Reader comments
Joseph A. Cannon: Revisionists trying to distort Founders' view of religion
53 comments | Read story
Lew Jeppson | 1:05 a.m. Nov. 1, 2009
Mr. Cannon's remarks are fine as far as they go; the founders for the most
part believed in God, or at least in providence. But many didn't believe
quite like we believe. For example, it is comon knowledge that Thomas Jefferson
came for with his own version of the Bible (minus all of the miracles). Also,
Fremasonry was a big deal to the founders (most of the signers of the
Declaration of Independence were Masons), and masons tend to deism. So, yes, a
case can be made that this is a Christian nation, but we have to be careful in
claiming Founders' support for our particular views because theirs were
quite different from ours. Also, let's not forget the conribution of the
Greeks and the Romans.
Favorite Jefferson quotes | 1:42 a.m. Nov. 1, 2009
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to
others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods,
or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-81
I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799
I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Dowse, April 19, 1803
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-81
I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799
I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Dowse, April 19, 1803
RAB | 2:35 a.m. Nov. 1, 2009
What is obvious is that our forefathers wanted only to leave no handholds for
religious persecution in this country. They clearly felt that this goal could
only be attained if government was forcefully committed to minding it own
business as to what religious views a person held.
Unfortunately, modern anti-religious fanatics have found ways around the intentions of our forefathers by pushing for extreme interpretations of the constitutional right to practice religion.
By eliminating all remnants of government endorsement of a religion, they effectively have used the law to attain their own anti-religion agenda. Instead of a government that tolerates all religious views, we have a government that persecutes all religions equally.
To those who believe, we are one nation under God. To those who do not believe, we are not. If you are able to live your religion as you please, then the government is doing its job.
If you are not able to live your religion as you please (including singing Christmas songs in public schools or putting the ten commandments on government property when you want to) then the government has denied you your rights. ‘Extreme interpretation’ is the enemy of good law.
Unfortunately, modern anti-religious fanatics have found ways around the intentions of our forefathers by pushing for extreme interpretations of the constitutional right to practice religion.
By eliminating all remnants of government endorsement of a religion, they effectively have used the law to attain their own anti-religion agenda. Instead of a government that tolerates all religious views, we have a government that persecutes all religions equally.
To those who believe, we are one nation under God. To those who do not believe, we are not. If you are able to live your religion as you please, then the government is doing its job.
If you are not able to live your religion as you please (including singing Christmas songs in public schools or putting the ten commandments on government property when you want to) then the government has denied you your rights. ‘Extreme interpretation’ is the enemy of good law.
Comments continue below
Timj | 4:37 a.m. Nov. 1, 2009
The great thing about the Founders is that their religious views, among other
things, were so diverse. People today try to lump them all together, but they
were just as diverse in thought and belief as Americans are today. Some
believed in the miracles in the Bible; some did not believe in the miracles in
the Bible. Some lived virtuous lives; some lived lives with marital scandals as
big as those of Bill Clinton or John McCain. Some wanted more power to go to
the states, and some wanted the federal government to have more power.
Of course, today, people distort the Founders into what they want the Founders to be, instead of what they really were.
Of course, today, people distort the Founders into what they want the Founders to be, instead of what they really were.
ediddy | 7:53 a.m. Nov. 1, 2009
Well researched and thought out Mr. Cannon. Now prepare to be crucified on the
cross of atheism (sarcasm intended) and secularism. The movement to remove
religion and theism from all aspects of Americn life is as predudicial and
bigoted as its founders claim the religionists to be in their attempt to retain
the principles upon which so much of our founding ethic was anchored.
It is indeed ironic that the charter which allows e our freedoms to continue is also the one which allows its perniscious dismantling by those who are intent in so doing.There is just as little "live and let live" in the abolitionists as they claim there to be in the religionists. They just won't admit it.
It is indeed ironic that the charter which allows e our freedoms to continue is also the one which allows its perniscious dismantling by those who are intent in so doing.There is just as little "live and let live" in the abolitionists as they claim there to be in the religionists. They just won't admit it.
Indiana | 7:58 a.m. Nov. 1, 2009
What a wonderful article. I think many of those supporting the view point that
they were either athiests or deists simply have not studied them at length. You
are correct in your assertion that they were neither. They knew the scriptures
and knew that this nation was not to be ruled by a church or a king (save one).
They were good men and I wish people would stop trying to make them what they
weren't.
Kevin | 8:09 a.m. Nov. 1, 2009
"... the Founders were, demonstrably, regular church goers, who knew their
bibles and incorporated scriptural texts into their working
vocabularies."
"Demonstrably" is the important word. Our leaders, tasked with establishing a democracy, needed the people to back them. Given most people back then were religious, it should be obviously why they felt they had to be so demonstrative.
"I believe that James Madison captured the world view of all of the Founders when he said 'the belief in a God All Powerful, wise and good is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man...'"
Madison was a great man, but I completely disagree with him on this point. Who were the atheists then? What was the state of disbelief then? If Madison were alive today, I would ask him, Why? Why is it essential to the moral order? I would argue with him that religion is based on complete fiction, and that it therefore impedes morality.
I don't believe people in the era preceding modern science had the wherewithal to really challenge religious beliefs. They challenged how religion was implemented, rather than belief in general.
"Demonstrably" is the important word. Our leaders, tasked with establishing a democracy, needed the people to back them. Given most people back then were religious, it should be obviously why they felt they had to be so demonstrative.
"I believe that James Madison captured the world view of all of the Founders when he said 'the belief in a God All Powerful, wise and good is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man...'"
Madison was a great man, but I completely disagree with him on this point. Who were the atheists then? What was the state of disbelief then? If Madison were alive today, I would ask him, Why? Why is it essential to the moral order? I would argue with him that religion is based on complete fiction, and that it therefore impedes morality.
I don't believe people in the era preceding modern science had the wherewithal to really challenge religious beliefs. They challenged how religion was implemented, rather than belief in general.
