That title should get some attention. The two things you are not supposed to discuss in polite company, religion and politics.
The posts on the beer garden have been interesting, and they made me want to do a whole post on a slightly different issue - the place of religion in the public square.
Some posters have accused religious people of "forcing" their views on others by complaining about the beer garden. Of course, this is always the refrain of many non-religious people.
I used to think it was just propaganda, but I am starting to believe that there are people who would all but ban any religious expression in public. This IS America, where you are supposed to have freedom of speech. It is a sad day when you have to defend freedom of speech for anyone in this country - let alone for people who believe in loving and caring for their fellow man.
You may say I am biased toward religion, but if you raise that objection, I'll just say you are biased against it, so we are back to square one.
The idea of "forcing" ones beliefs on another person is a totally bogus argument. In any debate, some will win and some will lose. That is just the nature of the game.
You must also admit, that if you do something that religious people object to, then you are "forcing" your beliefs on them. You cannot have it both ways. If religious people are "forcing" their views, then you non-religious people are doing the same thing by doing what they find objectionable.
The "Forcing" talk is a smokescreen to avoid talking about the real issue.
A community has a right to set standards.
The real issue with beer gardens - as I understand it, is not the beer itself. It is just the idea that it will be more public and that the city leaders are sponsoring it. People have a right to say they don't like that, and a right to try to change it
Religious people have a right to be part of that debate. Non-religious people do too. Whether they are religious or not should not even be an issue.
Why is it "wrong" in our culture for Christians to object to stuff, but then it is ok for people to object to Christians having freedom of speech? Don't kid yourself, it is a freedom of speech issue.
The moral framework of any society since the beginning of recorded history has come from religion. I would go so far as to say that there is no logical basis for any morality other than religion. In religion you essentially have a "higher power" setting the rules. If you don't have that, then its just whoever has the biggest guns or most money making the rules. There will always be "rules." Even not having rules, is having a rule.
That's not even an endorsement of a specific religion. Just about every culture that has ever existed has had a basic moral code, and the differences are very slight.
Objecting to something is not "forcing" one's views on another person. The person still has a right to do whatever it is if it is legal. Does the objecting person not have a right to not have something forced upon him?
Do people have a "right" to not be exposed to second hand tobacco smoke in a restaurant? Do smokers have a right to smoke in restaurants?
Whether its alcohol, tobacco or anything else, the question is not "forcing" one's beliefs. The issue is whose rights will have the upper hand and whose will have the lower hand.
If one person has a right to smoke or drink, they are infringing on the rights of someone else. If someone has a right to not be exposed to smoking and drinking, they are infringing. I only say that to show the silliness of the "forcing" issue.
I would think we would be better off if we supported the rights of all people to be heard.
Someone once said ... "if you do not understand your opponent's viewpoint, you don't really understand your own."
So let the debates begin.
James
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
You must also admit, that if you do something that religious people object to, then you are "forcing" your beliefs on them. You cannot have it both ways. If religious people are "forcing" their views, then you non-religious people are doing the same thing by doing what they find objectionable.
Ecxcuse me???? If I do something someone else doesn't believe in that doesn't mean I am forcing my beliefs on them, unless I drag them along and make them participate. Same situation here with the beer garden, go ahead and say you don't like it and don't participate in it-but to demand they change their decision to have it because you don't like it or make threats to pull your float out of the parade (ha, good one, I'm soooo upset about that, NOT) is childish and selfish of those people. No one is forcing anything on anyone here, you can choose to go or not to go-believe it or not, IT'S THAT SIMPLE!!! If it will make you feel better, shoot, hold a church service or prayer group next door to it, I won't feel you are forcing your beliefs on me either...unless you grab me by the arm and drag me inside. I don't object to, write letters to or about, or protest all the church buildings and groups here in town, even though I don't believe in them and find them slightly amusing yet irritating-I just don't look, listen, or participate. So, maybe they in turn could leave all the 'houses of ill reput', 'honkytonks', 'beerjoints','sinners', etc. alone in turn? ya think?
No one is forcing anything on anyone here, you can choose to go or not to go-believe it or not, IT'S THAT SIMPLE!!!
Nothing is ever that simple :)
I was saying from the start that the "forcing" issue is not a real issue ..
but why is your desire to "have it" more important than their desire to "not have it"
why is one side more important than the other ?
having beer in public does effect people around you ... go to any football game where beer is sold and you will see fights in the crowd .. go to any football game where beer is not sold, and you probably wont see a fight ...
thats just observation.
my point is that whenever people disagree, either there is a compromise or one side wins and one side loses, that is not forcing anyone to do something.
