Purposeful Ramblings Through My Mind

Heck, there are probably some hardcore libertarians who object to the idea that any space can be publicly owned, and so be acceptable as a polling station.

From:

I'm child-free and I could care less. I'm sure many would feel the same way. Then again, a lot of child-free people are kind of ridiculous.

I don't think voting in churches is the same thing. On one hand, I do see churches as being community centres, and not a horrible place to hold elections. However, for that purpose, the church must not enforce any of their religious beliefs on me as the voter. If I need to wear a Yarmulke to enter, or am forced to take off my shoes at the door, fuck that. I'm there to vote, nothing more. If the church (or synagogue or whatever) has a problem with that, then they are interfering with the electoral process as far as I am concerned.

From:

I would tend to agree with that. (However, I would expect that any non-religious headgear would be removed at the door, because that's a sign of basic respect. It shouldn't be enforced, but the people entering should engage in that common courtesy.)

From:

Hmm. Well, for the federal election in January I did indeed vote in a church, and judging by the fact that it was pretty cold outside, I probably wore my winter hat. I didn't give this any thought, I'm afraid... no more than I would have if I had entered a shopping mall or a fast-food restaurant. I'm not really sure why you would consider it a common courtesy, actually, to be honest. Who is it disrespecting, exactly?

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headgear#Headgear_etiquette

From:

Maybe I am a barbarian then.

At least I can't be caught flat-footed. Or is that rogues...

From:

Both, I think. But how would I know? Velvet is a rogue, and I've never run a barbarian. :)

From:

The whole hat etiquette thing, however, is a very limited cultural and religious thing.

In the Jewish religion, and in other religions, covering your head before god is considered a way of RESPECTING him. I don't think you can even expect this.

And I don't see why I should be expected to treat someone else's place of worship with reverence. Respect, yes -- I should take care not to damage the property in any way, and not to denigrate that religion while I'm in there. I'm not a fan of people who think it is fun to sneak into churches and do thing contrary to that church's religion. But I also don't see why I should do a sign of reverence like remove my hat -- especially when I don't see it as a sign of reverence, necessarily.

From:

neebs.livejournal.com

I was just being a smartass about that. =P

I agree about not enforcing beliefs by making you dress "appropriately" for their house of worship.

From:

dagoski.livejournal.com

I htink with the religious polarization in this country, it's a bad idea to treat a church as just another community organization or gathering place. It's not the symbols that bother me but the likliehood that religous people would tamper with the polling. Recent history shows that this kind of paranois is most definitely justified. That said, there's a lot that's screwy in US polling locations. Back in my home town, the designated polling place used to be some old lady's house. I'm guessing she was an election offical, but may have just been someone who volunteered to make her living room the ward's sole public building for a day every election. As a kid, it was fun to wait for either of my parents to finishing voting because there was tea and cookies, but as an adult it would just seem strange. Philadelphia gets weirder still. Some polling places are bars. Despite my anti-Philly bias, I think this is mainly because, in some neighborhoods, the bar is the only place big enough to conduct polling operations. Polling locations in the US are really inconsistent and I some locations subject individual voters to intense peer pressure.

What's the situtation up there in Canada.

From:

Ever since I've been voting, it's usually been a school gym. The two times I helped with elections, I went to one church gym as a scrutineer, and one polling station that was in the foyer of an apartment building. I would suspect that 90% of polling stations around here are in schools. And the religious tensions are not nearly as high, so it's not as much of a potential problem here.

From:

sassy-fae.livejournal.com

Aagh!!

I wrote a long, four part response to this, and LJ ate it (not for the first time today.)

I'll forego re-writing it for now in order to come and visit instead :)

From:

dornbeast.livejournal.com

Personally, I don't see the problem. The state isn't promoting the church - it's just using the space. And, in my opinion, the idea behind separation is keeping the government from promoting one religion at the expense of others.

From:

I think it is DEFINITELY a problem.

Many deeply religious people would not enter the place of worship for another religion. The reasons they feel this way are myriad, and certainly, I've felt that way about churches, to some extent, for large swathes of my life (first as a jew, then an agnostic atheist, then a pagan).

If someone has principles that prevents them from entering the polling station, that means they are not going to be comfortable voting. Since it is easy to get public schools, I think they are a reasonable option.

And, I don't think the child free suggestion someone made above is the same thing. First of all, I think the number of people who are affected by the church are much greater than the number of people who are affected by child free issues. Second of all, our society and culture is dedicated to equality for religions, whereas it will never be dedicated towards accomodation of child-free, because a society that does that is a dying society.

