（２）
While I can't really speak on the funeral arrangements for Jim since Iﾊwasn't here when all that tragedy transpired, I can relate my own experience at a state-supported school when our chancellor of four years passed away suddenly of cancer. For those of you unfamiliar with the University of North Carolina system, it is composed of sixteen (or so) universities throughout the state overseen by a system president. UNC-Chapel Hill, my alma mater, as the flagship school of the system, is headed by a chancellor who reports to the university's board of trustees as well as to the system president and the state legislature. WhenﾊMichael Hooker, who served as chancellor through my four years of undergraduate study at UNC, passed away only days after my graduation, his memorial service was held in one of the larger, more stately auditoriums on campus not in a "chapel". In fact, there are no "chapels" on campus although there are several churches bordering it as one would expect in most Southern towns. As a state school, the university cannot be affiliated with any religion or even seem to show such. I've found things quite different here at the U of C, which, since it is private institution, need not abide by any separation of church and state. At orientation, for instance, I was surprised to be addressed by the Dean of R. Ch.ﾊﾊTheﾊpoint to my rambling is that I don't feel that the U of Cﾊshould be used asﾊa measuring stickﾊof separation of church and state in the USﾊsince it is not a state institution.ﾊ
*****
ES:
You are right,ﾊbut then when Reagan was in that church, and it was televised as if it were a public place, that's where it gets confusing. Religion is private, and I mean as private as going to the bathroom. In a country were church and state are separated, the religious part of private ceremonies is not taken as public entertainment.
*****
DK:
You're damn right it should be private! What's up with that Rev. Martin Luther King guy, shoving his religion in our faces? How annoying is that? Let him go preach to the bathroom mirror and leave us alone.
And all those damn Quaker abolitionists, don't tell us your God opposes slavery, we don't want to be bothered with your God!
And the populist Williams Jennings Bryan and his "Cross of Gold" speech, we don't need no stinkin' crosses!
And Joe Lieberman, he won't vote on the Sabbath. Hey buddy, we pay you to be a Senator *seven days a week*, get to work you slacker!
And Mahatma (which means "great soul") Gandhi, shut up about God already, can't you see we're trying to be tolerant here?
******
But this happens only in places where secular entities don't exist, or do you claim it as a universal???
And before the abolitionist movement, which movement brought the slaves into being??? who organized the Cruzades???, who...
As linguists, aren't you at least worried of what's been done to human being in the name of Someone???
Everything, bad and good, is done in the name of God. What if God doesn't really exist? What would happen then???
*****
p.mid: Difference of opinion and discussion is a great thing.
DK: Yes it is, it is the cornerstone of this country.
ES: finally, something we can agree on. I'm sorry that because
of most people's silence, I thought Dave's ideas were America's ideas!!!!
I'm glad it's not totally true... Thanks for writing.
----
When I
bought beer tonight, the dollar bills had "In God we Trust" written on them.
Yeah, this is problematic. This kind of stuff should go, in keeping with
the First Amendment.
Thanks Dave. You didn't agree with me before, when I said the same thing.
Why were you hiding your thought???
----
We don't get anywhere, we just piss each other off and end up talking past each other.
Not at all, this is how we explore our beliefs, both religious and political.ﾊ
Yeap. And that's one of the reasons I like Dave. At least he's not afraid of saying what
he believes!!!! Frankly, I get disappointed at silence, more than at discussion, of course.
I seriously doubt that anyone meant to piss anyone off, or rant, or to advocate repression.
(copied by DK) "Religion is private, and I mean as private as going to the bathroom," Elisa.
Next time you go to the bathroom, the media will be there with the cameras, ok? Understand
now? (I mean, you should be given the right to do it privately. No one should be forced to
look at you. Am I clear now?)
-----
-People have the right to express themselves--whatever they believe or
believe in--without being ridiculed.
-As a conservative at UofC, I get ridiculed pretty frequently
-Not as frequently as you should. People in this country are really, really,
really afraid. This you realized that? Why would that be???
-----
last, from ES: why is it that most people are so afraid of participating in
this talks????
We know each other pretty well, yet many don't mind being represented by
Dave, even if their ideas are tamer... Honestly, many times I don't know what
'most' people think, just because only the extremists speak. Why?????
Needless to say (needless to say), I know full well my ideas are not 'america'.