If you have beer in public, you are "dragging them along" because you are changing to dynamics of the public event.
its not the beer people are objecting to, it is the "public" nature of it ... no one objects to the pool hall selling beer across the street ... and there was a beer event put on by the burford last year, and no one objected ..
why is the "right" to have it in public more important than the right to not be exposed to it ...
My point was that no one is forcing beliefs on anyone ... the forcing beliefs argument itself is what im getting at ..
i believe talking about the philosophy behind the issues is more interesting than the issue, in this case :)
can we get past the surface ?
james
James, by your own admission you stated "your are dragging them along by having it at a public event"
Would this not hold true for your music festival? You are holding it on public property, probably within earshot, of someone's home.
Also, what about National Prayer day or having a Christian themed float in the Arkalalah parade?
If you are not Christian, then you are having Christian beliefs forced upon you at a public event. What if you don't want your children exposed to that?
The last time I checked no one was boycotting your festival or Christian themed floats in the Arkalalah parade. Or trying to go to the city commission to have your permits revoked.
My main point being that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Christians can absolutely boycott the parade or not attend Arkalalah. That is their choice. You cannot, however, limit other people enjoying their lives even if that means you have to witness people (gasp!) drinking beer. As long as the beer drinkers do not physically harm you. And bringing up the point that the it could possibly harm you(as a reason not to have it) through drunk driving or fights is not a valid argument.Last year, they had a beer and brats event and as far as I know one was injured. Several people have been hurt in the past from Shriner vehicles in the parade and we don't stop them from participating. You assume risk when you walk out the door.
If Christians would like to proselytize in public than they have to be prepared to let other people enjoy their lives in a public manner. This is a legal event approved by the city.
They can write articles until they are blue in the face; I have no problem with that. But going to the city commission to try and get it overturned is absolutely "trying to force a Christian agenda upon the city." The agenda being only Christian beliefs are aloud to be seen in public.
Rights, schmights! The only real rights are natural rights. Anything else is created by legislation. I do not have a right to a smoke free restaurant, but I do have the right to choose not to eat at one that allows smoking. Don't drink the beer - it is only 3.2 anyway. Protest something meaningful like the nice folks who park their chairs in the middle of the street at 6 AM and leave them until the parade, daring anyoneto mnove them. I'm not a native but I have noticed that Arkalalah brings out the worst in some.
I have one question. If it is illegal to walk the streets after drinking or you recieve a ticket for public intoxication, how are you going to participate in the beer garden, on public streets? Do ya take a sleeping bag and spend the night? or risk perhaps getting a public intoxication ticket? You CAN'T have your cake and eat it too! If it is an offense the rest of the year, it is an offense at Arkalalah right? or is this like asking two police officers if I have a passenger who refuses to wear his/her seat belt, does the passenger get a ticket, do I get a ticket or do we both get a ticket. One officer shook his head yes, the other shook his head no. Does that tell you it depends on who interpets the law and what the officers mood is for the day, or what your mood is when you get pulled over for your passengers offense, whether you get a ticket or not?? Both officers admitted the driver is responsible for their passengers' behavior, but it just depended on the officer! Drink your beer, I don't care, I'm staying home anyway! But I do think it is wrong for the city to promote beer drinking at a family event esp. when you have the public intoxication laws and I want to know if it will pertain during Arkalalah or just when they want to enforce it? Never did understand that law anyway. You can't and certainly shouldn't drive and drink, so how do you get home if you enjoy a beer or two when you can't even walk home? yeah, I know, a cab, but don't think we have "night" cabs in this town! All clowning aside, if you know the answers to these questions, I would love to read them! Hope everyone has a great time at Arkalalah, it is truly a great city event. I just don't like crowds or rides. Please, all who attend, just be safe, enjoy your beer and be considerate of those around you who enjoy coffee, tea or me!!!
"If you don't have that, then its just whoever has the biggest guns or most money making the rules. There will always be "rules." Even not having rules, is having a rule."
Thank You.
Rules, or should I say Law is what keeps us from killing each other. It's why we have jails, prisons, a judicial system, etc.
Keeps order in the streets. Keeps people in line that otherwise might not want to stay in line.
