Just a reminder about who runs our city

[spuwho]

Some people confuse "separation of church and state" to mean "separation of church from state".

[finehoe]

Some people confuse "separation of church and state" to mean "separation of church from state".

This guy agrees with you 100%

[Wacca Pilatka]

I've seen plenty of circumstances (in cities with far different religious and political demographics than Jacksonville) where religious people's collective right to speak out on a secular topic was ridiculed and marginalized.  And plenty of circumstances where "separation of church and state" as it was intended (and as most Americans probably understand it, and as Pfeffer probably intends to describe it) is extended to ridiculous extremes such as harrassing elementary school kids for silently praying over their food at lunch time in a school cafeteria.

When?  Where?

I've a book with a number of examples of such distortion of the doctrine in the school context, but not handy.  I will be glad to post some when I have an opportunity.  (I apologize if there is a delay in my sending the citations - Sept. 15 tax return extension chaos and planning a charity walk - but hopefully on prior experience with my sending items to you and following up on posts, you know my word is good and I don't invent such things.)

I lived in Austin for three years, an otherwise fine place where I unfortunately saw many examples of intimidating operations against people with conservative or Christian views in the predominantly left-leaning areas of town - rampant theft and trashing of a conservative/Christian campus newspaper and defacement of its advertisements; burning of a swastika into the lawn of a friend with a religious-oriented political yard sign; defacement of cars with bumper stickers that went against the prevailing point of view; and profane, borderline threatening tirades against opponents of a light rail campaign in a public forum.  (This was the 2000-era predecessor to the much better-designed light rail program Austin has today - the initial version was poorly laid out and inexplicably was going to start with connections between lower-density areas.)

Whatever side of the political aisle one is on, whatever one's faith, there's no excuse for those kinds of tactics.  I do understand why people who lean leftward or are not churchgoers in Jacksonville can feel marginalized or like FBC dominates the city.  Similarly, in certain parts of Austin I knew that a lot of people with a publicly rightward stance were at risk of having their personal property destroyed.

I also see and understand that FBC, or a segment thereof, appears to be attempting to impose its religious points of view on the city.  It doesn't justify calling someone a far-right theocrat for expressing the opinion that religious people should be allowed to express a faith-based belief on a political issue.  Especially when you are both on the same side on this particular issue (as am I).

(By the way, didn't mean in any way, shape, or form to equate religiosity with one side of the political aisle or the other by way of the Austin examples.)

[Tacachale]

The point isn't that FBC did anything illegal or unethical. It's that they did something so cynical and distasteful toward such a backwards end - and that a good portion of our City Council showed up to be praised before the congregation in this embarrassing display.

[Wacca Pilatka]

The point isn't that FBC did anything illegal or unethical. It's that they did something so cynical and distasteful toward such a backwards end - and that a good portion of our City Council showed up to be praised before the congregation in this embarrassing display.

Agreed and I didn't mean to twist the thread in another direction.

[spuwho]

Some people confuse "separation of church and state" to mean "separation of church from state".

This guy agrees with you 100%

Fortunately, that is not what the quip means.

The quote doesn't mean the church runs the state, it means the church has a right to comment on the state.

[finehoe]

I lived in Austin for three years, an otherwise fine place where I unfortunately saw many examples of intimidating operations against people with conservative or Christian views in the predominantly left-leaning areas of town - rampant theft and trashing of a conservative/Christian campus newspaper and defacement of its advertisements; burning of a swastika into the lawn of a friend with a religious-oriented political yard sign; defacement of cars with bumper stickers that went against the prevailing point of view; and profane, borderline threatening tirades against opponents of a light rail campaign in a public forum.

None of these are an example of the state preventing religious people from participating in the political process.  There are laws against defacing and destroying property, as well as threatening behavior. 

I also see and understand that FBC, or a segment thereof, appears to be attempting to impose its religious points of view on the city.  It doesn't justify calling someone a far-right theocrat for expressing the opinion that religious people should be allowed to express a faith-based belief on a political issue. 

Do not mischaracterise what I said.  Nowhere did I say that religious people should not be allowed to express a faith-based belief on a political issue.  What I said was that the idea that somehow religious people are barred from participating in the public sphere is a myth propagated by far-right theocrats.  This very bill that you say we all agree on should be proof that nobody is stopping religious people from airing their views.

When someone parrots the blatently untrue wingnut talking point that "some of us think believers shouldn't have any say in secular decisions" then yes, I will call them out on it.

[finehoe]

The quote doesn't mean the church runs the state, it means the church has a right to comment on the state.

No one said otherwise.

[spuwho]

The quote doesn't mean the church runs the state, it means the church has a right to comment on the state.

No one said otherwise.

I apologize, sending me a picture of the Ayatollah saying "he agrees 100%" implies that you meant otherwise.

[Debbie Thompson]

LOL. That may be the first time anyone ever called me a far right anything.  I've been called a tree-hugging, women's libber, bleeding heart, stinking leftist liberal.  But never a far right theocrat. Maybe if I combine them, I can call myself a centrist.

[Wacca Pilatka]

Do not mischaracterise what I said.  Nowhere did I say that religious people should not be allowed to express a faith-based belief on a political issue.  What I said was that the idea that somehow religious people are barred from participating in the public sphere is a myth propagated by far-right theocrats.  This very bill that you say we all agree on should be proof that nobody is stopping religious people from airing their views.

When someone parrots the blatently untrue wingnut talking point that "some of us think believers shouldn't have any say in secular decisions" then yes, I will call them out on it.

I think we're just talking past each other here and not arguing on the same point.  I'm not a particular fan of arguing on the topic since we're all in agreement on the bill anyway. 

I didn't think you said that religious people should not be allowed to express a faith-based belief on a political issue.  But some people do think that they shouldn't.  Those people don't constitute the opinion of the state, but some people do think that way.  I thought that was all Debbie was trying to say, and never thought she was saying that the state is trying to prevent religious people from expressing faith-based beliefs on political issues.  I don't think she deserves to get called a wingnut or a parrot or a far-right theocrat for it, particularly when she has made clear that she strongly disapproves of FBC's actions in this instance and was pro-296. 

My personal examples from Austin were not intended to represent instances of the state intimidating people of faith into silence, but instances of private citizens trying to intimidate people of faith into silence.  This was following up on my comment that "I've seen plenty of circumstances (in cities with far different religious and political demographics than Jacksonville) where religious people's collective right to speak out on a secular topic was ridiculed and marginalized."  I realize I articulated this poorly because I didn't make it clear that I was following up on that, rather than responding to your comment about whether I had examples of circumstances where school administrators overzealously interpreted the separation doctrine to mean that, e.g., nondisruptive private silent prayer is disallowed in schools.  I am aware of some occasions where such things occurred, occasions that struck me as extreme and overzealous interpretations of what separation of church and state is really intended to mean, but as I said, I do not have citations handy, so I started spewing Austin stories that are not instances of state intimidation but examples of private citizen intimidation. 

Sorry I wasn't more coherent. 

[finehoe]

LOL. That may be the first time anyone ever called me a far right anything.  I've been called a tree-hugging, women's libber, bleeding heart, stinking leftist liberal.  But never a far right theocrat. Maybe if I combine them, I can call myself a centrist.

That's how insidious propaganda is.  When BS like "Christians are persecuted in the USA" is repeated over and over, even people who may not subscribe to the propagandist's views start to incorporate the BS into their thinking.

(And no, I have nothing against Debbie, I am not inferring that she is easily brainwashed, or that she tortures kittens or any of the other conclusions some of you reading this may jump to.  Just an observation on my part.)

[finehoe]

I didn't think you said that religious people should not be allowed to express a faith-based belief on a political issue.  But some people do think that they shouldn't.  Those people don't constitute the opinion of the state, but some people do think that way.

This is the part I am having an issue with.  Sure some people may think that.  There are also people who may think we should install the Pope as the head of state.  My point is that in spite of what some people may think, our political process does not work that way.  No one in the US is being prevented from engaging the government on behalf of their religious beliefs.  Do they always win?  No, of course not.  But these "right-wing theocratic" types of which I speak would have you believe that since certain religious people don't always get their way, then that must mean they are being prevented from expressing their beliefs.  And it's just not true.

[finehoe]

296 is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.  Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that had the bill passed, there would be a subset of the religious community who would be crying and whining that it was impinging on their religious rights?  Would the new law then be an example of how religious people weren't given any say in a secular decision?  Many of them would no doubt say so, but again, it's just not true.

[Debbie Thompson]

I'm not sure what we're even discussing anymore. :-) I stand by what I said and the funny thing is Fine Hoe called me out and then agreed with me. Because all I was getting at is that people of faith have a right to express their opinion. It was in response to earlier posts decrying those opinions and asking what happened to separation of church and state. The implication being the church had no right to speak on the issue. So it appears Fine Hoe is calling me out when she agrees with me.

Do I have that right now?

I don't know, had the measure passed it would be said they had no say, but doubtless it would be said they weren't listened to or agreed with. If only that we're true.