Hey, I wasn't born here, and as you have realized, public education in my country
is pretty different from education (public or private) in this one. It's not my fault,
it's just another way of having been fed democracy (which also has a different
meaning in my country, even if it's supposed to be the same). We are speaking
different dialects when it comes to it. And yes, the governments have something
to do with it...mine doesn't allow church+state as freely as here. Weird, ain't it?
*****
DK:ﾊMy views aren't extreme. I'm not advocating school prayer or official religion or deporting the atheists. Mutual tolerance is kinda the norm here. Demanding the complete removal of religion from public life, that seems pretty extreme.
By the way, you still haven't followed up my request for specifics on the government imposing religion. Why is that?
ESﾊ: Yeah, why is that? perhaps I'm scared? or is it because I already said it before? or I simply was busy with something else??? Sorry, I just went to a Yiddish reading table and missed a few messages. I can see S. knew M. couldn't be too far away... I'm glad. And K.E. added some very powerful arguments too.
ok, I had said it before, so I didn't want to repeat myself, but the first that comes to mind:
- in God we trustﾊ(why does the money have to insist in the trust of God?),ﾊ
- one nationﾊunder God (Iﾊjust heardﾊin NPR that the removal of this was repealed,ﾊwith theﾊargument that the father complaining about his daughter having to sayﾊit every day is divorced from the girl's mother, and the mother has custody, therefore the father cannot ask anything onﾊhis child behalf...)ﾊﾊﾊ
This is one of theﾊsilliest arguments the Supreme Court ever gave. As other comentators said: they simply don't want to get into this. It's too complicated. One said he was glad it wasn't thrown away, but he particularly dislikes the idea of leaving it in because 'anyway, it's trivial'. ..... I'm afraid too many people honestly believe this is trivial...
- Good night and God bless you (from Bush, no more no less)
- hand on the Bible when, as a witness, you promise to tell the truth.
- if I want to become a citizen I have to, yes, you guess it...
Then,ﾊadd all the valid arguments Jenna, ﾊKE, and M.ﾊalready explained. I cannot find Tom's e-mail. Sorry Jeni but this is an open forum, as far as I know. If you want, we can all shut up, but do you really want that? And thereﾊis more, of course.ﾊ
I think DK's arguments ARE pretty extreme. Not all/most Americans think like that, or at least, they have some doubts...ﾊ
**************************
*******
And here begins my daily ramble:
You know, the church/state thing is always a problem. We all do have the
freedom to choose about whether to believe or not. Dave, you believe in God,
Elisa, you say you aren't that religious. I go to Church for the wine, and in
my heart of hearts don't know what I believe. Really, Good for us all.
Difference of opinion and discussion is a great thing. Whether or not there
freedom from religion is a debatable issue or whether its an issue at all
really. Freedom from religion ought to be on par with freedom of religion,
however, freedom of religion just means that people can't be pissed at someone
saying they believe or don't believe. If you think about it, whether someone
likes it or not, God is mentioned everywhere. When I had to testify in court,
I swore to God. No-one asked me if I believed in Him/Her/It or not. When I
bought beer tonight, the dollar bills had "In God we Trust" written on them.
When I listen to any elected official its "God Bless America" at the end of
any speech. You know, pray if you want, and don't pray if you don't want to.
That's the whole idea, I think. The problem is when we try to talk about it. I
think that religion is something like Minimalism--you either believe in it or
you don't.
I don't have an answer as to whether or not Reagan's funeral ought to have
been in a church or not, or whether it ought to have been broadcast (I for one
would have much rather watched Jerry Springer so as to get my daily dose
of "See, I'm normal, really") Other than that, I dunno man, I just dunno. I
saw Joe Liebermann get roasted because he's Jewish. I really don't know if
America's ready and willing to accept a non-christian non-protestant president
(I say this knowing that JFK was Catholic, but where'd that get him?).
In the end, that is if you've gotten this far and haven't dismissed me or
realized that I've utterly failed at being funny ought to know that what I'm
getting at is that arguing about religion and belief vs. non belief is like
fighting a war to preserve the peace, or forgive my vulgarity, having sex to
preserve virginity. We don't get anywhere, we just piss each other off and end
up talking past each other.