Wow--Joe Nails It | 9:00 a.m. Nov. 1, 2009
It's not every day I agree with Joe Cannon--especially since he
occasionally reveals that he hasn't read or understood the sources
he's critiquing.
HERE, though, he's RIGHT ON: "It strikes me that, in part, some of the confusion and hostility derives from trying to put the Founders squarely on ones' own team."
Joe, you got it. That's exactly it. The extremists on the religious right who ultimately want to establish Christianity as our state religion represent the founders as devout Christians establishing a Christian nation. The secularist extremists who want to ban religion from public life use whatever the founders said against religion to bolster their programme.
Yes, Joe--both extremes misuse and misrepresent the founders' true intentions: TO KEEP RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT FROM CONTROLLING EACH OTHER. The founders wanted religion in its myriad forms to be *free to operate without government interference.* It was to be a "free marketplace of ideas." Not one religion elevated above the rest--OR in a position to control government!--and not religion banished from public life altogether.
That's the ONLY reasonable interpretation of the First Amendment in terms of religion.
HERE, though, he's RIGHT ON: "It strikes me that, in part, some of the confusion and hostility derives from trying to put the Founders squarely on ones' own team."
Joe, you got it. That's exactly it. The extremists on the religious right who ultimately want to establish Christianity as our state religion represent the founders as devout Christians establishing a Christian nation. The secularist extremists who want to ban religion from public life use whatever the founders said against religion to bolster their programme.
Yes, Joe--both extremes misuse and misrepresent the founders' true intentions: TO KEEP RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT FROM CONTROLLING EACH OTHER. The founders wanted religion in its myriad forms to be *free to operate without government interference.* It was to be a "free marketplace of ideas." Not one religion elevated above the rest--OR in a position to control government!--and not religion banished from public life altogether.
That's the ONLY reasonable interpretation of the First Amendment in terms of religion.
Follow-Up to 9 a.m. | 9:09 a.m. Nov. 1, 2009
I wrote: "The extremists on the religious right who ultimately want to
establish Christianity as our state religion represent the founders as devout
Christians establishing a Christian nation."
I should have been more clear, since many of the founders were Deists who certainly had pro-Christian sympathies. They were not "devout Christians" in the evangelical sense, though they are often represented as such. In any case, they certainly did not intend to establish an EXCLUSIVELY Christian nation, but rather one where ALL socially and personally beneficial forms of religious belief could be practiced without fear.
I should have been more clear, since many of the founders were Deists who certainly had pro-Christian sympathies. They were not "devout Christians" in the evangelical sense, though they are often represented as such. In any case, they certainly did not intend to establish an EXCLUSIVELY Christian nation, but rather one where ALL socially and personally beneficial forms of religious belief could be practiced without fear.
Anonymous | 9:13 a.m. Nov. 1, 2009
Secular or non-sectarian - either way, no religion should be forced on others,
especially not through the power of government. When the government passes
laws, they must do so on grounds other then "because a religion (or group
of religions) says so." Otherwise, the law is sectarian, it favors one
religion (or group of religions) over all others, and is a violation of the
First Amendment.
I agree with Tim | 9:53 a.m. Nov. 1, 2009
its funny that joe would claim that people pick and choose what they focus on
when it comes to the "founding fathers" then turn around and do the
same thing to try to make his case. I think Timj is right and rather then
continue to debate whether we are a "religious country or not we realize
that we are a religious country and a secular country diverse in thought and
deed.
SLN8 | 9:57 a.m. Nov. 1, 2009
Mr. Cannon points out that some of the hostility in the debate over the
Founder's intentions "derives from trying to put the Founders squarely
on ones' own team", by essentially cherry picking quotations.
Then Mr. Cannon does just that by over-generalizing their diverse views with a quotation from Madison that he feels "captured the world view of all the Founders", and of course the quotation he picks puts the Founders squarely on Mr. Cannon's "own team".
Then Mr. Cannon does just that by over-generalizing their diverse views with a quotation from Madison that he feels "captured the world view of all the Founders", and of course the quotation he picks puts the Founders squarely on Mr. Cannon's "own team".
discourse | 10:54 a.m. Nov. 1, 2009
Joe started out so strong it is unfortunate that he fall into the same way of
thinking that he rightly claims others always fall into. He selectively reads
and quotes the people that support his way of thinking while failing to
recognize or address those writings that contradict his thinking. The realty is
that the time of the "founding fathers" was much as it is today with
as many diverging points of view and motivations as their where "founding
fathers." I do not know that there will ever come a time when we can find
that perfect balance of the role of religion in society and I think it will be
an ever shifting line which as it should be in democratic society, in my opinion
of course.
Kimberly | 11:44 a.m. Nov. 1, 2009
Anonymous, I agree that no religion should be forced on any person. I am curious
however, how you would treat public expressions of religious faith. Is
displaying a cross at a public memorial pushing a certain religion or honoring
the dead who were Chrisian. Is a menorah in the public square pushing Judaism?
I would love nothing more than for people to come to some agreement on the
difference between proselytizing and religious expression. I certainly
don't care if you want to join my religion or not, but a nativity at
Christmas brings me joy, and I don't think it is forcing a person to be a
Christian, anymore than a lack of a nativity forces me to be an athiest.
Progressive | 11:54 a.m. Nov. 1, 2009
So What, it's like saying the founders all were right handed. Compare the
ideas that are contained in our constitution that directly come from the
European elightenment period and it quickly becomes clear where the Founding
Fathers ideas come from and it's not their Bible's it's the
philosophical and political ideas of the 15th and 16th century Eurpoeans. That
some of these ideas are consistent with the Founders religious beliefs is just a
nice to have for you folks as it was for them.
I would also argue that your obsession with the religious origin of our constitutional priciples is smoke in the wind, or who cares. Once an idea becomes part of the state system it becomes secular and must stand on secular legs who cares where it comes from.
I would also argue that your obsession with the religious origin of our constitutional priciples is smoke in the wind, or who cares. Once an idea becomes part of the state system it becomes secular and must stand on secular legs who cares where it comes from.
