"At the U.S. Capitol, in God we really, really, really trust"

[ZombieHorde]

by Paul Fidalgo

There is a lot of highly-justified agitation over the engraving of the "In God We Trust" motto and the religious modern version of the Pledge of Allegiance (with "under God") at the Capitol Visitor's Center as the Freedom from Religion Foundation http://www.examiner.com/x-2044-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m7d16-FFRF-files-lawsuit-to-stop-religious-engravings-in-Capitol-Visitor-Center">sues to prevent it. Obviously, this humble writer thinks that blatant endorsements of religion should not be going up in government buildings, and certainly not at the very center of our federal government.

But there was something I didn't realize: the Capitol is just lousy with goddiness.

I and a colleague recently herded up our interns for a tour of the Capitol building, and it was the first time I'd ever been inside. And let me tell you, if you think having God-invoking mottoes is a bad overlapping of church and state, you need to take yourself a tour of the People's House, my friend. Luckily, I took pictures. Crappy pictures, but pictures.

http://www.examiner.com/x-4275-DC-Secularism-Examiner~y2009m7d16-At-the-US-Capitol-in-God-we-really-really-really-trust">Link to article with pictures and commentary.
------------------------
The link is to a web site named, examiner.com, I am not familiar with this website. I ran into this article on google news.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

1. "Goddiness"!! I love it.

:rofl:

The Jeebulization is really thick there.

And if they say trust in the Lord, which one?

Lord Buddha, Lord Krishna, Lord Jesus, Lord Shiva, Lord FillIntheBlank??

[Betty Karlson]

2. All three examples given in the article lack something

1) The statue in California was established in the days before california became a state. If it points to someone's "really, really hard" belief in God, it points to Spanish, not American blurring of the line between church and state.
2) Pocahontas' story played out before the Americans revolted against the British. Again, former colonisating powers' policies cannot be entirely held against current lawmakers.
3) The deification of Mr Washington would implicate the reverse of the first two examples. Rather than declaring the state to be subservient to God (as the first two examples seem to insinuate), it would rather make Heaven subservient to the statesman. This is what John Bella described as "civil religion": ritualizing/ beatifying not specifically religious things.

[ZombieHorde]

3. The first two are still there and there have been plenty of time to remove them.

The third is religious.

[Betty Karlson]

4. Name the religion of # 3...

And the first two can be left in place as "cultural expressions". In the same way, a Rome art museum does not advance paganism by leaving gods' and goddesses' statues in place. What matters is the behaviour of the men and women who work under the displays of faith past and present.

[ZombieHorde]

5. "Name the religion of # 3..."

The name of the picture is "The Apotheosis of Washington".

"What matters is the behaviour of the men and women who work under the displays of faith past and present"

Would you be comfortable with Nazi inspired art?

[Betty Karlson]

6. Have a care sir...

The first one to bring Nazis into the debate usually loses it - or so Mr Murphy declared.

To answer your question: no I would not be comfortable with most cultural expressions of nation-socialist regimes. However, I can (and have done so) watch a televised emission of Leni Riefenstahls "Triumph des Willens" without calling for its ban. And yes, I know that movie was made with a very handsome subsidy from Hitler's ministry of propaganda. But I'm sure I'm not the only one able to make a distinction between the message and the artistic quality of a piece of art. I don't have to like something to find it well-executed. I don't like Sartre's ethics, but his books are well-written.

(And if someone is wondering if I am justifying nazi crimes by refering to Sartre: no I'm not. I wasn't even the one to introduce Nazis into this topic, remember? I am comparing Sartre to Leni Riefenstahl, because they were both artists, both well-known for the artistic qualities of their work, both well-known to have been enamoured of extremist and genocidal regimes. OK?)

There are some cultural expressions of the nazi empire that we all find acceptable, even if they were produced with slave labour for the benefit of a horrendous regime that waged war all the time. You don't believe me? When was the last time we forbade our politicians to take an interest in vintage Volkswagens?

