I disagree.  Many years ago I worked with a special community project of the Y, and we had long, intense weekly meetings.  During those meetings a fairly large number of participants smoked cigarettes frequently (one person constantly, lighting the next one from the almost-consumed current one).  Several of us did not smoke at all, and at least one of these had allergies to tobacco smoke that produced violent headaches after each meeting.  When the non-smoking minority got together and requested that the smokers refrain from smoking for a few hours during these essential meetings, they protested that we were attempting to curtail their personal liberty.  What they did not recognize was that their practice, which they assumed was *normal*, was in fact curtailing the liberty of the non-smoking minority.  The majority assumed that practices that seemed harmless and ordinary to them would seem harmless and ordinary to everybody.

It is not disrespectful to the Christian religion to demand of its practitioners that they reconsider their assumption that their practice is normative and the beliefs of others are exceptional.  It is not disrespectful to question the assumption that majority practice has the right to be enshrined (if not established) in public places.  There is no such thing as the passive display of the cross in a public place.  Such a display is always actively affective, both to those for whom the cross is personally important, and to those for whom it is not.  To say otherwise is to insist that Christianity is normative, is culturally established as a key American (and Virginian) position.  Those who advocate religious neutrality in public places simply expect the same tolerance and respect for their religious positions as Christians demand for theirs.  In a constitutional democracy, the majority rules, but ideally the majority does not exclude the minority.

Cheers -- Kevin Joel Berland (the other Kevin)





On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:42:06 -0500  Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history               wrote:




And not just crabby, Sunshine.

As a Catholic veteran I have often worshiped in places that were government
supported and were also shared with others.  Of course, along with Baptists,
Methodists and others the Catholic Church was illegal in Virginia during
colonial times, and even now is a minority religion here.  But we worshiped
in chapels which displayed both the papal and Protestant flags, and chapel
spaces also occasionally displayed the star of David as well.

We simply considered it a sign of respect for our colleagues who were
respectfully faithful to other religious organizations and took no offense.

With that background I have to wonder about the 'tolerance' being shown by
those who complain about the mere passive display of a cross.  As though
their God cannot tolerate them worshiping or even existing while such a
symbol exists.  How can anyone who demands the removal of the cross claim to
be doing that in the name of tolerance?  Isn't that request itself
intolerant and disrespectful of others?

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html









To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html