Nick Oliva

I got it. Methinks, I got it. Donovan’s cross on a hill made the connection for me.

I could never suggest that a Church putting a cross on land that it owns is a problem for reasons of religion. Why would Donovan think I’d have a problem with this?

Here’s the rub…. When we wrote this issue, we considered other language before we settled on "public displays of religious content." Here’s one comment that, now that I realize it isn’t part of the final issue, seems unfortunate.

When I have read this issue, I have always read it as explicitly being about "government displays…."

But Donovan appears to have interpreted the issue in the more broad sense of "any public display". I didn’t get that before… but now when I look at it, I see where one could read it that way. I was going to argue that "religion and government" puts the issue back in "government display" territory…but I can see where someone would still interpret it as Donovan has.

The rules of the site only permit the "topic language" (Religion and Government) changing after people have taken a stand… it’s complicated as to why this is the case, but entirely logical and reasonable. I’m changing the topic text from "Religion and Government" to "The Use of Religion by Government" unless someone suggests something more appropriate.

Tags: Law by nick
2 Comments »

I got it. Methinks, I got it. Donovan’s cross on a hill made the connection for me.

I could never suggest that a Church putting a cross on land that it owns is a problem for reasons of religion. Why would Donovan think I’d have a problem with this?

Here’s the rub…. When we wrote this issue, we considered other language before we settled on "public displays of religious content." Here’s one comment that, now that I realize it isn’t part of the final issue, seems unfortunate.

When I have read this issue, I have always read it as explicitly being about "government displays…."

But Donovan appears to have interpreted the issue in the more broad sense of "any public display". I didn’t get that before… but now when I look at it, I see where one could read it that way. I was going to argue that "religion and government" puts the issue back in "government display" territory…but I can see where someone would still interpret it as Donovan has.

The rules of the site only permit the "topic language" (Religion and Government) changing after people have taken a stand… it’s complicated as to why this is the case, but entirely logical and reasonable. I’m changing the topic text from "Religion and Government" to "The Use of Religion by Government" unless someone suggests something more appropriate.

whereIstand Tags

• andrea
• Donovan
• Should public displays of religious content be permitted?

Tags: Law by nick
2 Comments »

Andy liked my use of , "Freedom of religion is freedom from religion too",

Thanks, Andy. I agree it’s a catchy phrase that has some potential for participating in making a breakthrough with the people that insist that we are condemed to have them pray for us (I’m starting to lose sleep over thoughts of Lar praying for me… just joking Lar).

For the record, though, I didn’t make that up… just passing it along.

Tags: Law by nick
1 Comment »

Andy liked my use of , "Freedom of religion is freedom from religion too",

Thanks, Andy. I agree it’s a catchy phrase that has some potential for participating in making a breakthrough with the people that insist that we are condemed to have them pray for us (I’m starting to lose sleep over thoughts of Lar praying for me… just joking Lar).

For the record, though, I didn’t make that up… just passing it along.

whereIstand Tags

• Donovan
• Andy
• andrea
• Amir
• JoeC
• Lar
• Should the Pledge of Allegiance include the phrase “under God”?
• Should morality and religion play a role in the making of public policy?
• What legal rights to a relationship of consenting adults should be available for same-sex couples?

Tags: Law by nick
1 Comment »

Mike, are you persuaded by these persuasive, non-religious reasons?

When we came up with this issue, I don’t think our intention was that people that believe same-sex marriage should not be prohibited would find the non-religious reasons persuasive. The context was more along the lines of the suggestions some people make that biology, for example, proves that same-sex marriage ought to be illegal. We left the question open to any reason that is non-religious to let people have their say…whatever their folly…er, I mean, reasoning….

Which side are you on?

Tags: Family and Society by nick
No Comments »

Mike, are you persuaded by these persuasive, non-religious reasons?

When we came up with this issue, I don’t think our intention was that people that believe same-sex marriage should not be prohibited would find the non-religious reasons persuasive. The context was more along the lines of the suggestions some people make that biology, for example, proves that same-sex marriage ought to be illegal. We left the question open to any reason that is non-religious to let people have their say…whatever their folly…er, I mean, reasoning….

Which side are you on?

whereIstand Tags

• Mike
• Are there persuasive non-religious reasons to prohibit same-sex marriage?

Tags: Family and Society by nick
No Comments »

Suppose someone (in reference to Christians) asks the question, "Is it really the case that if they can’t put up a statue, the government has "persecuted" them?"

Wouldn’t you think this person had doubts about public displays of religious content?

I think the effort to be inclusive of all religions is a positive one. I remember being surprised when Hanukkah entered the mix when I was in grade school. Whenever government presents religious content without pressure, I am not bothered by it, as I think information and knowledge is good, and knowing about religions is interesting.

Fast forward that to the coercive and clearly evangelical purposes for which religious content is being pushed by governments today. Kansas is redefining "science"…nice! Judge Roy in his ten gallon hat with his ten ton ten commandments…. These are efforts to enforce…not inform.

It’s a question of degrees. If you just inform, we’re not bothered. If you take more than the inch you already have because your quota of souls for the month hasn’t been met… now you are pissing me off. 