[ZombieHorde]

7. "However, I can (and have done so) watch a televised emission of Leni Riefenstahls"

That is TV, not a government building. You are not comfortable with "with most cultural expressions of nation-socialist regimes" as I am not comfortable with most cultural expressions of religion in government buildings. I have some religious art in my home where it is appropriate.

Many works of art are inappropriate for many places. Such as how many of Mapplethorpe's pieces are probably inappropriate to display at daycare centers, Passion of the Christ posters at a Synagogue, Burger King posters at a McDonalds, etc.

"When was the last time we forbade our politicians to take an interest in vintage Volkswagens?"

There is a difference between an individual having personal interests and inserting that interest into a government building.

[Betty Karlson]

8. Granted, not all art is appropriate everywhere

But so far, you have not as yet provided an argument why religious art would be inappropriate in a government building. That's seems to be a presupposition of yours. Needless to say, I do not share that presupposition.

B.K.

[ZombieHorde]

9. "you have not as yet provided an argument why religious art would be inappropriate in a government"

I am opposed to religious art in U.S. government buildings because I fear this art will reinforce the notion that the U.S. is a Christian nation and therefor Christians should get special treatment.


Homosexuals are legally discriminated against and most who support this discrimination use Christianity to justify this discrimination.

There is a common attitude that Christians are more honorable and ethical than non Christians. My wife and I were turned away from Habitat for Humanity because we were told they liked, "Good Christian families", this is not their national policy, but I was working nights, my wife was working days, and we had a toddler, we did not have the energy to fight it.

Many non Christian people feel uncomfortable admitting to being Muslim, atheist, or what ever they are because they don't know how they will be treated, while many Christians seem to feel perfectly comfortable going door to door to talk about their religion.

Christians usually don't have to ask for their major religious holidays off from work, unless they work in health care. Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, etc. have to try to get their holidays off and they may not always feel comfortable giving the true reason why.

[Betty Karlson]

12. While I understand your pain and your concerns...

I still feel that your position lacks justification.

I will not deny that many self-styled Christians discriminate against others for whatever reasons. That is so. Apparently you and your family have been at the receiving end of some such bigotry. That is a discorcerting thing.

But I do wonder if you should shun all Christian-themed art from your public buildings because of this. As I said: many will percieve this art as art - and given that they find nothing disconcerting in it, they will hardly proclaim to have been encouraged to claim special rights.

What is more, I wonder if you would not commit discrimination of a kind by removing these works of art. "Is it Christian-themed? If so, remove it." Just because Christians are in the majority does not mean they cannot be discrminated against. Should the good be punished for the deeds of the bad? That would be like denying mariage rights to a lesbian couple just because a gay man has committed adultary. It would be a disproportionate reaction, no matter how bad your pain is. Leaving a work of art in place is better (most of the time) than removing it or replacing it.

And what of the Christians who help to further the causes you describe? IF (which I doubt) Christians feel consciously encouraged by the presence of imagery that relates to their faith, should we deny such inspiration to the episcopals - who just opened the clergy for practising gays and lesbians AND committed said clergy to find a prayer for blessing same-sex unions?

I come back to the examples you gave. One bore more pagan overtones than Christian ones (Washington), the other two are as diverse (one with Catholic overtones, one with protestant ones) as the multifaceted and varied community known as Christians. You can leave the art alone and encourage Christians of all kinds to discuss important issues, or attack the art and unite them in reactionary indignation. Your choice.

[ZombieHorde]

13. How would removing all religious art from government buildings be discriminatory?

Seems like a museum, even a government owned museum, would be a great place for religious art.

[Betty Karlson]

14. That's an easy one!

Discrimination starts at double standards right?

Now: what would be the standards to define "religious art". I seriously dare you to come up with a definition tht includes all.

And: how will we make sure that the same standards are applied throughout all government buildings?

And: will shared offices fall under this definition - and if so, will government employees have to remove their personal religious attire (a prayer print on the desk, a sticker in the shape of a cross on their computer)?