Point: someone will always be stronger than another. Question: Why is it wrong for a 5th grader to take another's lunch money? Why do we not allow that?
Because it's wrong.
All law has it's roots in either religion of some sort or at least a
very strong "inner" code that says each guy should have the same rights as the next guy. This is what our great U.S.A. was founded upon. Truth. It is the basis of all moral law. In every time period. Granted, it's easy
to see that we have not always in all instances adhered to the original intent of the founders. Yet, it is in the foundation. Truth. In this U.S.A. brought to us by Religion. You may or may not be religious. That's not the point. But if it weren't for religion, there would be no United States of America.
Religion & politics. Can you seperate the two. I think not. I think never.
If you do, you have chaos. We see the beginnings of it in our society
today.
A few years ago, Judge Robert Bork wrote a book called "Slouching
towards Gomarrah". In it, he makes the case so much better than I can.
Suggested reading if you have the time. At any library.
knightrules1
Knightrules1-
Are you actually asking us to read a book by Robert Bork contradicting what many of the original framer's intended? He is a firm believer in "orignalism", which is strictly adhering to what we believe was the original framer's intent. I actually just got back from Washington D.C. this weekend. I went to the Jefferson memorial. Jefferson was the lead author of the Declaration of Independence, one of the original framer's and the Third President of the U.S.A. He was also a strong advocate of the separation of Church and State. And he believed that laws were to be reinterpreted as the times changed and new developments and knowledge came to light. This seems to be in direct contradiction to many of Robert Bork's ideas.
Secondly, this is most definitely not a case denying Christian's their Freedom of Speech. Did the government step in and tell you that you cannot speak about your being against the beer garden and threaten you with Jail? Did they stop you from writing letters to the editor or speaking about it in your church groups? Freedom of Speech is about the government trying to limit what you can or cannot say in your homes or in public.
The Traveler as a private entity and can choose to print or not print any letter. In this case, they chose to print the letters against the beer garden. How exactly were Christian's Freedom of Speech violated?
The right of free speech also comes with the responsibility of taking criticism. If you speak out about something you don't like and the people criticize you for that well -tough cookies. You can't scream Free Speech just because people don't like what you say.
I think there is definitely a backlash against Christians that try to encroach their moral beliefs upon other people. Oftentimes, this backlash is warranted. Upon visiting the National Native American Museum, I learned that the Hupa tribe is consistently harassed by Christian groups that set up PA systems(right across from their land) to tell them they are evil and they should stop their native rituals.
I certainly do not advocate limiting anyone's right to practice their religion, speak freely, or pursue happiness. And I would hope that other people of this world would do the same for me.
Thanks.
Not saying anything about the Judge's book, except that he makes the case very nicely about how societies deteriorate from within. I believe we can look around and see it happening on a daily basis in our nation. That's all. I still think it would be worth your time to at least look at it. If not. OK.
Not sure about all the "originalist", "strict constructionist" language. I'm not a lawyer. I do know that right is right and wrong is wrong. Some are trying to change that. If you would, remember one word...Truth.
On a side note, it was a long time ago, and am sure we've moved on, but...I still think he would have made an excellent Supreme Court Justice. ha. A good man that was done real bad.
Thx for blogging.
knightrules1
I do know that right is right and wrong is wrong. Some are trying to change that. If you would, remember one word...Truth.
..........
There are lots of people who dont believe in truth as a concept. So if you dont have the concept of truth ... then its pretty hard to get anywhere.
It is the way our culture is going.
It goes all the way back to adam and eve in the garden of eden. They chose rebellion, and then they covered themselves with leaves because they were embarrassed.
Covering our sin was the way for thousands of years, until people came up with the idea of denying the existence of God.
That made it easier to do what you wanted to do.
Then, you destroy the idea of "truth" or any "right or wrong" and then you can really do anything you want.
The "right" to do what you want has become more important in our culture than anything else.
God and Truth just get in the way :)
Thats my take on it.
I do believe in objective truth.
And in God.
Some things are right and wrong and most people know the basics.
There are probably things any one of us would do if it were not "wrong." Which is more important ... satisfying my own desires or the good of the community or culture.
Lots of philosophical questions here.
I like this type of thing.
We could start some threads on this if you guys want to...
but please dont accuse me of forcing my views on anyone. I dont have a gun and dont even know where most of you live. :)
jj
At least it seem everyone's staying civil about the debate. Good.
knightrules1
Post a Comment