was panicking about the freedom of religion in that a Jew or a Muslim could get elected. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to whatever sort of Christian appeals. It means all religion.
And freedom requires a lack of coercion into beliefs that are not yours, and a guarantee of justice, regardless of your faith.
I drove by and thought "oh that's nice." And it hit me, why was I okay with this, but against posting them in a publicly owned space, like a courtroom?
The answer is public versus private.
The Gideon House is private property. Even if they post the big ten where all can see, it is still private property. I have a choice of entering it or not.
A courtroom, on the other hand, is public property. It is open to all, not just Judeo-Christians. And in this country, Other is about 25% of the population.
As a for instance, blacks are 15% of the population. If a black person enters a courtroom and sees a noose hanging atop a Confederate battle flag, it's pretty much a guarantee that "justice for all" is not going to be dispensed from that bench.
If a Christian entered a courtroom and saw a large, decorative Green Man on the wall, that Christian would be wary about getting equal treatment under the law.
Same here. A need to display the Ten Commandments tends to line up with a certain style of Christian belief. And those that hold that belief style have no interest in protecting the legal rights of non-Christians, gays and sometimes even women. As a member of all three groups, I would have great difficulty expecting a fair shake in such a courtroom.
On to prayer. I'm against prayer just on principle, so that's what you need to know about my biases. The God of my understanding is a vicious abuser with a sometimes-fatal sense of humor and praying only draws attention so he can zap you again.
But the people who insist on praying in public, in front of groups don't see it that way. What galls me is that they never stop to think not everyone in the crowd believes like they do. Or if they do, they figure, "it'll be good for the heathens to have some exposure to real belief." (full disclosure: I did this more than once myself in my nastier fundy days)
The problem is, this tells us we are not part of the community. It breaks down trust and cooperation between members of the group. In a situation where we cannot escape (say public school), it sets us apart as an untrustworthy minority and tells us we are second-class and deserve to be.
Last I checked, this was America. The First Amendment, written by men who had seen Quakers hanged and flogged, Jews executed and Puritans exiled, guarantees freedom of belief to everyone. Jefferson spoke in his letters to a group that was panicking about the freedom of religion in that a Jew or a Muslim could get elected. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to whatever sort of Christian appeals. It means all religion.
And freedom requires a lack of coercion into beliefs that are not yours, and a guarantee of justice, regardless of your faith.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-27 02:11 am (UTC)Me too, much to my own chagrin. I find myself in agreement with you. I've been considering posting something similar about a contestant on the latest round of Australian Idol...My still do so.