As I said: removing things is much more controversial than placing them somewhere. Removal says: "This is no longer acceptable", and people will want to know why. And if your justification boils down to: "Because I don't believe in your God", chances are the explanation will not be bought.

[ZombieHorde]

15. "standards to define "religious art"

Art with a theme recognized by the U.S. government to be religious.

"how will we make sure that the same standards are applied throughout all government buildings?"

Use the same exact standards we use for displaying pornography throughout all government buildings, with the exception mentioned below.

"will shared offices fall under this definition - and if so, will government employees have to remove their personal religious attire (a prayer print on the desk, a sticker in the shape of a cross on their computer)?"

The sticker may be a problem since the computer most likely belongs to the state, but a personal picture on a desk would most likely be fine since the picture represents the individual.

"As I said: removing things is much more controversial than placing them somewhere. Removal says: "This is no longer acceptable", and people will want to know why. And if your justification boils down to: "Because I don't believe in your God", chances are the explanation will not be bought."

The justification is the separation between church and state.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x213741

The justification for ending slavery was not bought by many, but ending slavery was still a good thing to do. Obviously slavery is worse than than religious art in government buildings, but the general point of what is right may not be popular still stands.

[Betty Karlson]

16. Sorry, I am not buying this anymore.

In one single post, you compared religion to slavery and pornography. And while religion, in two very different ways, has been used to justify both, I do not believe that you would view religion in general to be even comparably bad as either comparison you made. Your objections relate to a small number of Christians behaving as heathens who may or may not be emboldened by religious art. (As if removing the art will not embolden them!)

Separation of church and state does not mean that all religion should be banned from government buoldings, but rather that the government does not discriminate between religions. Removing all religious art from government buildings means - practically - an endorsement of atheism and is therefore a violation of the separation of church and state. (As I said: removing requires a lot more carefull thought than does acquisition.)

And as for the proposed definition: this will not do. Don't you see the horrible precedent you are setting?

If the government gets to determine what is religious art and what is not, that will set a precedent for the government discriminating in matters of faith - Say goodbey to your precious separation of church and state. After all, the government is elected by the people and for the people, so the 85% of Americans who define themselves as Christians may well want their faith-themed art to be exempted. Will they get their way? Most likely they will, and the upholding of the separation of church and state will either prevent this from taking effect (taking a right away takes more effort than granting it), or if this takes effect it will weaken the very separation.

The net effect will be the same: an enraged group of Christians who feel discriminated and some religious art still being found inside government buildings because of loopholes.

[ZombieHorde]

17. "an endorsement of atheism and is therefore a violation of the separation of church and state"

Not believing in gods is not a religion and relocating the art to a more appropriate location does not endorse this lack of belief.

"In one single post, you compared religion to slavery and pornography."

I was clearly comparing policies as far as the porn goes and I was clearly comparing popularity versus what is right as far as slavery goes. You know this. Your beliefs are not being attacked.

"If the government gets to determine what is religious art and what is not, that will set a precedent for the government discriminating in matters of faith"

The government already determines what is and is not a religion for tax purposes. The system is already in place and is used very often.

"an enraged group of Christians who feel discriminated and some religious art still being found inside government buildings because of loopholes."

Popularity does not make something right and the 1st Amendment is not a loophole.

[ZombieHorde]

18. I am leaving for a 10 or so day vacation tomorrow and I may not have internet service

at the beach house, so I may not not be able to reply to any additional arguments you make for a while.

I am just letting you know so you don't think that I am ignoring you. I tried to send you a PM about this but you are not allowed to receive them yet.

[Betty Karlson]

19. That's all right

I don't think we will agree on this matter. It may be best to agree to disagree. Have a wonderfull vacation.

[Odin2005]

10. I'm suprised the fundies haven't decried the Apotheosis of Washington as blasphemous, LOL.

I love that rotunda painting exactly because it invokes classical pagan beliefs about heroes and thus sticks it to the funides.

[ZombieHorde]

11. It looks like Renaissance-ish Christian art so I think it feels safe for them.