I believe in the separation of church and state, but the following example of extreme political correctness has me scratching my head in disbelief. What say y'all?

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/article/3007/

http://alamedasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5029&Itemid=10

Pardon the pun, but I don't think the university has a prayer of winning this case. It's a clear violation of protected free speech and they are going to have to write a big check to someone, plus hold seminars on free speech. I don't know why they decided to dig in their heels after a faculty member behaved so stupidly, but there you are.

I'm glad these students can sue and hope they win. Where I live, people don't dare criticize teachers who intrude their religious beliefs into the classroom -- and it happens quite frequently -- for fear of retribution. People aren't perfect, by a long shot.

The questions I encounter all of the time as an Apologist is whether conduct of this sort is political correctness gone mad or, a reflection of something much more sinister.

http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1465

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Jesus-Missing-From-Obamas-Georgetown-Speech.html

In the first instance, you have some guy who is extremely unpleasant and full of himself; fortunately, he seems to be an army of one. I'd assume he's no more representative of nonbelievers than the Phelps family is of Christianity. Do you know of them? They are a family, Kansas-based church that believes soldiers (and others, I suppose) are dying in Iraq because the US tolerates fags (their language: you can Google God Hates Fags to find their website). They keep track of soldiers' funerals and go demonstrate at them, to the extent that a number of states have passed laws forbidding demonstrations within certain feet of funerals.

In the second instance, I wish the White House had selected another, neutral, place for the President to give a nonpartisan address because it just seems dumb rather than sinister. By the way, if you think Catholic symbols are considered to be neutral or good by most Christians in the US, you'd be wrong. If the background looks Catholic, the evangelicals will complain (they think Catholicism is a cult). If it looks evangelical, people will complain that the president is cynically reaching out to the conservative base, atheists would complain that it still looks too religious, and Muslims would wonder if they were ever going to get any respect. You cannot win here with this stuff, which is why I think the speech should have been given somewhere else. It just wasn't a smart move in the first place.

The heart of the matter in these cases is the attack on the freedom to exercise one's faith without criticism, ridicule and persecution. The cited links, from Josie and myself, are clearly indicative of religious intolerance. Albeit the surrounding circumstances differ, the offences committed by the parties remain the same. Where it matters gravely, however, is that in the case of Georgetown University, the conduct is committed by a man whose presidential office is, by definition and personality, ought to uphold that consitutional right in toto. Unless the White House can offer an existing presidential protocol which requires religious symbols covered up on the basis of "neutrality", then the conduct can only be deemed derisive and a usurpation of one's freedom of expression. It is, however, unlikely that such protocol exists. The Catholic symbol of IHS is universal to all Christian faiths. It means Jesus. The way I look at it, is that "neutrality" only conveys God-less. And, the irony of it is that, whilst White House was adamant with its request to have IHS covered, the speech of their man included a quote from the Sermon on the Mount. What a contradiction!



I agree with you. I do not know what in the world possessed those Jesuits to invite someone with a strong pro-abortion platform. One would think they'd have known better. But then again, the Jesuits are quite known to cut across the grain, almost akin to the embarrassingly-drunken-uncle-at-a-wedding sort. St Ignatius de Loyola is surely tossing and turning in his grave.

Sorry, I don't agree with you. Freedom of religion, in the US, does not mean freedom from criticism or ridicule; these are protected free speech no matter how offensive. Freedom from persecution, yes. If you truly believe that, you need to have a talk with Christians themselves because they can be and are vicious in their criticisms of each other on a doctrinal and practical basis. Even if folks aren't fighting, they have a right to engage in vigorous cross-faith debate. If we were totally neutral, no one would ever say anything.

And the IHS symbol is neither neutral nor common to all Christians. Where I live, Baptists are the more moderate of the evangelical Christians. They'll be quick tell you that Catholics are cult members, that they worship statues, and that they removed all such Papist symbols a long time ago. (Except I doubt they're familiar with the word papist.) If pressed, they might grudgingly admit that they have *something* in common Catholics but not much. (It's not unusual to hear someone say, "Are you Catholic or are you Christian?" I am not making this up.) Really, you should come visit; you'll hear some amazing things. Individuals have a right to say whatever they please, even if they are dead wrong or profoundly stupid or offensive. It's the state that is not permitted to interfere with anyone's right to worship or speak as they please.

Americans are extremely vocal about their religious beliefs, both in touting their own and in pointing out the errors of other faiths or sects - and, on balance, we like this because it's free speech.

Seriously, I have no idea why the Jesuits decided to invite the president but maybe they hoped to have some influence. I don't think the White House should have asked the symbols to be covered up or that the school should have agreed to it. Pretty dumb on both sides.

I think that university is going to lose because they have violated protected free speech. And that guy who wants to desecrate the Eucharist has probably violated some laws, so let him be prosecuted. But we're going to find this kind of nasty talk and behavior from time to time. If the Phelps family can spew their filth, other people can as well (ugh). Ultil they break the law.

Lola, that article is truly shocking. I think it is a reflection of something much more sinister. There surely is a difference between a non-believer and one who hates a religion.

Really Ellmann? Baptists ask if someone is Catholic or Christain? Haha, That’s actually funny.

I wonder why it is that people, ( and I agree, mostly Americans), are so vocal about their religion? Why is there a need for that anyway? Isn’t religion something personal between you and God? I think in many cases organized religion is a big money making organization. Not always, but in many cases. And in this suing case, I don’t think it’s about freedom of speech at all, someone here just wants to make a quick buck.

I think this is where we have to agree to disagree, Ellemm. The defence of free speech is so intrinsically linked to the defence of other rights. The First Amendment does not provide a shield for libelous speech nor does it protect certain speech that threatens or harasses other people. Whilst the Constitution guarantees the right of freedom of speech to all Americans, the use of bigoted and prejudiced language is an element of an offence, where bias is found, contrary to Hate Crime Laws which would include religious intolerance. Moreover, when free speech excuses criticism and ridicule, then there is a very thin line to cross to adequately find justification for discrimination. Free speech, in the way we as Americans think it to be, is only fantastically popular in the States. Although other democratic countries allow unfettered speech, its expression is praised only up to a point where it does not offend someone. In the UK, one's exercise of a civil right is not a licence to impugn on another's. Legislation had been promulgated to balance free speech (and conduct) where one seeks an absolute right to it because words do kill (bullying etc) or promote anti-social behaviour (anti-semitism, homophobia, xenophobia etc).

Doctrinal debate amongst faith communities is an entirely different kettle of fish. Criticism is part and parcel of the discourse and, admittedly, it can become "vicious" with vigour. And understandably so, because each faith community, in upholding convictions of faith, are at the same time trying to seek, or deny, certain elements of faith which are syncretic to them.



The IHS is common to all Christian faiths. The fact that it is not used by those which have and are separated from the Catholic Church does not diminish what the symbol stands for, i.e. early Christian for "Jesus". It's really up to each community to choose whether to use it or not. Much in the manner that whilst we retain the corpus in our crucifixes and others have the plain cross, the practice does not diminish the significance of the crucifixion. For the rest...I am quite aware of what folks outside of the Catholic Church wrongfully think it to be. I have heard even worse. However, unless I am directly engaged to clarify them, I tend to set those aside.



Notre Dame is also putting on the same type of affair in May. It is a university tradition to have an incumbent president speak at their commencement exercise. Considering "Touchdown for Jesus" is a big mural, I am quite curious as to how the White House would have that covered. Unless of course, they hold the commencement exercise in the gyms where there are no signage or symbol that would implicate generic taste.

The one on the desecration? or both? Yep. Sure is.

I think this is where we have to agree to disagree, Ellemm. The defence of free speech is so intrinsically linked to the defence of other rights. The First Amendment does not provide a shield for libelous speech nor does it protect certain speech that threatens or harasses other people. Whilst the Constitution guarantees the right of freedom of speech to all Americans, the use of bigoted and prejudiced language is an element of an offence, where bias is found, contrary to Hate Crime Laws which would include religious intolerance. Moreover, when free speech excuses criticism and ridicule, then there is a very thin line to cross to adequately find justification for discrimination. Free speech, in the way we as Americans think it to be, is only fantastically popular in the States. Although other democratic countries allow unfettered speech, its expression is praised only up to a point where it does not offend someone. In the UK, one's exercise of a civil right is not a licence to impugn on another's. Legislation had been promulgated to balance free speech (and conduct) where one seeks an absolute right to it because words do kill (bullying etc) or promote anti-social behaviour (anti-semitism, homophobia, xenophobia etc).

(sorry I fouled up the quote): But now you are bringing in other areas of free speech. I wasn't talking about libelous or hate speech, only speech that can be interpreted in your words: as criticism or ridicule. Most of that would be protected free speech in the US. And I'm frankly amazed that you brought up homophobia: in the US, that's one of the biggest hot buttons for Christians, many of whom say that homosexuality is more of a threat than terrorism. Where's the hate speech now? It's all protected here until you start advocating killing or harming someone. We also have any numbers of fringe folks (and some not-so-fringe) who are anti-semitic, anti-black, anti-white, you name it.

And don't tell me there isn't a lot of crazy religious hate speech in England. I'm not going to pretend to know what's legal over there, but if we in the US outlawed every instance of rudeness, or ignorance, or rants, or whatever, we'd all have to shut up -- and we don't. If I want to write a letter to the newspaper saying that liberals are no different from terrorists and are bringing America down, I can do it; in fact, that kind of thing is standard fare here. You are correct in that individuals are not free to interfere with others' rights to exercise their religious beliefs, but they still get to criticize each other as long as it does not get physical.

I wasn't making that stuff up about the Phelps family; in fact, they came to my town to protest at the funeral of a soldier. They were, as has become common, drowned out by Vietnam vets revving their motorcycles. The *only* thing this family concentrates on is hatred of gays and God's punishment. If you are correct in explaining just how negative, hateful, or rude we are permitted to be, maybe you could tell me why these folks and others like them haven't been arrested. As ugly as they and their speech is, it's protected -- but thanks to them, a lot of states have had to pass laws dictating how far back you have to be to demonstrate at someone's funeral.

Now, if you want to explain to me that we shouldn't let things get to this degree I can agree with you on a personal level. Truly, we should be a lot nicer. But there's nice and there's legal, and legal allows for a lot. There's certainly nothing new about people being offensive. In the long run, I'd rather have a few people get out of hand with their views and be dealt with socially or legally while the rest of us know we can worship or not as we please without interference. We have the courts to decide matters of hate or political correctness run amok.