One final thought: I don't think Elisa's first point was that all people who
opt to pray ought to do it in a corner or in some secret prayer room in the
back of their house. What I think is that it was an honest question about
American culture that confuses even American citizens sometimes. I seriously
doubt that anyone meant to piss anyone off, or rant, or to advocate
repression.
Dave you pray. Faith is a great thing. I feel that even though I'm not
convinced, and am not a religious person, faith in something is a great thing
to have. Whether that thing is God, Yaweh, the basic nature of Humanity, or in
nothing at all (which is probably exhausting) we all have the right to
believe. People have the right to express themselves--whatever they believe or
believe in--without being ridiculed.
And here so ends the opinion of me.
Dude, I'm so wasted.
Love, Kisses and Hugs,
pjm
*********
From K-E:
The usual problem with "The government" and religion in The US is uninformed
enforcement of (legally speaking) optional religious curricula on the part
of officials way down the totem pole- grade school teachers (so "officials"
in some sense at a county city or state level, depending), for example, who
reprimand students who refuse to recite the pledge of allegiance -a 1942
ruling of the supreme court, well BEFORE Congress/Eisenhower added the words
"under god" (1954) held that reciting it be optional only, never mandatory
in any public context) or who won't sit still for a school prayer period (in
a public school or course). ﾊOnly rarely does the issue rise to the level of
the very peculiar events in Alabama last year...
Besides the religious iconography and language that occasionally crops up in
state-sanctioned or regulated items like our currency, the big set of issues
dealing with church-state separation revolve around BENEFITS that accrue to
religious organizations as a consequence of the peculiar american take on
it: in particular the tax-free status of religious institutions and the
(difficulty with the) disentangling of that institutional status from the
"non-religious" activities (self-determined take-home pay from untaxed
church funds, "wedge" issue advocacy) of the officials of those
institutions. ﾊOh what a can of worms that is and will remain...
There is another issue linked to a particular version of American Christian
fundamentalism (the ones who believe that we are in the "end times" and are
actively seeking to create what they perceive to be the conditions for the
return of the Messiah) that seeks the adoption of religious (ie their brand
of Christian) language into the law of the land. As a very vocal (and quite
large, in certain states) minority voice, they sometimes create the
appearance that the separation of Church and State is under legislative
siege, but for the most part they do not have the legislative power to
actually enact "Christian" language into (almost invariably local, though
occasionally state) law. When they have been sucessful, their success
rerely if ever survives legal scrutiny.
At the national level, there are and have been attempts to declare the
United States to be a "Christian" nation, but again, these movements have
rarely had even the extremely limited success that the movement to have
English declared the national language had a decade of so ago. More subtle
attempts to align the law to the reality matrix of specific religious
authorities tends to be more successful when those perceptions are generally
shared beyond the religious communities (or denominations) who are behind
them. Sometimes, as with the adoption of the XVIIIth amendment, religious
advocacy has been instrumental in changing the law. As with its repeal with
the XXIst, common sense has generally tended to restore uh, to use Warren G
Harding's word, "normalcy", at least eventually.
But, least we forget, America is a land populated, at least to some extent,
with the descendants of members of persecuted religious sects who fled to
these shores to refound the Kingdom of Jerusalem- it's no surprise that our
national discourse is far more entwined with religion than any european
country, for example. All the religious nut cases from Christian Europe came
here! Just kidding, sort of.
****************
From T:
I am loath to get involved in these debates, but just as a point
of fact: religion did have a great influence on many political
movements of 19th century America, most especially with respect to
the abolitionist movement. There is a famous incident in which
the radical abolitionist John Brown stood up in church and swore
a public oath to God that he would not rest until centuries of
unrequited toil had been repaid. (Incidentally, he and his sons
later hacked two Kansas proslavery men to death with broadswords,
and was executed by the Commonwealth of Virginia for leading a
mostly unsuccessful slave uprising.) If you go read the
abolitionist literature of the times, both in the United States
and in Great Britain, you will find many if not most arguments are
made in the form of sermons or hymns, most famously in the "Battle
Hymn of the Republic". It is also true that many arguments FOR
slavery were articulated through the medium of religion, which
just goes to show that societies often use presently standing
institutions to support, alter or abolish other institutions.
-- T, who would rather be on the Rue de L'Ancien Comedie sipping
some Bordeaux.
