Quick Note: The Problem With Majorities

Jason Pitzl-Waters —  December 14, 2010 — 64 Comments

The Religion Clause blog links to a new Rasmussen survey about attitudes towards religious symbols on public lands, and the celebrating of religious holidays at public schools.

“A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 74% of Adults say religious symbols like Christmas Nativity scenes, Hanukkah Menorahs and Muslim Crescents should be allowed on public land.  Only 17% disagree and feel these symbols should not be allowed. [...] Eighty percent (80%) of American Adults also favor celebrating religious holidays in the public schools, another area subject to repeated legal challenge. This includes 43% who believe all religious holidays should be celebrated in the schools and 37% who think only some of those holidays should be recognized.”

These results will no doubt spur various activists into thinking that they have a mandate to return Christ to the public square, and Bibles to the classrooms. But the problem with these seemingly overwhelming majorities in favor of “religious symbols” on public lands, or “celebrating religious holidays” in schools is who gets included, and who gets left out.

In the survey questions, Rasmussen asks: “Should religious symbols like Christmas Nativity scenes, Hanukkah Menorahs and Muslim Crescents be allowed on public land?” A careful look at the question itself would show its limitations. The examples are all from the dominant monotheisms, the “real” religions (Despite the recent up-tick in anti-Muslim fervor in this country, few would actually argue that it isn’t a legitimate faith.). What would happen if that question was expanded to include Wiccans? Druids? Asatru? Satanists? What about truly fringe New Age faiths like Summum?

As for religious holidays in school, do you think they’ll really acknowledge the Wiccan Wheel of the Year alongside Christian and Jewish holidays? We’re still having trouble just getting excused days off for Pagan holidays, much less having them celebrated in the school. It should also be pointed out that the 80% of people who support supporting religious holidays in public schools are nearly split down the middle on the question of if “all” faiths would be included in that. Considering the fact that equal treatment for Pagans still gives politicians and school boards the vapors, I’m not enthused at the prospect of opening the doors to celebrating religion in a supposedly secular education system.

The reason religion has been slowly removed from the public sphere isn’t, as some would argue, because of rampant anti-Christian or anti-religious sentiment. Instead, it is because equal treatment is usually denied (whether maliciously or through ignorance) to minority faith groups by the majority and a total removal of religion from the equation is the only thing that can ensure fairness to all belief systems and philosophies. The reason our nation has certain protections built into its constitution and its amendments is so we don’t end up with a system where two wolves and a lamb vote on what to have for dinner. There may be massive majorities in favor of inserting faith back into our schools and the public square, but the problem with majorities is that they aren’t always right.

Jason Pitzl-Waters

Posts

  • A.C. Fisher Aldag

    You'd cited the reason that minority faiths are under-represented to avoid showcasing religion in the public sector. Another important reason is the constitutionality of using tax dollars to indoctrinate children into ANY religion. Including Pagan religions. We have presented old Celtic customs in the public schools, within the framework of culture and ethnic traditions, and have been careful to keep religion out of it. It's acceptable to say "This is how Jane worships, this is what Tommy believes". It is NOT acceptable to use taxpayer money to promote any religion as being more valid or socially acceptable than any other faith.

  • Baruch Dreamstalker

    I have to wonder about Rasmussen's motives in stirring up this antheap again. Is it just the season? Or is there an agenda?

    • http://www.tigerseyetemple.org/ DanMiller

      'Tis the season to hate, fa la la la…

  • http://www.facebook.com/frater.barrabbas Frater Barrabbas

    Anyone who knows anything about surveys will tell you that Rasmussen is very conservative – by several points, as a matter of fact. I also have a problem with the way the question is asked in the survey – it should be asked the other way around, such as "Do you think that paying tax dollars to represent someone's faith or beliefs on public property should be condoned?" Yes, it does appear that Rasmussen is seeking to add its biased survey results to the nasty "War on Christmas" that is currently happening.

  • TeNosce

    Why are we dealing with the same problems they were dealing with in 4th Century Alexandria? I'm having a hard time liking people today, including myself.

    • Baruch Dreamstalker

      Because people are the same creatures now that they were then.

      And because of the nature of what has changed. The ideas of the majority setting policy and of religious freedom are noble Pagan concepts that went into eclipse while Europe was ruled by the Church. They have been revived in the last 400 years and, in a society still influenced by Christianity, are frail flowers at best. And in this case they are arrayed *against* one another: Majority rule *collides* with religious-minority rights in this matter. The best we can do is back the side we support and hope for a good outcome.