Mike Richards | 12:20 p.m. Nov. 1, 2009
Did our founding fathers believe that an all powerful central government should
be created that answered all questions, spiritual as well as non-spiritual, or,
did they believe in a minimalistic central government where each citizen would
first turn to his belief in God for answers to the questions of life?
When a people looks to its government as though that government were god; the giver of gifts; the entity that gives us our freedom and our liberty; the judge and jury that takes from our hard working citizens and gives to those too lazy to participate; then that people have become a nation of idol worshipers.
Our founding fathers had a deep and abiding respect for God. The churches of the time, especially the State Churches of Europe, offered them little, just as many of us do not accept the doctrine of those State Churches. To equate non-membership in an established church as non-belief is a false equation.
Our founding fathers would be ashamed of those who reject God. They expected more than that of themselves and they hoped for more than that from us.
When a people looks to its government as though that government were god; the giver of gifts; the entity that gives us our freedom and our liberty; the judge and jury that takes from our hard working citizens and gives to those too lazy to participate; then that people have become a nation of idol worshipers.
Our founding fathers had a deep and abiding respect for God. The churches of the time, especially the State Churches of Europe, offered them little, just as many of us do not accept the doctrine of those State Churches. To equate non-membership in an established church as non-belief is a false equation.
Our founding fathers would be ashamed of those who reject God. They expected more than that of themselves and they hoped for more than that from us.
RE: 9:09 a.m. | 12:45 p.m. Nov. 1, 2009
Apparently, something in a post I wrote earlier this morning displeased the
DesNews moderators. I wrote at 9 a.m. that even though sometimes Mr. Cannon
unfortunately reveals his ignorance of his sources, this time around, he's
exactly right.
The fact is: Many of those who participate in the modern religious debate are historically dishonest. They're more interested in making the statements of our nation's founders fit their modernist views than they are with actually understanding what the founders wanted.
What the founders wanted was this: RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE NO IMMEDIATE POWER TO CONTROL EACH OTHER. Religion would be free to follow the dictates of conscience, and government would govern over political affairs, without crossover. Religion would be a free marketplace of ideas rather than dictated by the state. As long as religious belief didn't openly challenge laws or the government itself, it would be allowed. But there was no collective call for a public ban on religion.
The "free marketplace of ideas" is what was intended in the First Amendment. Those who misconstrue various founders' statements to support their own modernist agendas are FLAT-OUT WRONG.
The fact is: Many of those who participate in the modern religious debate are historically dishonest. They're more interested in making the statements of our nation's founders fit their modernist views than they are with actually understanding what the founders wanted.
What the founders wanted was this: RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE NO IMMEDIATE POWER TO CONTROL EACH OTHER. Religion would be free to follow the dictates of conscience, and government would govern over political affairs, without crossover. Religion would be a free marketplace of ideas rather than dictated by the state. As long as religious belief didn't openly challenge laws or the government itself, it would be allowed. But there was no collective call for a public ban on religion.
The "free marketplace of ideas" is what was intended in the First Amendment. Those who misconstrue various founders' statements to support their own modernist agendas are FLAT-OUT WRONG.
@Kimberly | 12:59 p.m. Nov. 1, 2009
" ... how you would treat public expressions of religious faith."
Not allowed. Period.
"Is displaying a cross at a public memorial pushing a certain religion or honoring the dead who were Chrisian."
Yes, if it is only public property (i.e., property owned by any level of government), it must not be allowed as it establishes a relationship between the religion and the government. The point is to honor the dead, not their religions. We have no idea what most people buried in public cemeteries (particularly military cemeteries) thought about their religions so, aren't we being at least presumptuous by putting a religious symbol over their heads?
Not allowed. Period.
"Is displaying a cross at a public memorial pushing a certain religion or honoring the dead who were Chrisian."
Yes, if it is only public property (i.e., property owned by any level of government), it must not be allowed as it establishes a relationship between the religion and the government. The point is to honor the dead, not their religions. We have no idea what most people buried in public cemeteries (particularly military cemeteries) thought about their religions so, aren't we being at least presumptuous by putting a religious symbol over their heads?
@Kimberly II | 1:08 p.m. Nov. 1, 2009
"Is a menorah in the public square pushing Judaism?"
It's the same as a cross. Yes, it's pushing a religion.
"I would love nothing more than for people to come to some agreement on the difference between proselytizing and religious expression."
They are one and the same!
"...but a nativity at Christmas brings me joy, and I don't think it is forcing a person to be a Christian, anymore than a lack of a nativity forces me to be an athiest."
You can have all the pseudo-joy you want but keep it on your own property or that of your co-religionists.
The lack of a nativity scene is meaningless. The absence of something means absolutely nothing but when you inject a symbol, it takes on a meaning that is offensive to many people. I don't care if it's on your lawn but it must not be on mine! And by "mine," I mean the public's.
It's the same as a cross. Yes, it's pushing a religion.
"I would love nothing more than for people to come to some agreement on the difference between proselytizing and religious expression."
They are one and the same!
"...but a nativity at Christmas brings me joy, and I don't think it is forcing a person to be a Christian, anymore than a lack of a nativity forces me to be an athiest."
You can have all the pseudo-joy you want but keep it on your own property or that of your co-religionists.
The lack of a nativity scene is meaningless. The absence of something means absolutely nothing but when you inject a symbol, it takes on a meaning that is offensive to many people. I don't care if it's on your lawn but it must not be on mine! And by "mine," I mean the public's.
@ Kimberly | 1:16 p.m. Nov. 1, 2009
From Anonymous @ 9:13
You ask, "Is displaying a cross at a public memorial pushing a certain religion or honoring the dead who were Chrisian. Is a menorah in the public square pushing Judaism?"
I would answer that it depends on how welcome other expressions of faith are. In my opinion, if you allow a cross to honor the Christian dead, but don't allow a symbol to honor the dead of other faiths, then yes - you are proselytizing by sending the message that only those of the Christian faith are worth recognizing. The same thing if you allow a menorah but not a creche.
