Brain Fertilizer

Um. weren't many of the first Europeans pagans? And I remember reading somewhere that some parts of Europe were first settled by Jews...don't know where then or much else about that last bit.

There was an interesting post on the issue of religion and government that contained several amusing spins that made it very suitable for posting. It doesn't add any weight to either side of the discussion, but is instructive and enjoyable to read. http://www.haloscan.com/comments/notherbob2/110147695477704788/
[sarcasm/humor alert] I think that I had better switch sides and give Nathan a hand. He is getting the worst of it.

Oops! Sorry. I meant: http://page1of3.blogspot.com/2004/11/faith-based-project-beats-badly.html

Rachel Ann,
Of course. Christianity didn't begin until 2000 years ago, and didn't spread all the way up to England for more than 1000 years after that.
But the point is that the European nations owe their existence, form, principles, etc more to Christianity than to paganism. The EU Constitution currently forbids them to acknowledge that. If a nation truly thinks that Paganism and the Jewish religion are important parts of their history, they are currently forbidden to acknowledge that, too. All these 1m people want is the right to acknowledge actual history rather than eradicate and rewrite significant parts of it to please atheists.

I guess I am at a loss at to what they would say and how they would say it in their official documents. I do think history ought to be taught truthfully; but I didn't think the roots of government in most European countries started out as Christain. I am not a history buff; just some mild reading here and there so I could very well be quite wrong on the issue. Still, as many of the European countries have an official state religion, what is the reason for wanting the charters to also state they were formed on Christian principles? I am not trying to be argumentative, I am really trying to understand why they wish it. The countries contstiutions aren't banned from stating it are they?

Israel for instance, acknowledges its roots in Judaism; but we are the only Jewish country that exists and our existence is contantly threatened.

I can understand various countries wanting to acknowledge their religious roots; but why is it necessary for the EU to acknowledge this? The EU as a whole wasn't started as a Christian. Correct? What are the nations as individula nations being denied the right to affirm? I guess that is what is confusing me.

It's not necessary, as in it should be a requirement to put in Christian language.
But a significant portion of the population wants it acknowledged. Since it will make no difference in the actual laws, why should the EU refuse to let them make the nod toward history?
It's like the ACLU suing to remove the cross from the Los Angeles county (city?) seal...doing so is a short-sighted and idiotic decision to ignore that the area was settled first by Catholic missionaries, in order to sanitize even the appearance of religion out of govt.
Simply put, there are two ways to deal with religion in govt.
1) You can totally restrict "religion", which not only infringes on freedom of religious expression (not in the EU constitution, I don't think, but still in ours), but also establishes the trappings of atheism as the default. The problem with this is it assumes religion is somehow worse than other belief systems...but every belief system is based on unprovable assumptions, and so establishing any belief system over all others is a bad move.
2) The other thing you can do is allow a pluralistic experssion of belief systems, and pragmatically allow the govt and members of govt to express their beliefs, and assign tax dollars in any way the majority supports, subject to judicial oversight. That leaves it up to all sides to argue their position to get the majority support, and for voting to get the party in power to make judicial appointments in line with your views. While an extreme majority of US citizens are religious, I have full confidence that no one could ever get more than a handful of support for overturning the establishment clause; but I do think it would be better to get back to a strict Constructionist viewpoint, in which the Constitution were again taken at its word, instead of assuming the implied additions. Thus, we would get back to Congress not being able to pass a law that establishes an official religion, which is obviously more in line with the framers' intent than preventing govt officials from saying "Merry Christmas!" The best part is that politicians would no longer have to separate their personal beliefs from their official positions, like Sen. Kerry felt compelled to do with abortion.

The EU apparently tried to impose the first, whereas these petitioners are trying to push for the second option. It should be obvious which one I prefer.

Seriously Nathan, please name one official who was prevented from saying "Merry Christmas." Who sued them and on what grounds? Being afraid to say it because you're a squirrelly politician is not the same as being oppressed, mind you.

It's not that I know that this did not happen, I just seriously doubt it.

Well, what I heard is probably urban legend, and I'm too lazy to try and google for it...[grin]

But here's a parallel example. Remember when McD's french fries used to be good? You could even eat them cold. But there was an obesity scare in the early 90s, and the government started pushing 'healthy diets' and changed the menu in all the government-run eating places, and soon all the fast food chains started switching from animal fat to vegetable fat for frying.
Was there a law passed? I don't think so. ANd it probably wasn't even quite that smooth.
But a very vocal minority of the population made a big stink about animal fats and heart disease, and to avoid any chance at a lawsuit, all the fast food chains changed their food. Now we have crappy fries, and people are still complaining McDs made them fat. So what have we gained?
McDs also used to put everything in Styrofoam containers. But environmental groups didn't like that, and raised a stink, back in the 80s, I think. The environment was a big topic then, and judges started passing down verdicts against the polluters...so McDs changed and stopped using styrofoam. But they switched to waxed and plasticized paper that is probably more harmful to the environment than styrofoam. And Gore still blames the US for global warming. Again, what have we won there?
Another example: In the 70s, when junk environmental science was still in its infancy, the environmental groups got everyone all scared about what CFCs were doing to the ozone layer, and so got all the freon refigerant units made illegal. This is one example where there was a law passed. So now air conditioning/refrigeration isn't as cold and is far less energy-efficient, and the ozone layer fluctuates right along with the solar wind, as it always did, before junk science skewed data for political points. So what did that do for us besides waste alot of money that made the economy worse than it could have been...?

Now here we are, and secularists are rocking the boat about religion in govt. But we made it 228 years to this point without worrying about the cross in the LA seal, or whether the Boy Scouts can meet on military bases. But when I complain about the ACLU in these cases, I'm told that there must be more separation between Church and State or else a Theocracy will take over! Gasp!

Before you react, I realize that no, that's not what you were saying, Susie. In fact, you seemed to take a very libertarian view of it...but that's the stimulus behind my posts.

The point of the examples I just gave is that the way our society works, if you work to eradicate something out of government, since government is a subset of society, it will have an impact on society. At worst, the only way to truly eradicate it out of government is to eradicate it out of society completely. You may not want to do that. But one of the other commenters on these threads does have a problem with "In God We Trust" being on our currency. I've been trying to explain my view to you, but you really aren't my direct opponent in this. But I do want you to realize that there are people more extreme than you, just as I realize there are more people more extreme than me. The thing is, if the Theocrat movement ever started getting the upper hand at establishing a state religion, I'd switch sides and fight against 'em.
But even there we get into problems of definition, because merely threatening to send the issue of abortion rights back to the states, or passing a Definition of Marriage Amendment (despite the exceedingly democratic process such an amendment would undergo) is seen by many people as de facto evidence of a Theocracy imposing its will.

I'll leave you with one final example. As I walked around the military department store today, I couldn't find a single roll of gift-wrapping paper that had a Christian theme. 30 years ago it would have been split 75/25 or 60/40 in favor of religious themes. Society has changed to become more secular; I don't think it's made things better for anyone.

Not to be a -b-, but it's hard enough these days knowing what's true and what's a lie without bloggers adding more noise to the cacophony. I know you were just using it as an example, but it unnecessarily hurts your case when you don't check things out or exaggerate to make a point. You have a good argument to make and I would hate to see it damaged by innaccurate info. And more importantly, *I'm* counting on you to be as honest as you can be.

O.K., I'll get off my obnoxious high horse now.

:)

[grin]
Point taken, and not [-b-]-y at all.

I'll try to be more careful to identify my rhetorical devices, or better yet, avoid them altogether.