      • Robin Artisson

        How dare you speak so poorly of Christianity! This quote only reveals your deep-seated animosity, bigotry, and hatefulness!

        • Baruch Dreamstalker

          Who are you and what have you done with Robin Artisson?

          • Robin Artisson

            Oh, it's me, I'm just giving you the treatment that the Sugar Cookie Committee here gives me anytime I drop a criticism of Christianity, or link Christianity to some negative influence on society in the past or present. Just like to share the double-standard.

          • Baruch Dreamstalker

            Since I'm not on said Committee I wonder why I'm getting the honor of this treatment. Can't be my good looks; they've slumped with age.

          • http://www.tigerseyetemple.org/ DanMiller

            You can also not post here if what Jason does so offends you. Just saying. I like sugar cookies.

          • TeNosce

            My whole world changed once I began to look at Christianity as a cult. They are really quite strange – these people wearing torture symbols. By this I mean the cross, drinking his blood, and the random gestures of charity. They have odd buildings with uncomfortable chairs and pointy towers.

            Anyone who has ever LEFT the church can see brainwashing from the outside in. That stuff used to feel central to my being. If you had questioned it, I would have said, "Like duh, of course we're eating his body. The baby savior was born today!"

            It's rather embarrassing, really.

          • http://www.tigerseyetemple.org/ DanMiller

            Cults come in many forms. Recognize that, and your a step closer to real freedom.

          • Robin Artisson

            I've spoken with countless former Christians and Muslims who tell me how embarrassed they are about their former associations, and all agree that you have to stand outside these organizations and look in, before you can see things clearly. And thus, the problem. And yes, even the "mainstream" religions are, essentially, massive cults, in both the scholarly sense of the word, and the malicious sense of the word.

          • Robin Artisson

            Jason doesn't offend me. The Sugar Cookie Committee, however, does.

          • Baruch Dreamstalker

            I assume you're talking about people who criticize your comments via the "Report" option? I only do that for name-calling above a certain level of insult. I prefer to rebut in the open.

          • Robin Artisson

            I have never used the "report" option, nor do I know of it being used against me. I'm just talking about the pinheads here who go on 300 post-long sprees against things I say.

          • Baruch Dreamstalker

            Well, the things you say are controversial, even in a Pagan setting, especially when your despise of Islam and Christianity is coupled with less than fulsome respect for Wicca. When you post the controversial, you can expect controversy. We don't show up here, let alone sign up for email comment notification, just to look at other's words.

          • Robin Artisson

            Now, to say I despise Christianity and Islam is an unfair criticism. There's something more essential at work here; I despise ideologies that teach human exceptionalism, monotheism, and absolute moralism. That's all. And the "despise" in that statement has nothing to do with the usual pejorative meaning of the word "despise". This is a righteous, compassionate wrath, not a snide 'despise' born of half-wisdom. This is the feeling and the voice of this planet, the spirit of mankind, and the beasts of this land, rising up against a fiendish and false wave of ideologies that will see us all undone and the land laid to waste.

            So, try to understand, you've encountered something different from some pedestrian notion of "despise".

            I respect traditional Wicca- lineaged Wiccans with traceable lineage to Gardner and his original lines- quite a bit, actually. Asking me to "respect" shake-n-bake "anything goes" religion that gets called by the name of another religion, without grounds, is a bit much, don't you think? Would you respect people as "buddhists" who decided to worship a head of lettuce and practice toe circumcision as a religious ritual, who decided to call themselves Buddhist?

            I like controversy. And I wasn't calling you a member of the SCC. You started out to be, but you've calmed down some since then. I was just making fun of the double standard here- that only when RA criticizes christianity or islam is a big deal really ever made out of it.

          • Baruch Dreamstalker

            That last isn't true, Robin. Apuleius gets the same kind of grief you do. (Of course now you'll tell me you don't do "grief" but some other, deeper emotion whereby the planet speaks through you.)

          • Robin Artisson

            He does catch some hell, yes. But from one or two individuals only. He has a fan club, too.

          • TheL

            I've carefully avoided doing this for months, but Robin, you're kind of crossing the line.

            1. You can criticize people without coming across as an arrogant asshole. I'm sorry, but you do tend to sound very self-righteous in your criticisms of monotheistic religions. It's off-putting and makes people less likely to respond to you civilly. And frankly, it sounds like an anti-Chick Tract–sometimes I'm tempted to take you down a peg even when I agree with you. This is why I rarely respond to your comments on this blog. (That, and I get enough smug self-righteousness from my conservative Catholic father. I don't need someone else's.)