When it comes to religious expression, either all must be welcome in the public square, or none should be welcome. Any thing else is a government endorsement of a particular set of beliefs - which is clearly prohibited.
Kalli
You ask, "Is displaying a cross at a public memorial pushing a certain religion or honoring the dead who were Chrisian. Is a menorah in the public square pushing Judaism?"
I would answer that it depends on how welcome other expressions of faith are. In my opinion, if you allow a cross to honor the Christian dead, but don't allow a symbol to honor the dead of other faiths, then yes - you are proselytizing by sending the message that only those of the Christian faith are worth recognizing. The same thing if you allow a menorah but not a creche.
When it comes to religious expression, either all must be welcome in the public square, or none should be welcome. Any thing else is a government endorsement of a particular set of beliefs - which is clearly prohibited.
Kalli
Anonymous | 1:51 p.m. Nov. 1, 2009
The Founding Fathers knew only the place and time in which they lived, and the
world is a different place now.
Amazed | 2:48 p.m. Nov. 1, 2009
The constitution clearly intended to allow religion but not allow the government
to give any special treatment to one over another.
Anyone disagree?
That said, people want prayer at a football game but would mostly be uncomfortable with "unusual" prayer. (indian, muslim etc).
So... how is allowing Christian Prayer and not open it up to all types of religious prayer NOT against what the constitution is proclaiming?
How can people not see that leaving prayer out of government sponsored activities or off of government land is not preferable to allowing or accommodating all religions?
There was a case in Texas a few years ago when a Mormon and a Catholic family filed suit because the Baptist prayer at a football game was uncomfortable to them.
Be careful people. Pray in silence whenever you want. I promise, no one can stop you.
Anyone disagree?
That said, people want prayer at a football game but would mostly be uncomfortable with "unusual" prayer. (indian, muslim etc).
So... how is allowing Christian Prayer and not open it up to all types of religious prayer NOT against what the constitution is proclaiming?
How can people not see that leaving prayer out of government sponsored activities or off of government land is not preferable to allowing or accommodating all religions?
There was a case in Texas a few years ago when a Mormon and a Catholic family filed suit because the Baptist prayer at a football game was uncomfortable to them.
Be careful people. Pray in silence whenever you want. I promise, no one can stop you.
Mike Richards | 2:59 p.m. Nov. 1, 2009
Is the world a different place now? I don't think so. In every age
we've had the elite telling us what to think. I would imagine that in every
age we've had anti-religionists distorting the Constitution and telling us
that nothing religious can appear on public property when just the opposite is
stated within that document, where it plainly states that Congress shall pass no
laws pertaining to an establishment of religion.
WE are not forbidden from being religious. Congress is forbidden from abridging our right to worship as we please regardless of whether we choose to worship in our homes, our church, or our public park. Congress is forbidden to interfere. WE have the right to worship the god of our choice and WE are accountable to God for that choice.
WE are not forbidden from being religious. Congress is forbidden from abridging our right to worship as we please regardless of whether we choose to worship in our homes, our church, or our public park. Congress is forbidden to interfere. WE have the right to worship the god of our choice and WE are accountable to God for that choice.
Trend | 3:23 p.m. Nov. 1, 2009
Perhaps before concerning ourselves about being a Christian nation we should
first become a civilized nation rather than being barbarian Christians.
RE: Lew Jeppson | 1:05 a.m. | 3:45 p.m. Nov. 1, 2009
aaLew you are wrong.
Jefferson do NOT create his own bible, and he was NOT about removing miracles or divinity,
but what Jeffferson did is more correctly described as a scholarly work,
an attempt to distill down the pure words, doctrines and deeds of christ.
Many now day mischaracterize his work.
The founding fathers were a religious people who believed for the country to succeed it needed a moral and religious and foundation and people,
they also believed the FEDERAL government should not meddle in religion nor do anyting that would establish a national church,
hence the 1st admendment,
but neiother did they believe governemnt should be antagoninistic toward religion, they found nothing intrinsically wrung with public displays of religion.
When comes to religion and govenment I do not believe they desired extreme views and stances to be taken one way or the other.
And religious speech was to be protected as much any other speech,
which means when it comes to making laws, religous peple can hold public office,
and religion and religious people can speak out in pursuasion in law making,
states,communities can have the laws, values and morals they wish.
andwe can choose where welive
Jefferson do NOT create his own bible, and he was NOT about removing miracles or divinity,
but what Jeffferson did is more correctly described as a scholarly work,
an attempt to distill down the pure words, doctrines and deeds of christ.
Many now day mischaracterize his work.
The founding fathers were a religious people who believed for the country to succeed it needed a moral and religious and foundation and people,
they also believed the FEDERAL government should not meddle in religion nor do anyting that would establish a national church,
hence the 1st admendment,
but neiother did they believe governemnt should be antagoninistic toward religion, they found nothing intrinsically wrung with public displays of religion.
When comes to religion and govenment I do not believe they desired extreme views and stances to be taken one way or the other.
And religious speech was to be protected as much any other speech,
which means when it comes to making laws, religous peple can hold public office,
and religion and religious people can speak out in pursuasion in law making,
states,communities can have the laws, values and morals they wish.
andwe can choose where welive
I agree | 3:52 p.m. Nov. 1, 2009
What has the government got to do with honesty, morality, protection of life,
and other godly principles? Nothing. Any pretensions of today's
governments to righteousness is sheer hypocrisy.
So we keep religion separate from government because it may be confusing to the young to think there is any connection between what is good and what is government.
So we keep religion separate from government because it may be confusing to the young to think there is any connection between what is good and what is government.
Ernest T. Bass | 4:23 p.m. Nov. 1, 2009
They weren't obviously religious and if they were they kept it to
themselves. They did NOT establish the nation based on religion. That is yet one
more myth, even lie, furthered by the far right.
Anonymous | 4:57 p.m. Nov. 1, 2009
What is up with Joe Cannon, his editorialship and leadership in general has
caused a big step back for the Deseret News. The Church needs to rethink his
appointment.
To Kalli | 5:42 p.m. Nov. 1, 2009
Hey, Kalli, I'm sorry if you think that merely exhibiting a religious
symbol is the same thing as proselytizing or official endorsement. But I
disagree. Media stations run ads and programs all the time with the disclaimer
that what they're running is NOT necessarily the same as the station's
viewpoint. Same with government. Perhaps it might help if governments posted
disclaimers, too. But exhibition isn't necessarily endorsement.
I'm active LDS, but I remember driving down Foothill Blvd a number of years ago and seeing a huge menorah. I was happy to see it and know that local Jews felt free to celebrate their holiday tradition with this symbol. It never once crossed my mind to wonder if the Mayor of Salt Lake wanted me to convert to Judaism.
I agree with one point you bring up, though--why not allow holiday displays by a multitude of religious groups? Allow them all, as long as they're not offensive--the menorah, Nativity, Kwanzaa symbolism, and whatever else. Celebrate the symbolism--don't deny it. Exhibition isn't endorsement.
I'm active LDS, but I remember driving down Foothill Blvd a number of years ago and seeing a huge menorah. I was happy to see it and know that local Jews felt free to celebrate their holiday tradition with this symbol. It never once crossed my mind to wonder if the Mayor of Salt Lake wanted me to convert to Judaism.
I agree with one point you bring up, though--why not allow holiday displays by a multitude of religious groups? Allow them all, as long as they're not offensive--the menorah, Nativity, Kwanzaa symbolism, and whatever else. Celebrate the symbolism--don't deny it. Exhibition isn't endorsement.
@ to Kalli | 6:43 p.m. Nov. 1, 2009
"Allow them all, as long as they're not offensive..."
Offensive according to whom?
Why is it ok to have the 10 Commandments in a park, but not the 7 Aphorisms?
Why is it that when we debate same-sex marriage the biggest argument people have against it is that it will teach their children something they disagree with - something they think is a sin?
It is all well and fine to say, "I was happy to see it and know that [they] felt free to celebrate their holiday tradition with this symbol" as long as you are in the majority. Do you even realize how condescending that comment sounds? When you see a Christmas tree or a Creche, do you think how lucky you are to get to celebrate your traditions with those symbols, or do you just take it for granted - of course there is a Christmas tree.
Why are Christians so offended that retailers recognize all holidays by using Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas?
When we reach the stage that all religious symbols are taken just as for granted as crosses and Christmas trees, then we will have true religious freedom.
Offensive according to whom?
Why is it ok to have the 10 Commandments in a park, but not the 7 Aphorisms?
Why is it that when we debate same-sex marriage the biggest argument people have against it is that it will teach their children something they disagree with - something they think is a sin?
It is all well and fine to say, "I was happy to see it and know that [they] felt free to celebrate their holiday tradition with this symbol" as long as you are in the majority. Do you even realize how condescending that comment sounds? When you see a Christmas tree or a Creche, do you think how lucky you are to get to celebrate your traditions with those symbols, or do you just take it for granted - of course there is a Christmas tree.
Why are Christians so offended that retailers recognize all holidays by using Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas?
When we reach the stage that all religious symbols are taken just as for granted as crosses and Christmas trees, then we will have true religious freedom.
@ To Kalli | 6:49 p.m. Nov. 1, 2009
I don't think "that merely exhibiting a religious symbol is the same
thing as proselytizing or official endorsement."
I think allowing only ONE religious symbol and banning or prohibiting all others is the same thing as proselytizing or official endorsement.
Media stations are great at selling ad space and then running disclaimers. The government should not be selling ad space - disclaimers or no disclaimers.
I agree - exhibition is not endorsement - unless that exhibition is accompanied by a ban on any other exhibition.
I think allowing only ONE religious symbol and banning or prohibiting all others is the same thing as proselytizing or official endorsement.
Media stations are great at selling ad space and then running disclaimers. The government should not be selling ad space - disclaimers or no disclaimers.
I agree - exhibition is not endorsement - unless that exhibition is accompanied by a ban on any other exhibition.
Heidi | 10:56 p.m. Nov. 1, 2009
We love you Joe. Good article.
Anonymous | 11:09 p.m. Nov. 1, 2009
You do not take into consideration that in the 1700's speaking in terms of
a creator was expected it meant no more than asking someone how was there day,
it was pedestrian patter and expected, even for those who didn't believe in
a GOD.
To Kalli, again... | 11:35 p.m. Nov. 1, 2009
Hm. Sorry, Kalli, but I don't see in the slightest how it's at all
condescending to be happy to see a menorah on public property. I'm simply
glad we don't live in a country or particular areas of this one where a
menorah would be suppressed, protested or destroyed. If that's
condescension, well, you're free to interpret it however you want, but
you're building a straw man. And yes, when I see a Nativity, I AM likewise
happy we're still free to display them--at least somewhere.
Speaking of straw men, you've assumed you know my position on the 7 Aphorisms. Since exhibition isn't endorsement, I AGREE (surprise!) there was no harm in displaying them. I don't think the government should be in the business of banning ANYONE's religious symbolism, UNLESS that symbolism is inherently offensive or poses a danger of some sort to mainstream society (we're in goat-head territory now).
Last straw man: Government and selling ad space. To that, I only shake my head and say "What?"
Repeated: Exhibition isn't endorsement. Multiple religious exhibitions should be allowed. Period.
Speaking of straw men, you've assumed you know my position on the 7 Aphorisms. Since exhibition isn't endorsement, I AGREE (surprise!) there was no harm in displaying them. I don't think the government should be in the business of banning ANYONE's religious symbolism, UNLESS that symbolism is inherently offensive or poses a danger of some sort to mainstream society (we're in goat-head territory now).
Last straw man: Government and selling ad space. To that, I only shake my head and say "What?"
Repeated: Exhibition isn't endorsement. Multiple religious exhibitions should be allowed. Period.
Anonymous | 12:04 a.m. Nov. 2, 2009
Religious symbols are fine, put them wall to wall in your homes, or on the
property your House of Worship owns....and that's ALL.