*****************
From G:
at risk of jumping in on the middle of this:
Elisa's point, I think, is that in this country our civil society is not secular, and neither is our political society. Say what you like about freedom to choose not to believe, our country's model of "freedom of religion" is and has always been (in practice) a freedom to choose any religion (especially if it's a Protestant one), with a vague idea that atheism is something like a religion. The reasons for this, at least in part, are deeply historical; not only a question of the relative virtue or vice of different national orders.
So, an attempt to answer the original question about why the Japanese and the Americans might understand the separation of church and state so differently.
In France (and many historically Catholic countries) 'freedom of religion' has meant the maintenance of a separate, secular civil society and political spheres as distinct from the global power of the papacy. Note also, these historically Catholic European nation-states are also former (and some current) monarchies--though with tightly limited power residing in the monarch-- (or ex-colonies of monarchies) where, before democratic rule and constitutional law, the monarch ruled under the rubric of the 'divine right of kings.' In this way, the move to a constitutional, representative democratic form required a break from a past in which government was OVERTLY sanctioned by a religion, a religious institution (the universal curch, ruling from Rome), and a national/international order of religious practice, as embodied in mass. Similarly, in Japan, "separation of church and state" has been the official position of a constitutional order distinguishing itself from a historically unified system, where the emperor ruled by divine right (and maybe he still does? in purely symbolic role and without political power? why else the brouhaha over the female-ness of the only imperial heir?) In all such cases, we can see why a secular political sphere (with no display of religious affiliation) might be ideologically central to the claims to moral and political authority of a nation-state. (And, for example, why Colombia--quite a Catholic nation--has civil unions, that is, a distinction between church weddings and legal weddings which is quite distinct [though, as far as I know, heterosexual only].)
In the US, however, our history is quite different. Britain, our relevant colonial power, had dropped the Catholic church quite a bit back. While COE is the church of England, Britain was home to a number of Protestant malcontents, many of whom she shipped right over here as colonists. It is in this context that the US was formed as a political body, one of people persecuted (to greater or lesser extent) on the continent, who found one thing especially heinous--the King's sense that he could tax them on things like tea and etc. Also, when we got rid of our King (who was far away anyway, and not the king of everybody here--note the germans and etc.) there was pretty much no real worry of a Restoration. Plus, nobody is in any position to claim any divine right of Presidency (oh, wait, here I almost lied........ note the dynastic qualities of the Bush empire and co-commitant religious fervor bordering on attempts at, or gestures toward attempts at the founding of a New Jerusalem based on the, deeply protestant, idea of "freedom."). Well, even then, it is not quite an inherited right, but one bestowed by religious conversion and continuing faith, something altogether different (and more almost meritocratic) than a classic Catholic monarchy.......
Anyhow, the US has always been not only a Christian nation, but a Protestant one (with the notable exception of dear, dead, Kennedy--but look how much of a fuss that stirred up, plus he got shot). As such we have freedom of religion, but one that has always taken atheism, agnosticism, or vagueness about belief as a kind of 'other' religion (witness the Unitarians). That is, religious beliefs are always held (in the US) to adhere in persons (not only as a right, but as kind of a natural quality), the idea of a secular sphere, in which one's religious affiliations are irrelevant makes no sense in the US--our religious beliefs (especially Protestantism, which requires a strong distinction between earthly authority and divine authority (that is, no pope) but still celebrates (and to a certain extent requires) religious piety in her individual statesmen) are seen as inalienable qualities of each person, grounding and motivating our actions.
This is a complicated issue, and a I mean only to point out that the particular political, moral, and theological constructions of protestantism (all historically very interesting) are deeply related to the way that American 'freedom of religion' is VERY different from French or Turkish, or etc. secularism is politics and 'public spheres.'
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
ジャンル別一覧
人気のクチコミテーマ
-
-
- φ(._.)主婦のつぶやき☆
- 天気予報と雪を天秤にかけて
- (2025-02-26 15:52:35)
-
-
-
- 家を建てたい！
- 鍵（キー）を増やしたい
- (2025-02-25 16:42:11)
-
-
-
- 地球に優しいショッピング
- 大豆ミートの牛丼風は優れもの！牛を…
- (2024-09-27 13:35:41)
-
© Rakuten Group, Inc.