            2. I am an eclectic sort-of Wiccan with Greco-Roman leanings–NOT by choice; I've been stuck in the "broom closet" for the last few years and will only be able to connect with local BTW's or Religio Romana reconstructionists offline in a few months after I finally move out of my parents' house. I think it's a bit unfair that responsible eclectics like myself are lumped in with the "fluffy bunnies" who think Wicca, itself, is as ancient as Witchcraft (1952! Gerald Gardner! This should not still be an issue!!) or that Wiccans were killed during the Inquisition. I don't practice revisionist history, and I don't appreciate being treated as if I do.

            3. Remember that when you're online, you're representing Heathenry as well as yourself, as many of us have not encountered many Heathens. It's not fair, but many people do in fact judge religions by the members of those religions that they have encountered. I can think of exactly 3 Heathens that I know of, in fact; the NY city council officer (Halloran…I forget his first name), a spoiled-brat "seidhmadhr" I met in college; and you. I'm sure a lot of other people can also count the number of Heathens they know of on one hand. When you're drawing from such a small sample, one single person can tarnish the reputation of the whole group.

          • Robin Artisson

            I don't represent Heathenry. I have practiced Heathenry in the past, and did it for years, did it well- "cut my teeth", as it were, on a real Pagan revival whose power is unmatched, in my experience. But I was always my own person, not a representative of the entire Heathen movement, which is too large, organic, and diverse for one person to "represent". Organic and localized revivals of Heathenry- or any other related faith- cannot be represented by persons, bodies, or anyone else.

            But I'm not exactly in the Heathen loop anymore. All the focus on ancestry and the worship of Disir led me to deepen my search and focus on the group of ancestors that I am most similar to, and to embrace their old ways, and those people are the Anglo-Picts and Britons of SE Scotland. Which, incidentally, is where I "began" this strange path of modern Pagan belief, way back in the day. We call that "coming full circle".

            I promise, this internet isn't representing Heathenry or me adequately at all. You'd have to meet me in person to understand. You'll never have met a wilder, more innapropriate, a bit-not-there person than me. I'm isolated from my entire society morally, spiritually, and even on a day-to-day basis; I am possessed- helpelessly so- by the vision of the Fiosaiche, and the beasts and things in the unseen world that cluster around my inner sight. I don't care about anything that most other people care about. I don't make most of the decisions I get credit for. I don't really live in my own body.

            And added to all this, I work in the mental healthcare rehabilitation field, where I daily get to treat people just like me, who have had the misfortune of getting diagnosed like I probably should have been. What sets me apart is a hint of cleverness and an ability to disguise myself well, and (maybe) education. I write well, or so I'm told. I personally think I'm just long-winded on paper… and I think I try so hard, that people tell me I'm good because they don't want to hurt my feelings.

            I don't care about the reputation of whole groups, I don't affect "whole groups", and I don't care to. I care about my children and the powers unseen that compel me (and I, them, sometimes). And I care about food. And strong drink. And visualizing what death will be like. And designing signs and sigils that I imagine will cause some sorcerous affect to take place when I need it. And feeding the people in the Land. And laughing at things that are sometimes not funny, but they bring up a stream-of-consciousness chain of associations in me that leads to something funny.

            Sometimes, like when I'm bored off my arse, I fight online. I love The Wild Hunt because it keeps me in touch (somewhat) with the currents and tides of modern Pagans, such that they are. I think our "cross-section" of people here is about a perfect match to the Pagans I've met personally. And daily, I wait and watch for the transformation that I hope is coming, as Pagans and their Paganisms mature.

            As for the rest of your post, dude, I don't need to know. Sorry you had a hard time with your dad. If you don't like being lumped or misjudged by people who don't know you, then don't do it to other people.

            And finally, I AM self-righteous, haven't you noticed? Ego-maniacal, elitist, and fully irresponsible and inappropriate most of the time. The difference between me and the rest of the world's egomaniacs and undiagnosed schizotypal personality disorders is that I'm just comfortable and honest with myself and with others. Most of the time.

          • http://www.tigerseyetemple.org/ DanMiller

            So people disagree with you, and you have a problem with that? Sounds like while you can dish it out, you have a bit of problem taking it too. And "pinheads", really, while I don't agree with all pagans, calling your fellow posters names is no path forward to understanding.

          • Robin Artisson

            I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me. Keep up your amazing streak of reading completely false conclusions into my original words- you must be going for a world record.