Don't spend one cent of my taxes on any of them.
Don't spend one cent of my taxes on any of them.
@ To Kalli, again... | 5:46 a.m. Nov. 2, 2009
Your statement, "I'm simply glad we don't live in a country or
particular areas of this one where a menorah would be suppressed, protested or
destroyed." explains much better your point of view. I apologize for
thinking you were being condescending. Also my comment on the 7 Aphorisms was
not an attack on you, but merely an attempt to point on the controversy of
"offensive."
As you indicate, there are places in this country where anything other than what is perceived as main-stream Christianity is offensive and is attacked. There are those who want no displays of anything other than Christian symbols. There are government officials who claim that Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam (among others) are not "real" religions. By these types of government officials, exhibition is endorsement - because the only type of exhibition allowed is Christian.
Again, I agree: exhibition is not endorsement - as long as you allow multiple religious exhibitions.
(The ad space comment was in response to a comment you made about media stations and their disclaimers.)
As you indicate, there are places in this country where anything other than what is perceived as main-stream Christianity is offensive and is attacked. There are those who want no displays of anything other than Christian symbols. There are government officials who claim that Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam (among others) are not "real" religions. By these types of government officials, exhibition is endorsement - because the only type of exhibition allowed is Christian.
Again, I agree: exhibition is not endorsement - as long as you allow multiple religious exhibitions.
(The ad space comment was in response to a comment you made about media stations and their disclaimers.)
Anonymous | 6:39 a.m. Nov. 2, 2009
Were Thomas Jefferson living today, most wouldn't think of him as a very
religious person. He lived with a woman he wasn't married to. He did
believe in Christianity, but not any religion of the day.
masons/history/symbols/ | 9:16 a.m. Nov. 2, 2009
The cross and fish were ancient symbols adopted by christians of the day; the
christmas tree, the day of christmas, ornaments, easter bunny, etc: ALL were
symbols of OTHER religions, adopted by the christians of the day. Today they are
"christian" symbols because virtually everyone is completely ignorant
of their origin -- including those in this reply chain who claim to talk about
the historicity/meaning of Christian symbols!
How can those who are, in this generation, illiterate about these symbols, hope to make a literate comment about the religiosity of previous generations? Scholarship does not imply literacy.
Is a Christmas tree a CHRISTIAN symbol? A creche with the "three" "wise men" standing there? No more than a chocolate Easter egg. Once you figure that out, then your comments in threads like this will make sense.
Otherwise you are confusing current traditions with past traditions and trying to argue their meanings, without understanding what is truly a Christian symbol (and why it is) and what is a pagan symbol that has been adopted by various christian sects.
THEN you'll be able to discuss what the founding fathers believed in and did, and what they meant.
How can those who are, in this generation, illiterate about these symbols, hope to make a literate comment about the religiosity of previous generations? Scholarship does not imply literacy.
Is a Christmas tree a CHRISTIAN symbol? A creche with the "three" "wise men" standing there? No more than a chocolate Easter egg. Once you figure that out, then your comments in threads like this will make sense.
Otherwise you are confusing current traditions with past traditions and trying to argue their meanings, without understanding what is truly a Christian symbol (and why it is) and what is a pagan symbol that has been adopted by various christian sects.
THEN you'll be able to discuss what the founding fathers believed in and did, and what they meant.
Mike | 10:28 a.m. Nov. 2, 2009
The Consitution does not prohibit religious displays on so called public
property. The courts over the years have perverted the "Establishment
Clause" way beyond all reason. I see no problem with a 10 Commandments
statue on a courthouse lawn since much of our law is based on Moses law. I see
no problem with a Menorah, or Summims Aphromisms, or a Buddist thing or a Muslim
thing, or really anything else. I'm not offended by such displays. Others
are, that is their problem and they need to get over it. It Constitution does
not prohibit public displays of religion. It only prohibits a STATE religion.
It's too bad that those who "interpret" the Constitution
don't agree. That is why original intent is so important. Not our modern
day mores.
To Kalli @ 5:46 | 1:27 p.m. Nov. 2, 2009
Thanks, Kalli. No biggie on the apologies--this actually isn't a very
effective way to communicate, so misunderstandings are everywhere on these
boards. Ultimately, it looks like we agree more than disagree.
In my view, Christianity itself means being inclusive of other religions rather than exclusive, in a "Love thy neighbor as thyself" sort of way. Sadly, other practicing Christians don't see it the same way, much as I wish they would. But I agree completely (and with Mike @10:28 above, too) that public space should be considered open to nearly all socially beneficial mainstream religions. Not necessarily the front lawn of government buildings--they might not have the space and so forth--but public space in general.
True, that "socially positive" criterion is a sticking point. However, I'd rather err on the side of openness than ban someone's religious symbolism while allowing another's, when neither symbol nor others would do any harm.
Thanks for the exchange!
In my view, Christianity itself means being inclusive of other religions rather than exclusive, in a "Love thy neighbor as thyself" sort of way. Sadly, other practicing Christians don't see it the same way, much as I wish they would. But I agree completely (and with Mike @10:28 above, too) that public space should be considered open to nearly all socially beneficial mainstream religions. Not necessarily the front lawn of government buildings--they might not have the space and so forth--but public space in general.
True, that "socially positive" criterion is a sticking point. However, I'd rather err on the side of openness than ban someone's religious symbolism while allowing another's, when neither symbol nor others would do any harm.
Thanks for the exchange!
Anonymous | 2:41 p.m. Nov. 2, 2009
"the belief in a God All Powerful, wise and good is so essential to the
moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, the arguments which
enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources"
the idea of God and an afterlife gives mankind hope. The general morality in religion is good and logical. Could the same "thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc" rules be found based on a simple rights test? sure. I kill someone, I've violated their rights. So whether from religion or from logic, they are still good rules.
the problem is when religion tries to push their view of morality onto others when NO ONE'S rights are being violated. Perfect examples are the current DSN articles on internet gambling or candy-like niocotine products. The religious front is all for banning both. But that is because THEY feel these are "immoral" products - which is based on their religious code. But no one's rights are hurt by either one. In fact, banning them DOES impact the rights of those that wish to use them.
the founders didn't want religious morals forced onto anyone. I agree.
the idea of God and an afterlife gives mankind hope. The general morality in religion is good and logical. Could the same "thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc" rules be found based on a simple rights test? sure. I kill someone, I've violated their rights. So whether from religion or from logic, they are still good rules.
the problem is when religion tries to push their view of morality onto others when NO ONE'S rights are being violated. Perfect examples are the current DSN articles on internet gambling or candy-like niocotine products. The religious front is all for banning both. But that is because THEY feel these are "immoral" products - which is based on their religious code. But no one's rights are hurt by either one. In fact, banning them DOES impact the rights of those that wish to use them.
the founders didn't want religious morals forced onto anyone. I agree.
to all you religious people | 2:55 p.m. Nov. 2, 2009
i fail o se why you all are confused...
Mike at 2:59pm states
"I would imagine that in every age we've had anti-religionists distorting the Constitution and telling us that nothing religious can appear on public property when just the opposite is stated within that document"
another guy says
"Our founding fathers would be ashamed of those who reject God."
still more -
"but what Jeffferson did is more correctly described as a scholarly work, an attempt to distill down the pure words, doctrines and deeds of christ."]
come on, people. do you still not get it? we CANNOT favor one religion over another. You want the 10 commandments in a courthouse? fine - make room for 500 more symbols right next to it and allow all religions to post a symbol. (500 might not be enough)
sure there are more christians than other religions in US. so you all are the majority. How it must iritate you that you don't get first dibbs. How mad you must be to have to share the spotlight.
but that's america. the main reason religion MUST be left out of gov't is because there are so many different ones.
Mike at 2:59pm states
"I would imagine that in every age we've had anti-religionists distorting the Constitution and telling us that nothing religious can appear on public property when just the opposite is stated within that document"
another guy says
"Our founding fathers would be ashamed of those who reject God."
still more -
"but what Jeffferson did is more correctly described as a scholarly work, an attempt to distill down the pure words, doctrines and deeds of christ."]
come on, people. do you still not get it? we CANNOT favor one religion over another. You want the 10 commandments in a courthouse? fine - make room for 500 more symbols right next to it and allow all religions to post a symbol. (500 might not be enough)
sure there are more christians than other religions in US. so you all are the majority. How it must iritate you that you don't get first dibbs. How mad you must be to have to share the spotlight.
but that's america. the main reason religion MUST be left out of gov't is because there are so many different ones.
RE: masons/history/symbols | 2:56 p.m. Nov. 2, 2009
Sorry, not getting your point. Are you saying we're supposed to launch into
a historic treatise about every symbol we discuss so we can sound literate
enough for you?
Actually, many of us with at least an elementary understanding of symbolism already understand that Christianity (like many other social groups) has adapted other symbols from other cultural contexts. Others adapt "Christian symbols," too. Symbols are adaptable and fluid, not fixed and immutable. We simply refer to them as "Christian symbols" because that's the current context under discussion.
So if that really NEEDED to be pointed out, well, there you go.
Actually, many of us with at least an elementary understanding of symbolism already understand that Christianity (like many other social groups) has adapted other symbols from other cultural contexts. Others adapt "Christian symbols," too. Symbols are adaptable and fluid, not fixed and immutable. We simply refer to them as "Christian symbols" because that's the current context under discussion.
So if that really NEEDED to be pointed out, well, there you go.
Anonymous | 3:10 p.m. Nov. 2, 2009
RE -- To Kalli, again... | 11:35 p.m
["I don't see in the slightest how it's at all condescending to be happy to see a menorah on public property. I'm simply glad we don't live in a country or particular areas of this one where a menorah would be suppressed, protested or destroyed"]
let me assure ALL of you, there are religious symbols that you would find offensive. And yet they are real religions. THAT is why we can't have religious symbols on public property. because then everyone would be allowed to have them and some would freak you out!!
do you even have any idea how many different religions there are?
["I don't see in the slightest how it's at all condescending to be happy to see a menorah on public property. I'm simply glad we don't live in a country or particular areas of this one where a menorah would be suppressed, protested or destroyed"]
let me assure ALL of you, there are religious symbols that you would find offensive. And yet they are real religions. THAT is why we can't have religious symbols on public property. because then everyone would be allowed to have them and some would freak you out!!
do you even have any idea how many different religions there are?
to - Mike | 10:28 a.m | 3:15 p.m. Nov. 2, 2009
["I see no problem with a 10 Commandments statue on a courthouse lawn since
much of our law is based on Moses law. I see no problem with a Menorah, or
Summims Aphromisms, or a Buddist thing or a Muslim thing, or really anything
else"]
wow. that must be a HUGE courthouse lawn for you to fit EVERY religion's symbols on it. And make sure you don't put the 10 commandments in the center - you'll have to negotiate with 500 other religions to determine who gets center stage. OH - and make sure you have a 24 hr guard, since some religious symbols are VERY offensive to christians.
it is IMPOSSIBLE to allow all religious symbols on public property. therefore, the only reasonable solution is to allow NONE. when will you people actually figure that out? it's really not that complicated....
wow. that must be a HUGE courthouse lawn for you to fit EVERY religion's symbols on it. And make sure you don't put the 10 commandments in the center - you'll have to negotiate with 500 other religions to determine who gets center stage. OH - and make sure you have a 24 hr guard, since some religious symbols are VERY offensive to christians.
it is IMPOSSIBLE to allow all religious symbols on public property. therefore, the only reasonable solution is to allow NONE. when will you people actually figure that out? it's really not that complicated....
@ To Kalli @ 5:46 | 1:27 | 8:04 p.m. Nov. 2, 2009
I also have enjoyed our discussion. I think when it comes right down to it,
there are many who agree with you and me - I just think those who disagree are
usually a little more verbal (or at least louder about it anyway!) :)
Mark | 9:10 p.m. Nov. 2, 2009
@Mike
Three US laws are based on the ten commandments, the other 7 are LEGAL.
Why is it that if you can have your home, your yard, your vehicle, and your House of Worship covered with any symbol you choose, do you want a display on Government property?
Jesus chastised those making a BIG PUBLIC DISPLAY of their praying. Jesus said render on to Ceasar what is Ceasar, he wanted NO EARTHLY power, and had ZERO interest in politics. It was zealots of Christ's day attempting to rid their country of Roman occupation. Jesus didn't even have kind words for the leading Jewish council.
Three US laws are based on the ten commandments, the other 7 are LEGAL.
Why is it that if you can have your home, your yard, your vehicle, and your House of Worship covered with any symbol you choose, do you want a display on Government property?
Jesus chastised those making a BIG PUBLIC DISPLAY of their praying. Jesus said render on to Ceasar what is Ceasar, he wanted NO EARTHLY power, and had ZERO interest in politics. It was zealots of Christ's day attempting to rid their country of Roman occupation. Jesus didn't even have kind words for the leading Jewish council.
State Relligions | 10:05 p.m. Nov. 2, 2009
Folks the founders intended for there to be state religions, just not a national
one. And, there were such at the time of the constitutions acceptance. (Please
check out Maryland as one example) Religion in the public square was the norm,
and it was expected to continue in the states where those people wanted it.
"the wall of separation" is a progressive/populist addition of the
20th century, not the founders. If you did not like the states religion, move
on (please note the basis of the establishment of Rhode Island from Mass.) And,
why do you think the Mormons wanted so much to be a state. This nonsense that
in a city school or public square there should be no display of the predominate
faiths creed is poor law, bad civic and very bad history.
RE -- State Relligions | 10:05 | 9:49 a.m. Nov. 3, 2009
that was before the laws on discrimination. now try to put your religious
symbol on public property or make it a state religion and I'll sue you for
not allowing me to put mine. "Move on"? why should your rights
override mine? i'm surprised you could even say that with a straight
face...
you seem to think time stands still, women are chattel, and blacks were meant to serve. It's the 21st century. your ideas are poor law, bad civics. and would make for very bad history.
salem used to have witch trials. you all for that too?
you seem to think time stands still, women are chattel, and blacks were meant to serve. It's the 21st century. your ideas are poor law, bad civics. and would make for very bad history.
salem used to have witch trials. you all for that too?
The Heathen | 12:27 p.m. Nov. 3, 2009
The other day, I attended a luncheon meeting of a civic group I recently joined.
Because the civic organization is dominated by LDS, like everything in Utah,
they began the meeting with a prayer and blessing on the food.
Also like everything LDS, their lack of preparation resulted in their calling on someone at the last minute, right in front of everyone, to offer the prayer.
Unfortunately, because I appear to be LDS and everyone always assumes I am, they called on ME to offer the prayer.
But I am atheist (without belief in god). I simply said, "Thank you for asking, but I would prefer not offering the prayer."
Oh, the looks I got! It was as if I had cursed the LDS temple or something! It was very awkward for everyone. Later, I learned from a friend in the group leadership that several others (LDS) expressed concern that I had joined the group at all. They don't want a "godless person" among them!
Only by separating religion from civics can we possibly coexist in peace.
Also like everything LDS, their lack of preparation resulted in their calling on someone at the last minute, right in front of everyone, to offer the prayer.
Unfortunately, because I appear to be LDS and everyone always assumes I am, they called on ME to offer the prayer.
But I am atheist (without belief in god). I simply said, "Thank you for asking, but I would prefer not offering the prayer."
Oh, the looks I got! It was as if I had cursed the LDS temple or something! It was very awkward for everyone. Later, I learned from a friend in the group leadership that several others (LDS) expressed concern that I had joined the group at all. They don't want a "godless person" among them!
Only by separating religion from civics can we possibly coexist in peace.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- 8 killed in Kabul suicide bombing 1:38 a.m.
- Explosions rock downtown Baghdad 1:32 a.m.
- Family found dead in Calif. home 1:32 a.m.
- House GOP won't take no-tax pledge 12:18 a.m.
- Storms dumped lots of snow in Utah 12:18 a.m.
- Deputies dragged by fleeing car 12:17 a.m.
- Some charities are close to folding 12:16 a.m.
- Insurance exchange not faring well 12:16 a.m.
- Gila Valley Temple dedication set 12:16 a.m.
- Davis schedules 2 free H1N1 clinics 12:15 a.m.
- Wet spot found in Powell's home
- Sources: Josh Powell hires attorney
- Y. opponent nearly smelled roses
- D-Will treats military families to party
- Pace happy not to be noticed
- MWC looks better in basketball
- Maynor amazed by L.A. fans
- High school football: All-region teams
- Jazz will have full lineup tonight
- BYU singers compete in 'Sing Off'
- Gay-friendly curriculum phased out
145 - LDS to emphasize helping needy125
- Unga might enter NFL draft106
- BYU to wear royal blue uniforms103
- Disappearance called 'suspicious'96
- TV mom gives birth to 19th child96
- Choir, guests unwrap musical magic84
- Barkley says Boozer is big problem81
- Sources: Josh Powell hires attorney80
- Stay the course with our president79
First of all, to "20/20," how can you read newspapers and not understand...
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
"Price has been problematic for proponents of the exchange who have been...
By the way: Legacy Highway was the suggested alternative to hwy 89.
..but, unfortunately, it sells papers because people want in on the gossip.
Peanuts are NOT NUTS. They are legumes, like beans are. I am allergic to tree...
Mosiah 4: 16-18: So tell me at what point did Mosiah say give of you...
Now take advantage of their size and strength and run the ball more --...
Kim Shinkoskey...I'm afraid your the one who lost his mind.
It seems to me that if Tiger is going to be about fixing his problem the...
Well said...
Spoken like someone truly out of touch with reality. You now want us to...
Advertisements