From:

My church is used for AA meetings, for Weight Watchers, and for other community activities. It's not (as far as I know) used for a polling place. If it were, I would absolutely NOT expect that our pamphlets, advertisements for various programs, or anything else relating to the regular life of our church be hidden or in any other way messed with for the sensibilities of people who come there to vote. Of course, since I live in Texas and just outside the largest military garrison in the US, it wouldn't be much of an issue here. Regional and local culture is definitely a factor.

The religious polarity in this country is reaching ridiculous proportions, due to general idiocy on both sides. On one hand, you have the Dominionists, who take the Great Commission found at the end of Matthew as a mandate for forcible conversion by any and all means, and on the other hand, you have the militant atheists who are, in many ways, simply reacting to that, but by going overboard in the other direction, i.e. "Nothing relating to any religion at all should be anywhere where I might possibly have to see it."

For the purposes of separation of church and state, atheism should be treated as a religion as well, and not given preference. One person or group should not be able to dictate what should or should not be displayed, said, or put forth in public. I expect the person filing the lawsuit objects to church services being advertised in the public paper or on the bulletin boards at the local grocery store, too, but has only filed this lawsuit because they think they may actually be able to do something in this case.

From:

I think you're missing the point, so let me try to explain it again, point by point.

-I suspect that we can all agree that the ideal polling station would be accessible, easily, to everyone who is eligible to vote.
-There are people of many religions, creeds, etc., who feel that they are either violating their own religion, or desecrating someone else's place of worship, by entering a place of worship that is not of their own religion. How do you think a fundamentalist christian would feel about having to enter a mosque, synagogue, or pagan temple to cast their vote? How do you think (s)he'd feel as (s)he walked across the pentagram permanently engraved into the floor to cast that vote? Probably more than a little uncomfortable. I was raised as a Jew, and felt consistently uncomfortable with the idea of going into churches. Even after becoming an agnostic atheist, I wasn't so comfortable with the very idea of entering one. Now that I'm a practicing pagan, I'm definitely not comfortable. I shouldn't have to violate my personal beliefs in order to vote.
-If factors like religions polling locations are likely to make people uncomfortable or even a little less likely to vote, then it makes the voting location less accessible to them. Thus, that polling station does not meet the initial criteria of accessibility to ALL citizens. And let's face it. Voter turn out is already low enough. Should we really be losing more voters to something that is so easily fixed?
-The argument that in primarily christian communities it is a moot point is backwards. The downfall of democracy is the tyranny of the majority. The communities where non christians are the minority are the communities who need to be MOST aware of these issues.
-separation of church and state. Let me point out that this is something that is SUPPOSED to be enshrined in both the U.S. and Canada. But, if the very place where we have our say and cast our votes for the future of our country IS a church, how is that separated?
-Keep in mind that although religion is not always political, it often impacts peoples' politics. In many ways, the presence of christian paraphernalia in a voting setting is not that far from campaigning by the more conservative parties -- it reminds people to think about christianity when voting, and those who are waffling may choose differently than they would have otherwise.

That's just some of the issues involved...

Perhaps the answer is for synagogues, mosques, etc. to start volunteering as places to vote. But I'd much rather see NO places of worship used as polling stations, then places of worship from many denominations and religions.

Finally, your comment about bulletin boards and ads in the paper is not a valid analogy. Those ads are not governmental institutions. A polling station is. Separation of church and state means that there should not be any religion (christian, pagan, jewish, you name it) present in government functions. That goes for polling stations too. Private spaces such as bulletin boards, newspapers, etc. are not limited by church and state because they aren't the state. Anyone who whines about religious ads on bulletin boards or elsewhere needs to reread the part of the constitution that talks about freedom of speech.

From:

First, you're not going into someone's place of worship to cast your vote. You're more than likely going into a space (church gym, parish hall, etc.) that they use for community activities. Most of those community activities have a religious aspect, but they are not worship. I sincerely doubt that the place used for socializing at a pagan temple has a pentagram permanently etched into the floor that someone would walk across to cast their vote. The "place of worship" is a completely different space.

Your second point has a bit more validity. But only a bit more. If someone is going to let the fact that the polling station for their area is a church keep them from voting, honestly, they're looking for an excuse to salve their conscience for not voting. Like I said, my church is used for AA and Weight Watchers' meetings, among others. "I'm not going to Weight Watchers. They meet in a church. I don't want that Christian crap shoved in my face." is really an excuse not to use that option to do something about their weight, not what it is on the surface, an objection to the overt Christianity of the space used.