          • http://www.tigerseyetemple.org/ DanMiller

            I'm just going by the words you are writing Robin. If anyone else could tell me if I'm off track with this, please let me know and I'll cease and desist on poor old Robin.

          • Robin Artisson

            You don't cease and desist on me. I cease and desist on you. That's what you- and most of the other brain trusts here, and anywhere on the internet just _don't_ get_. I'm not on the internet with you. You're on the internet with me.

          • http://www.tigerseyetemple.org/ DanMiller

            Okay, lets go with that, lol.

            If you edit to last line to read, then your golden.
            "You're on the internet with me, because I AM the internet!"

            Just saying.

          • TheL

            No, Robin, we're all on the Internet together. YOU can cease and desist as well as anyone else can. Continuing to act holier-than-thou when people criticize you–for dozens of posts, no less–makes you look about as mature as the average 4chan member. Better to close one's mouth and be thought a fool, then to open it and remove all doubt, as the old saying goes.

          • Robin Artisson

            We're not on the internet together. You're on the internet with me. Somehow (and I'm not sure how, but I am sure of it) this entire setup, internet and all, is about me. It's just the oddest thing, really- but I think I'm more than worth it. You're an irritating part of this big party that's been thrown for me, BY me. So I don't know what I put you on the guest list for. But maybe you serve some hidden purpose…

            You must be new here, too. I don't care about how "mature" I look. Maturity is so old (pun intended)… so tired and boring. And the way jerks use the term "maturity" to try and force other people to conform to their concept of "mature", and to try to control people and situations- it's pathetic. I'm not going to be nice, mature, or reasonable. That's just not my way. I enjoy life too much to tiptoe around other people's fine, fragile sensibilities. And- oddly enough- I'm still here, still kickin', despite the righteous indignation and protests of people just like you. Strange phenomenon. And more evidence that this whole world just revolves around my black little heart. Welcome to my Faery Tale, TheL.

          • TheL

            I've been reading this blog for a year. And…wow. I don't know what to say to you now. Your reply to my other comment explains a lot, actually.

          • Baruch Dreamstalker

            "I'm not on the internet with you. You're on the internet with me."

            Rorschach, from Watchmen, regarding prison. Right, only steal the best.

          • Robin Artisson

            I haven't seen Watchmen yet, but I'm guessing that I need to. The trouble with your statement is that, in my line of work, Rorschach is a psychological test. Is Rorschach a person in Watchmen? Or are you saying I've taken a Rorschach test? Do you imagine that I did poorly or saw all sorts of horrible things in the ink blotches?

          • http://www.tigerseyetemple.org/ DanMiller

            Ah yes, the SCC. I heard they are in cahoots with the Illuminati and the Bilderberger Group. Nasty bit of work they are to keep your opinions from people seeking the truth. Seriously, imaginary conspiracy groups don't really help your cause, whatever that is.

          • Robin Artisson

            Dan, your attempts to make drama about something that I was clearly making light of are only making you look like a large tool. Nothing- not a thing- stops my opinions from reaching people, online and off. The SCC here are just the politically-correct lame arses that like to pop off anytime I criticize Islam or Christianity. I doubt they're well-connected, to global conspiracies or otherwise.

          • http://www.tigerseyetemple.org/ DanMiller

            Okay-dokey, best of luck Robin. Clearly my good-natured sarcasm didn't translate well in my post.

          • Robin Artisson

            Indeed, I'd say not. Try using the tag </good natured sarcasm> next time, and I'll respond better.

        • TheL

          There's a difference between saying "Christians have done bad things" and "Christianity itself is a bad thing." While I agree that some Christians have behaved atrociously (and it's pitifully easy to cite examples from Constantine to the present day), I see nothing wrong with someone choosing to follow the teachings ascribed to Jesus of Nazareth. The Bible makes him look like a much nicer guy than that YHWH character in the Old Testament. :P

          • Robin Artisson

            Maybe you and I have been reading different bibles, but the teachings of Jesus are completely inappropriate. It's all slave morality, for slaves. And he spends a good deal of time cursing gentiles (that's you, and me, and nearly everyone here!) and calling them "dogs"- cursing fig trees for daring not to have fruit when it wasn't fruit season, attacking people at a marketplace because they dared to do what people had done for centuries and have market in the doors of the temple, saying that he came to set family members against one another, saying that he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword, and a plethora of other stupid and ominous shit. Jesus isn't some wonderful guy. If he existed at all, he was a crazed reformer of the ancient Hebrew religion, more madness to heap upon madness. He's not a good example, and nothing worth following.

  • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

    Thank the Gods for the Bill of Rights!

    One of the earliest known "Constitutions" was that of Athens. Solon the lawmaker agreed to draw up the Constitution only if the Athenians agreed to never change it without consulting him first. Then as soon as he completed it, he left for Egypt without telling anyone where he was going. Or so some believe.

    • Bogomil

      Even more to my taste is Epizephyrian Locris's lawgiver Zaleucus, who decreed that any one proposing a change of the laws should do so with a rope around his neck, with which he would be strangled were his proposal to fail. I would approve of imposing this rule on the Senate and House of Representatives as well as on the various state assemblies.

      • Bookhousegal

        I don't think this is the exact moment in history to *start* doing that. :)

        • Bogomil

          It would admittedly be better if you could impose it retroactively.

  • http://badassbard.blogspot.com Thomas

    I'm actually a little surprised that Islam is expressly mentioned in this survey.

    I wonder if it would skew the numbers if the same survey were re-taken, omitting any reference to Islam.

    The anti-Muslim sentiment is getting deeper and stronger in this country every day and it's getting to the point that the other Abrahamians that make up the majority in this country will cut off their noses to spite thier faces in this regard,

  • Robin Artisson

    Mark Twain, I think, said that there were three sorts of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

  • http://nihhus.jimdo.com/sitemap/ Malaz

    Would like to mention the historical link between a societies religious practice and its economy.

    The question is, has our community made enough of a push for equal rights that we'll be included in this new
    return-towards religion or should we start making plans to meet in secret?

    • A.C. Fisher Aldag

      No, no, NO to the idea of secrecy. That just feeds into the fear that we are doing something dangerous or shady. We must be public, educate people, and sue those who deny us our rights!

  • The_L

    Whenever I hear that he majority is “in agreement” on something, I tend to think of a survey done a few decades ago. The results were that about 50% of people thought Coke and Pepsi were equally good, and about 25% each thought his/her preferred brand tasted noticeably better. Both drink companies used the exact same survey to claim that the majority preferred their drink (with “preferred” defined as “liked as much or better than” to include that ambivalent majority).

    Similarly, the first bit of data in this article, without the second, hides the not-altogether-surprising fact that–SURPRISE!–a whopping 37% of people want their religion to be treated as special in a government that should show no partiality. Thirty-seven percent of the people around us believe that the First Amendment is wrong, and that their religion should be, in essence, the state religion. That’s a disturbingly large number in a nation whose earliest white settlers often came to avoid religious persecution.

    • harmonyfb

      That's a disturbingly large number

      Yes, but how many actual people did they poll, and how did they obtain responders? Because if you polled, say, six people at a tent revival, then you might come up with a vastly different number than if you polled a larger random number or went to a large urban area.

      That's what I always wonder about when I read these type of self-serving surveys – how did the statistician gerrymander the results?

      Perhaps we should take a poll from the Wild Hunt readership and release our own counter-stats. "Our research indicates that a large majority of Americans believe that government should not be displaying religious symbols and that conservative Christian think-tanks are unreliable sources of information."

      • Crystal7431

        I love your results!

      • Baruch Dreamstalker

        A poll of Wild Hunt would reveal that we already have some of our sacred symbols on public land — fir trees, holly wreaths, reindeer — and need no special dispensation. ;-)

      • TheL

        Even in American society at large, a good 25% or so of Americans tend to identify with this sort of self-serving dominionist-Christian mindset. That's the rough sample size gleaned from less-biased polls. One in every four Americans is still far too many for my liking.

    • Bookhousegal

      Actually, I think this shows exactly how the framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights knew *exactly* what they were about by making the wall of separation. If a lot of people wouldn't *want* to mix church and state, we probably wouldn't need those protections (from ourselves and each other) so much.

      Maybe it's a little harder for us to see because Paganism, per se, isn't structured much like a government to begin with, never mind an anti-democratic one.

      In fact, if we *weren't* a minority, it probably wouldn't be so hard to find 37 percent who thought the Republic ought to be run on 'Pagan Values,' …quite likely *because* we consider a pluralistic democracy very much aligned with our own values, as opposed to a means to the end of making everyone obey an authoritarian set of some legalistic text of laws that often ends up at odds with the very notion of people being so empowered.

      In some ways, especially because the modern forms of our religion tend to take secular democracies for granted and more or less are in accord with the notion, it wouldn't be hard to see a certain number of us finding it quite reasonable to involve the Gods in government proceedings. It could even work fairly well because the relationship would be different: for one, there's no implied unaccountable authority to Paganism: our concerns in these regards would likely be more subtle: more akin to Rome's state proceedings and pontificates-as-political-appointments or to an extent concerns like India might have, than we'd be worried about a new Cromwellian thing and Inquisitions and Dominionists.

      Of course there'd still be a lot of other good reasons to keep it secular, (If for no other reason that corruption and ambition go where the money and power is) …the only point is, if Paganism were claiming a comfortable majority, I wouldn't be so sure pollsters couldn't scare up a similar figure who thought it'd be perfectly OK… ie, 'Sure, we could handle it, we're different.' :)

  • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

    If Pagans were the majority every day would be a religious holiday, and every religion would be honored as a matter of principle. Public buildings would display a variety of religious symbols appropriate to their function (which is already the case to an extent. The Goddess of Freedom stands atop the Capitol, for example.)

    Exceptions might have to be made for any anti-social elements who refuse to participate in the mutual respect that all religions should show for each other.

  • caraschulz

    “Should religious symbols like Christmas Nativity scenes, Hanukkah Menorahs and Muslim Crescents be allowed on public land?” What would happen if that question was expanded to include Wiccans? Druids? Asatru? Satanists?

    I have no problem with this. If only one religion is allowed to be represented, then I have a problem. But if there is a fair and consistent process to allow religious or atheist groups to put up a display on public property (even if you need to lottery or rotate it during some times of the year) I got ZERO problem with that.

    • Robin Artisson

      Cara, as always, the trouble is that not everyone is as open minded and tolerant as you. I know YOU don't have a problem with other religions displaying things. Sadly, the empowered conservatives who shape and frame the public discourse do have a problem with it.

    • MertvayaRuka

      It would be nice if we could do this. Unfortunately this is one of the areas where the problem with majorities is most glaring, that being that they've bought into the idea of freedom as a zero-sum game. They seriously believe that the more freedoms are recognized for other people, the less freedom the majority will have. This is why we keep hearing outrageous stories about nativity scenes on private property being banned; while no such thing has actually happened, the majority believes it is a logical outcome of allowing other people to share the public square with them. This is why we can't have nice things.

      • TheL

        I still don't understand how anyone can view it as zero-sum in the first place. Freedom isn't like money or oil, where there's a finite amount of the stuff. It isn't subject to inflation, you can make more at any time, and it won't pollute the atmosphere. ;)

        I think these sorts of people probably view love and courtesy as zero-sum as well–it would explain why they don't "waste" it on people outside their own in-groups.

        • MertvayaRuka

          Well, to be fair, there are people in the world for whom freedom is a zero-sum game. They're authoritarians. And they happen to be running most of this show, which gives them a good platform to disseminate the idea that freedom is a zero-sum game for everyone. In reality, it's only a zero-sum game for the one-percenters at the top that want more control over the rest of us.

  • caraschulz

    Hey I LOVE temporary art like holiday displays. Beautiful, tacky, manufactured, hand-made – whatever – lay it on me!

  • chuck_cosimano

    In the end there is only one majority that counts. Give me five votes on the Supreme Court and I don't give a damn what anyone else thinks.

    • Robin Artisson

      For the win, Chuck!

  • Ursyl

    "But the problem with these seemingly overwhelming majorities in favor of “religious symbols” on public lands, or “celebrating religious holidays” in schools is who gets included, and who gets left out."

    Not to mention the little problem of The Constitution, and that government promotion of religion violates it, AND that it is absolutely not up for a vote as to whether it be followed or not.
    "Majority" in this situation is irrelevant. No majority has the right to vote away the rights of the minorities.

  • Bookhousegal

    I'm sure that much of that polled 'majority' is thinking of pretty ordinary Christmas and Easter and Halloween things, rather than what the Religious Right has in mind for the schools and such, too. A lot of it'll depend on how the question is phrased, and despite all the big money involved, polls often don't leave much room or often allow one to say 'To an extent' or 'conditionally' etc.

    Rasmussen being a conservative polling outfit, one can be sure the questions are structured along the same lines as the media pitches that it's just about a few cranks trying to keep religion out of schools/constrain things.

    If you start breaking things down like, 'Well, do you want *Catholics* teaching Catholicism in school, or this sect or that sect of Protestantism, ' you might start hearing more 'Well, not so fast, there….' What it is is a lot of people casting a vote for what they think is or perceive as 'normalcy,' I suspect.