Anti-Christianity an ugly problem

That sounds serious! In fact, that problem's so widespread that you were able to come up with one whole example!

I don't know anything about the case you cited (I'd be able to learn more fairly quickly if WSN would take advantage of the fact that they have a website and actually get their writers to include links), but pardon me if I don't take your word for it that this was targeted specifically at Christians, and someone in a hijab would get a free pass. Besides, the idea that anti-Christian bigotry is a widespread epidemic while Muslims get a free pass because of political correctness is flatly ridiculous. How many Muslims do we have in Congress? One. How many Muslims have ever served as major party presidential candidates? (If your answer is anywhere above zero, there's no hope for you.) Meanwhile, numerous powerful members of Congress feel free to be openly anti-Muslim, although something tells me they wouldn't get away with saying the same about Christianity.

How many ridiculous, self-pitying "straight Christian white people are being oppressed" columns are you guys going to run before you finally get embarrassed?

The inclusion of "under God" is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause due to precedent.

Just to clarify, the Constitution does not explicitly call for separation of church and state - the majority opinion in Everson v Board of Education does. That gives us precedent for the concept of separation.

However, take a look at Lemon v. Kurtzman. This case establishes a test for determining whether or not a statute violates the Establishment Clause. 1 - The statute has a primary secular purpose. 2 - Its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion. 3 - It does not create an excessive entanglement with religion. If the statute passes all three prongs of the Lemon test, it does not violate the Establishment Clause.

The federal law that incorporates "under God" clearly fails the Lemon test because it has NO secular purpose. Even if one wanted to argue that its secular purpose was to keep the country united during threats of communism abroad, it would still fail the second prong because its primary effect advances theism.

"Why can't everyone just be free to express whatever their personal beliefs are?" When you include "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, you curtail that right and oppress atheists, agnostics, and secularists. "Everyone who takes advantage of America's religious freedom should respect and be respected by one another." Those atheists/agnostics/secularists are disrespected by the inclusion of "under God."

The media and activists groups don't necessarily oppose the tenets of Christianity - they take issue with the ACTIONS of these groups. I think your argument here is a bit convoluted.

Although your evidence on Sunday laws bring up a good point, these laws, although they align with religious beliefs, promote a primary secular purpose as a day of health and rest for all citizens as decided in McGowan v. Maryland.

Once again, laws may have some basis or alignment with the Ten Commandments, but that doesn't really mean anything. In fact, in McCreary County v. ACLU, the court determined it was unconstitutional to display the Ten Commandments in a government building.

I do, however, find it problematic that this employee was fired for wearing a pin expressing his devotion under the Free Exercise Clause. However, your article does not provide enough facts with regards to the Home Depot case for me to make any arguments about the incident.

Finally, the original settlers came to America for religious freedom. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, so the attempts to separate church and state demonstrate the same values our settlers held in terms of freedom.

I would take your arguments more seriously if you gave some sort of constitutional argument or had cited some cases to promote the co-mingling of religion and government rather than whining about how the world isn't fair.

Did you actually THINK when you wrote this?

In paragraph 1 you tell everyone to poo-poo the religious connection to the words "under God". Then in paragraph 3 you say this whole flap over the button with "under God" on it is a blatant violation of religious liberty!

Obviously, if "under God" is just about history or just about ceremony, as Christian defenders of those words say in court, then "under God" has as much importance as an TV commercial.

But look how much everyone cares about this guy's button! Obviously many more people think there is a religious connection to "under God" than you let on. Eisenhower was inspired to push for those words after hearing a sermon about our "theological war" with the soviets. Eisenhower upon signing the bill made explicit references to God the Almighty.

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's OBVIOUSLY not in violation of the constitution because, after all, it's just about ceremony and history.

NubisPertusus.wordpress.com

Has the WSN been taken over by the College Republicans? How about you respect the majority of NYU and keep this simple minded, poorly written, poorly edited, biggoted crap out of the WSN.

Fair points made in this article. We should have respect for America's religious heritage.

Here's a letter to the editor I sent in regarding this article:

I take issue with Adrianna Boris's column "Anti-Christianity an Ugly Problem." It is ludicrous and egotistical to think that because the United States criminalizes theft, murder, etc. that these must be based on the Ten Commandments, as if the handing down of the Ten Commandments were the first time these acts were made illegal. The phrase "America was founded on Judeo-Christian values" is really just a meme repeated by Christian conservatives that really does not have any meaning and is never elaborated on. The fact is that many of the values people held at the founding of this country are totally incompatible with today's society and not something Christians would want to align themselves with. As for the Home Depot employee: as anyone who has ever worked in retail will tell you, it is common company policy that employees cannot wear badges, tags, slogans, etc. of any nature (religious, political, humorous, whatever). The employee was not fired for wearing a Christian-themed pin, but rather for refusing to obey the dress code. An "under God" pin is not required religious dress for Christians, and the Home Depot could also regulate religious dress at work if they so desired. What is truly an ugly problem is how some Christians create this air of victimization in order to give themselves a sense of superiority and draw empathy.

I don't think the act of Home Depot firing this man for wearing a pin reading "One Nation Under God, Indivisible" is an anti-Christian act. Surely, there is a policy Home-Depot has about wearing religious affiliated materials, so I am sure it would apply to a Jewish man wearing a yamulke at work just the same. Making assumptions about what Home Depot would do in a situation like this is too presumptuous. Furthermore, a woman coming to work in a hijab would be dealt with in the same manner as the Christian man was. Although it was a bit extreme what Home Depot did by firing this man for refusing to take off the pin, I do not think it demonstrates the prevalence of anti-Christianity in America. Anti-Muslim (and Anti-Semitism) are surely the ugliest problems America is dealing with concerning blatant acts in violation of religious freedom and expression. Anti-Muslim prejudices are definitely worthy of being called an ugly problem in America, especially since the attacks of 9/11. If anything, this man was asked to take off the pin or be fired so that Home Depot could maintain a policy that keeps them from being sued for allowing one form of religious expression at work and not another. In other words, if they don't allow a Christian man to express his religion by wearing a 'religious' pin at work, then they don't have to allow a Muslim to have freedom of religious expression at work. The implicated policy they have surely goes to show the avoidance of the real ugly problem in America which is Anti-Muslim.

I would like to start this by saying how shockingly offended i am at the majority of these posts. I refuse to believe that a single person here truly believes there is not a problem with taking P.C. to the extreme; who hasn't heard of a case of someone being afraid to fire or take action against someone with the possibility it will be labeled as discrimination?
Also, I would like to bring up the merry christmas debate. It was established that saying merry christmas to customers during the holidays is an offensive act that does not acknowledge other beliefs. However, does this popular greeting ask a particular person to honor the christian tradition? No it does not. Seeing as December is known to be a christmas season in America, saying this to a passerby is no more than an act of wishing them well for the current time period. Therefore I would like to say that including under God is no more of a serious offense. I believe that most religious practices involve God, some type of God or demigod, or multiple gods; who is to say that believing our country is watched over by a divine being is a bad thing? If a muslim individual offered me a blessing I would not be offended I would consider it a kind gesture, therefore why should others be offended that as a primarily Christian nation we would like to believe that our God is watching over this land? The words never say that everyone must be one of God's people.
I am ashamed to admit that many of these responses come from fellow countrymen, because to claim that a very generic and well-wishing part of our pledge of allegiance is wrong is just a moral crime.

Amen, brother. But, we must let this happen.

First and foremost, I agree with much of what Miss Boris has said. I disagree, however with the idea that Christians are getting, for lack of a better word, screwed in society. Because let us face it, Christianity, is and will be for a long time, the most socially acceptable religion in this country. It is fact. So Miss Boris I agree on the Issue you stated with the Home Depot employee. However, there are jobs that require and have dress codes and neutrality to religions. This is, obviously, so companies can be on a "same page" basis with it's customers and that is understandable. However, these rules vary from company to company. For example; Walmart has no such regulation against bringing Bibles or "Christian" or "Religious" flair. And lastly for all of the comments below such as Ned Resknikoff, Nubis Pertusus, Disappointed Graduate, and Bill Santagata. I will say, while all of you were outspoken and expressive, you ALL were incredibly nasty, unprofessional, had no originality to the subject brought nothing compelling to the discussion and were nothing but a bundle of negativity, hate, and true BIAS which is actually what Miss Boris's article was speaking out against. So each of you who is saying she wasn't "thinking", "ludicrous and egotistical" and "Bigoted" I think you are the bigoted ones to not see the ture message and even if you did the opinion doesn't matter as much as the manner in which you expressed it. Miss Boris continue writing and expressing but give these rude hypocritical nothings a link and more sources. Thank you. -MRK

I seriously doubt anybody's position on this issue has been swayed in the slightest by either the article or responses. You seem like a good writer, Adrianna, but if you can't see what's wrong with your stance, you'll never see it. It'd take a book for me to explain why, so I just suggest you travel the world a little or study a some history from a non-Christian perspective, and with a little luck and that terribly risky act of looking at something from another's point of view, it may become clear to you. Otherwise you're only contributing to America being the laughing stock of the world.