I did NOT say that in primarily Christian communities it is a moot point. I said that in MY community, it isn't much of an issue. That in particular, is a case of reading your own agenda into what I said. I have a very specific local and regional culture that makes it highly unlikely that a big deal would be made of having a polling station in a church. Not only am I in Texas (the Buckle of the Bible Belt), and the closest town to the largest US military garrison in the world (Ft. Hood), but about an hour away from Crawford Ranch. I'm not actually aware of any polling stations at churches in my city, but that's because we have other spaces that have the room to host polling stations. I just think that it would be unlikely that anyone would make a big deal of it if a polling station was put in a church here. *shrug*

Separation of church and state... As Andre the Giant's character said about the Sicilian's use of "inconceivable!" in The Princess Bride: I do not think that means what you think it means. The concept that at least the US incorporated into the founding of the country was that no one religion or denomination should be given precedence over any other. The first amemdment actually says that Congress shall establish no law restricting the practice of religion. BINGBINGBING!!! If you're saying that nothing religious should be anywhere having anything to do with the government, you're saying that the government SHOULD restrict the practice of religion. The intent was to prevent the establishment of a state religion, NOT to divorce religion from governmental and public life. A higher proportion of the population of both the US and Canada is Christian of one stripe or another, so there are more churches. I believe that in some areas, synagogues are used as polling stations. I don't know if mosques are used, but if they volunteered, more power to 'em.

To the point that religious paraphernalia makes people think about Christianity and possibly vote differently, well, having a polling station in a school would make people think more about kids and possibly vote differently. It's not really a reasonable assertion to make. Having a polling station in a train terminal would make people think more about railroads, and possibly make them vote differently. No. That wouldn't give someone strong-minded enough to actually vote enough credit. If someone's going to vote, they're going to vote regardless of what they see at the polling station.

A polling station is actually not a governmental institution. It's a temporary governmental FUNCTION in a space large enough to hold it. If that place happens to be a church, well, the church isn't being paid for the use, and shouldn't have to take the things that relate to the community life of the church out of sight to cater to the sensibilities of Random Voter Guy who'll only be there for the time it takes to get through the line and vote anyway.

From:

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I see your logic in most cases, but in each case there's a point of judgement call where I disagree with your judgement call (ie. I would make the opposite judgement call).

Nonetheless, thank you for discussing this with me. It was interesting to hear your arguments.

From:

Thank you for respectfully disagreeing. I will have to agree to disagree with you, as well.

I think part of it comes from the vastly different perspectives we come from. I come from a non-Dominionist Christian viewpoint, and you outlined your viewpoint earlier. That's the cool thing about having variety. We get different perspectives on things. *S*

From:

"Should we really be losing more voters to something that is so easily fixed?"

This presumes that it IS easily fixed. What if the church is the only building in town with enough floor space? What if all the kids are being bused half an hour or more away? Schools are the default polling stations because they're neutral, but churches are backup spaces because they have the room. Putting the polling station out of easy reach limits access much, much more than having it in a church gym. (After all, at this point, you are the only person on my friends list to say that churches shouldn't be used at all. Not a representative sample, surely, but still indicative of how many people have strong feelings about this.)

And for those who really feel that way, two words - advance polls.

From:

I'm not sure that the US has advance polls. At least, not the way we do in Canada. My recollection when I was living in San Francisco was that I could cast a ballot ahead of time by mailing it in, but not by going to a physical polling location. But my impression also was that if you didn't vote with the machines, your vote was all but worthless -- after all, they concede the votes so quickly that they can't have gotten around to counting all those mail-in votes. But yes, here in Canada, advance polls do provide another option.

You're right; there may be a community that does not have another option. It seems unlikely to me that a community would have a church that is so large, but not a school; nonetheless, it could happen.

I guess what I'm saying is that when there are other options, they should be explored first. A place of worship should be a last resort. I would be in favour of a policy ranking the preferred type of polling location, that stated that places of worship are allowed, but are the last resort. Unless a survey of the province or country made it apparent that there is ALWAYS an alternative to a church as polling station, I don't think it is practical to have a law against it.

From:

I've never been in a church gym that was too small to hold a polling station, and I've been in a lot of churches.

From:

"For the purposes of separation of church and state, atheism should be treated as a religion as well, and not given preference. One person or group should not be able to dictate what should or should not be displayed, said, or put forth in public. I expect the person filing the lawsuit objects to church services being advertised in the public paper or on the bulletin boards at the local grocery store, too, but has only filed this lawsuit because they think they may actually be able to do something in this case."

I find this statement a bit odd.

First of all, let me say that I am a lifelong atheist and I can assure you that it is certainly not a religion and it is very wrong to classify it as such.

A government without the influence of church is not being influenced by atheists; it's just being a secular government. Atheists are not, by and large, trying to take over governments in the way that Dominionists are. Most of us are not even organized, for that matter. Rather, it just makes a lot more sense for governments to work without religion, even if most people working in the government are themselves religious, than it does to favour any one religion, or worse, all of them. That's what separating church and state is all about. To treat atheism as a religion w.r.t. said separation would be to return us to the original problem.

From: