This space received some criticism online from commenter Michael:
I see that this platform is turning into a “hit” parade of posters that challenge, which I didn’t see coming when I read the initial post as to why this was created. I find it odd.
First, a clarification. The purpose of this section is not to indiscriminately bash commenters who disagree with my opinions. The purpose is to simply expand upon certain topics in a less formal forum. Comments certainly provide the easiest way to discuss a topic because they are provocative, in the sense that they elicit a reaction. However, that is not the only way I will write in this space.
I respond to comments not to put down comments that disagree with me ”” though there could be times when that happens ”” but to use as a jumping-off point to go deeper into a subject that readers have found interesting, topical or dead wrong.
That was the case last week, where I used a comment on the meaning of the First Amendment to explain my thoughts on the subject.
Sticking with that theme, here is a question asked me by joshua4234:
Try to ignore your Christian privilege for a moment and imagine having gone to a state middle school where everyone else was pagan of some stripe. Now imagine every morning there was time where the teacher and all classmates would sing/chant a prayer to many gods of nature. How would you feel? Would you feel there was nothing wrong going on?
Though this is framed in an arguably questionable manner (my Christian privilege?), the question is legitimate.
The obvious answer to the question is I would feel out of place. I am a practicing Christian, and would not go along with a prayer to false gods.
However, this question is incomplete. Under this scenario, the community surrounding the school likely, for the most part, adheres to this pagan religion. I, being a Christian, am in the minority. In this scenario, it is completely reasonable for the community, via the local school, to want the children of the community to believe in the same gods as their parents and grandparents.
Because this hypothetical city is still in America, I still have freedom to practice Christianity, but I will be left out of the community’s legitimate interest in perpetuating the traditional values of the community.
Now, I would have a few choices: I could either attempt to persuade the other people of my community to adopt my Christian values, I could remain silent and practice my religion solely in private or I could leave, and live in a community more amenable to my values.
In order for this situation to be plausible, our schools would have to be controlled locally. However, that is not the case, so this whole question is merely theoretical.
* * *
A quick comment on a topic from Monday night’s Republican debate. Tex. Rep. Ron Paul and former Sen. Rick Santorum got into a heated discussion of 9/11 and our government’s foreign policy. Paul argued that al-Qaida attacked us because we have military bases on its holy lands.
Santorum derided Paul, saying, “We are not being attacked, and we are not attacked, because of our actions. We were attacked, as Newt [Gingrich] talked about, because we have a civilization that is antithetical to the civilization of the jihadists, and they want to kill us because of who we are and what we stand for.”
If the people occupying important government positions believe that the only reason we are attacked is because we are free, democratic and capitalist, we are in big trouble.
It is one thing to believe that America is the best country in the world; it is quite another to believe that America is perfect and that it makes no mistakes.
Al-Qaida gave reasons for why they attacked us, and Paul outlined them for us. That does not make them good reasons, but they are reasons. The 9/11 attacks, awful as they were, were not for no reason.
Acknowledging that America has made mistakes is not absolving the terrorist group of responsibility. It’s just being honest.
Allison • Sep 15, 2011 at 1:39 pm
This is so immature on everyones side.
If you don’t know each other personally there is really no reason to discredit each others character. Let’s grow up and disagree respectfully, and not say whatever because it’s online commenting. This cannot be the way the Collegian has designed this site.
Good thing no one reads the comments.
Michael • Sep 14, 2011 at 4:25 pm
It seems no one has expanded on the notion that praying to god is not an endorsement of any particular religion over another(but it does seem to impose, in theory, on atheists and, say, Jehovah’s witnesses [I think]). So I’m not sure it even falls under the 1st Amendment. It’s just a matter of whether it is wise policy, which it doesn’t seem to be.
It’s an arbitrary demand, though, so it makes sense to just keep it out. Once you cater to one or the other, even if it is just “god”, then it is best to cater to none at all, which is why though it may be constitutional, it is not a good idea. If I had a dime for every time I said that about American policy!
Philosotroll • Sep 14, 2011 at 5:33 pm
I think that’s a really reasonable point. I actually am not convinced that it’s a First Amendment issue, either, as I mention above.