Tags: Law by nick
1 Comment »

Suppose someone (in reference to Christians) asks the question, "Is it really the case that if they can’t put up a statue, the government has "persecuted" them?"

Wouldn’t you think this person had doubts about public displays of religious content?

I think the effort to be inclusive of all religions is a positive one. I remember being surprised when Hanukkah entered the mix when I was in grade school. Whenever government presents religious content without pressure, I am not bothered by it, as I think information and knowledge is good, and knowing about religions is interesting.

Fast forward that to the coercive and clearly evangelical purposes for which religious content is being pushed by governments today. Kansas is redefining "science"…nice! Judge Roy in his ten gallon hat with his ten ton ten commandments…. These are efforts to enforce…not inform.

It’s a question of degrees. If you just inform, we’re not bothered. If you take more than the inch you already have because your quota of souls for the month hasn’t been met… now you are pissing me off. 

whereIstand Tags

• Donovan
• andrea
• Should public displays of religious content be permitted?

Tags: Law by nick
1 Comment »

I strongly support the restoration of the Pledge of Allegiance to the text prior to the misguided addition of "under God".

Donovan is wrong that the option of not vocalizing "under God" during the reciting of the pledge is a fair solution. This is just a way of living with an insult - like blacks not vocalizing their disagreement with having to sit in the back of the bus. It’s not for the white guy up front to comment on whether the black lady in back was bothered by that policy; it’s not for the people that believe that our nation is "under God" to comment on whether those of us who do not believe this are bothered.

As a purely technical assessment, the inclusion of "under God" actually weakens the pledge and divides the indivisible. My interpretation of the pledge as it reads today is that "the part of the nation that is under God is indivisible." This holds true for any prepositional phrase you insert instead of "under God"… "one nation, East of the Mississipi, indivisible…."

If children in public schools were not forced to recite the pledge daily, I would be less troubled by this. If it were only an expression of historical relevance, I would be less troubled than I am. But when Eisenhower signed the change into law in 1954, he said,

"From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

Arguing that this was not done for explicitly religious purposes becomes rather difficult. Yes, there was a backdrop of communism…but religion is not wont to pass up on opportunities. Many of the religious holidays, symbols, stories in the Bible, etc. have their counterparts in pagan traditions…. (really, Mom, the cookies were just going to waste… I had to eat them!) That’s just too convenient in my view.

When Donovan says that "The statement of allegiance reflects what people believe" what does he mean? Who are the "people" to whom he is referring? I believe in every word of the pledge…except for the reference to your particular deity.

I love this business where the religious tell me that it’s less an intrusion on my rights for them to impose their religion on me, than it would be an intrusion on their rights to not be allowed to impose it.

Stand a while in my shoes, guys. Your kids can whisper "under God" to themselves when the time comes…or under Jehova, or Buddha, or Krishna, or Ralph the Head of Lettuce for all I care. If I had kids in public school today I would require them to scream "NOT" before the other kids say "under God".

The whole nation is not under your deity, just you. I’m most definitely and absolutely NOT under your deity. Freedom of religion is freedom from religion too.

Tags: Law by nick
2 Comments »

I strongly support the restoration of the Pledge of Allegiance to the text prior to the misguided addition of "under God".

Donovan is wrong that the option of not vocalizing "under God" during the reciting of the pledge is a fair solution. This is just a way of living with an insult - like blacks not vocalizing their disagreement with having to sit in the back of the bus. It’s not for the white guy up front to comment on whether the black lady in back was bothered by that policy; it’s not for the people that believe that our nation is "under God" to comment on whether those of us who do not believe this are bothered.

As a purely technical assessment, the inclusion of "under God" actually weakens the pledge and divides the indivisible. My interpretation of the pledge as it reads today is that "the part of the nation that is under God is indivisible." This holds true for any prepositional phrase you insert instead of "under God"… "one nation, East of the Mississipi, indivisible…."

If children in public schools were not forced to recite the pledge daily, I would be less troubled by this. If it were only an expression of historical relevance, I would be less troubled than I am. But when Eisenhower signed the change into law in 1954, he said,

"From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

Arguing that this was not done for explicitly religious purposes becomes rather difficult. Yes, there was a backdrop of communism…but religion is not wont to pass up on opportunities. Many of the religious holidays, symbols, stories in the Bible, etc. have their counterparts in pagan traditions…. (really, Mom, the cookies were just going to waste… I had to eat them!) That’s just too convenient in my view.

When Donovan says that "The statement of allegiance reflects what people believe" what does he mean? Who are the "people" to whom he is referring? I believe in every word of the pledge…except for the reference to your particular deity.

I love this business where the religious tell me that it’s less an intrusion on my rights for them to impose their religion on me, than it would be an intrusion on their rights to not be allowed to impose it.

Stand a while in my shoes, guys. Your kids can whisper "under God" to themselves when the time comes…or under Jehova, or Buddha, or Krishna, or Ralph the Head of Lettuce for all I care. If I had kids in public school today I would require them to scream "NOT" before the other kids say "under God".

The whole nation is not under your deity, just you. I’m most definitely and absolutely NOT under your deity. Freedom of religion is freedom from religion too.

whereIstand Tags

• Donovan
• Should the Pledge of Allegiance include the phrase “under God”?

Tags: Law by nick
2 Comments »