I do think that it is an equal protection issue, though. As far as public policy goes, it is important that protections (and privileges) must not be extended to religious groups, nor deprived of them. Cases where we privilege a protestant Christian prayer (which this basically always is, in American cases) is a betrayal of that expectation in terms of policy. That was my point, I suppose.
I do agree, though, that generally its a really terrible policy idea. I also happen to think its an equal protection violation. Though, perhaps, the former is more important than that latter.
Tony Petersen • Sep 14, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Joshua and Sophistroll, here is my response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
I think my picture looks nice too.
Philosotroll • Sep 14, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Well, at least you’re maintaining your usual level of thoughtfulness, Tony.
Michael • Sep 14, 2011 at 4:13 pm
This response was like school children in the summer: NO CLASS. If you were a commenter, and not a columnist at a respected (allegedly) college newspaper, it would be hilarious, though.
You seem to have forgotten your record of articles from previous semesters, derided ad nauseum because of many short comings, and you would be wise not to forget them and exalt this kind of pompous arrogance. If this aint a hit parade, I don’t know what is.
joshua4234 • Sep 14, 2011 at 5:28 pm
hahahaha. Looks like the right button has been pushed. Mission accomplished. Let your true colors shine, baby. Sadly most people probably don’t read the comments section.
Philosotroll • Sep 14, 2011 at 8:38 am
Tony, you truncated Joshua’s quote and, as a result, actually dodged the point that he was making about the role that the establishment clause ought to play in facilitating a religiously neutral space.
Frankly, I don’t really care about the role of the establishment clause with respect to this issue. For me, this is abut equal protection, and its about the issues that comes with being a religious minority in the United States.
I think Joshua misphrased the issue. There are really two, the first is bullying over the religious issue (which is a serious problem) and the second is the problem with being a religious minority, having kids educated around sectarian prayer.
There are two questions; the first is how the kids feel. Ashamed and pressured; these affective differences cause serious problems in development, and as public policy, it is best to have them out of the public sphere generally.
The second is with regards to parents. If your child came home from school and was talking about Muhammad or Joseph Smith in explicitly theological language (which is what they would likely hear during a morning prayer) you would be pissed. And you’d be justified, as having a policy which permits such prayers is a clear violation of the Lemon Test, anyway.
joshua4234 • Sep 14, 2011 at 1:28 am
“The purpose is to simply expand upon certain topics in a less formal forum.”
-hm, there is a comment section you know. It may seem like less of a ‘hit parade,’in his words, if there was more of a dialogue and less of you picking and choosing what to respond to with little to no room for clarification or rebuttal on our parts, like the complete strawman you pulled on philosotroll. Perhaps it could then be summarized after for the paper if it was a worthy discussion. I’ve only seen you make a single comment ever. Btw nice picture this year ;).
The manner in which I framed the question is not questionable. You just don’t like it; the majority never likes to be called on it. What you’ve done is basically outline the concept of privilege but just embrace it. An explanation from wiki succinctly puts it as viewing the “social, cultural, and economic experiences as a norm that everyone should experience, rather than as an advantaged position that must be maintained at the expense of others.” You’ve come to say things like “it is completely reasonable for the community, via the local school, to want the children of the community to believe in the same gods as their parents and grandparents” when I completely disagree and find it completely unreasonable. Teaching those things can be done at home, church, or even private schools, not to be pushed on a school for everyone in the community where anyone should be able to go to. Now you give a few options that you see, the first being trying to change an entire community. As an atheist I can tell you this is not feasible and will likely make the atheists’ life more difficult. The second is simply not participating, this is likely the only viable thus far for atheists but even this draws attention to the person and sometimes brings persecution. There is an influence by the government (they pay taxes to), by accepting this norm, that the student should believe the certain religious preference, and I find this objectionable. And the last option you say is to leave and live somewhere else, this is one of the more insidious options. The person might not be able to leave or want to leave, either because this is the only place they could get a job or this is where their family is or whatever. Do you really think it’s acceptable to assert one’s desire to influence one’s religion over the youth to the point of driving someone away from their family or job, inadvertently creating a more divided and tribal world? You seemingly then just dismiss the mental exercise saying it’s theoretical because of the schools. This may be part of your problem since you know that you or your kids would not have to experience this, but for atheists, it’s not theoretical because we are the minority almost everywhere. I stand firm to the framing of my question and you’ve only further demonstrated it’s accuracy.