No Law Prohibiting Religion?

[FallenLord]

"Separation of church and state" comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to allay fears that, upon being sworn in, he would outlaw 'religion' (Christianity). He was reaffirming that "the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Somehow this was manipulated into 'prohibit the free exercise of religion (Christianity) in all public locations.'

Praying in class, displaying a nativity at city hall, or mounting the ten commandments in court room are not "laws respecting religion;" nor do they infringe on anyone's religious freedom. Contrarily, they are (among other things) expressions of religious freedom. (Expressions that are prohibited, of course.)

Perhaps we ought to disqualify votes that are influenced by religion, thus to keep church and state truly separate. I know my vote is based on values I derive from confessional Lutheranism.

Thoughts?

[Neo]

Praying in class
Praying in class/school is not illegal or anything. If a student wishes to pray in school they are free to do so. The only thing that is prohibited is if a teacher/official sponsors some kind of 'forced' prayer service in the classroom or something (Regardles of the reason -- for example, we held moments of silence when things really bad happened, but not school wide "pray for him/her/thier family" moments).

displaying a nativity at city hall
Not everyone is christian. Why aren't thier hannakuk candles there as well? This goes a bit far imo, if you wish to see a nativity -- go to any church in the area. City Hall is not the place for it.

or mounting the ten commandments
Ones like 'thou shalt not steal' is fine and all, but others have no right to be displayed in a public/government setting (ie: the thou shalt not worship any other god but me or however it goes).

The point is that the Government and Church are seperate -- this doesn't mean that the voters have to be as well. If you believe voting for candidate A is better becuase he believes more along what you or your church believes then thats fine (besides, how else would you vote? you vote with who you think would best represent you). If you feel he is the best person for the job then its fine if your church or religious beliefs influence your decision.

Its not ok, however, for the government to sponsor and/or show favoritism, etc... towards a certain religon. The president should not be swayed based on what his religious beliefs are. Not everyone here in the US are christian, so would it be right for officials to.. I dunno, force all male babies to be circumsized? Or to force all babys to be baptized?

-Neo

[FallenLord]

The only thing that is prohibited is if a teacher/official sponsors some kind of 'forced' prayer service in the classroom or something (Regardles of the reason -- for example, we held moments of silence when things really bad happened, but not school wide "pray for him/her/thier family" moments).And why is that?

Not everyone is christian. Why aren't thier hannakuk candles there as well? This goes a bit far imo, if you wish to see a nativity -- go to any church in the area. City Hall is not the place for it.Why not have Hanukkah candles?

but others have no right to be displayed in a public/government setting (ie: the thou shalt not worship any other god but me or however it goes).Why?

Its not ok, however, for the government to sponsor and/or show favoritism, etc... towards a certain religon.Banning religion isn't okay, that could be construed as sponsoring atheism.

The president should not be swayed based on what his religious beliefs are.So why should I be able to vote based on religion if my vote can't be properly represented?

I dunno, force all male babies to be circumsized? Or to force all babys to be baptized?That would be a law respecting religion, and thus illegal.

[Modred]

Praying in class/school is not illegal or anything. If a student wishes to pray in school they are free to do so. The only thing that is prohibited is if a teacher/official sponsors some kind of 'forced' prayer service in the classroom or something.
Little known Supreme Court Case: Santa Fe ISD v. Doe (2000) The Supreme Court rules that student led prayer at a football game violates the establishment clause because the prayer occurs over a school owned public address system, thus meaning the school implicit endorses this use for religious purposes.

To rephrase what you said, a student may pray individually or in small groups. However, using school equipment to share this prayer with others in a public setting violates the Establishment Clause. A school is required to provide use of facilities to religious groups if it allows other non-class related activites or groups to use school facilities. The school just can't provide a means for that religious group to spread it's message using school property.

mounting the ten commandments in court room are not "laws respecting religion;" nor do they infringe on anyone's religious freedom.
Yes, my quote just owned your sentence structure and shattered the grammatical structure. =D On to the point. There were two Ten Commandment's cases brought before the Supreme Court recently by the ACLU; one from Kentucky and one from Texas. The Court ruled the Kentucky display unconstitutional but ruled the Texas one legal. Do you know why? The Texas case centered over a monument outside the Texas Capitol that was donated and erected by a civic organization and has created little controversy during it's approximately 40 year existence. The Kentucky case centered over a plaque inside the courthouse that was placed by city officials in tandem with local clergy and almost intantly created controversy that has continued to the present case. What you can gather from this is that the problem is not the display of the Ten Commandments in public; it's when government officials erect the Ten Commandments on government property.

Banning religion isn't okay, that could be construed as sponsoring atheism.
I don't believe he meant banning religion would be okay. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The government may neither play favorites nor ban religion if we go with a literal interpretation.

Because an executive government official can express religious credo in the name of the government, the protections against harming/promoting religion through legislation can and should be applied to the actions of these officials also, with proper pragmatism as shown in the two Ten Commandments cases.

[psycho42b]

Just my :2cents: "the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This says nothing about religion influencing the government, only government starting a state sponsored religion and the prohibihition of religion. anyway, thoughts, anyone?

[FallenLord]

Yes, my quote just owned your sentence structure and shattered the grammatical structure.May the god of synatx smite thee, heathen.

What you can gather from this is that the problem is not the display of the Ten Commandments in public; it's when government officials erect the Ten Commandments on government property.Granted, but why is that a problem?

Because an executive government official can express religious credo in the name of the government, the protections against harming/promoting religion through legislation can and should be applied to the actions of these officials also, with proper pragmatism as shown in the two Ten Commandments cases.How does the government's "expression of religious credo" (presumably through officials) realistically affect anyone? That's a far cry from legislation, which is what matters.

This says nothing about religion influencing the government, only government starting a state sponsored religion and the prohibihition of religion.I agree. Lots of different organizations influence the government; there's no taboo on representatives stating their opinion on abortion or guns or global warming. Why exclude religion?

[Modred]

How does the government's "expression of religious credo" (presumably through officials) realistically affect anyone? That's a far cry from legislation, which is what matters.
Executives have extensive power, particularly on the local level. Do you have a city legislature? Perhaps a commission, but nothing that really qualifies as a legislature. What happens under a strong-mayor modeled city when the mayor declares that all persons in the city must pause five times daily for prayer, as per Islam? He's not legislating, but he's definitely promoting one religion over another through the government. Should such a mayor be stopped? What if the offense isn't as blatant as requiring citizens to conform to a specific practice, but still causes unwaranted discomfort?

I'll agree that posting the Ten Commandment's shouldn't pose a problem as no one is required to read the display. However, restrictions are necessary on executive actions to prevent executives from doing what the legislature is not allowed. Under the concept of judicial review, the Supreme Court can overrule actions of Congress and the Executive branch. If we go with the "spirit" of the Establishment Clause, preventing endorsement or restriction of religious freedom by the government, then exectives must be checked.

[Whiteknight]

God I hate "why" people in IR.



The only thing that is prohibited is if a teacher/official sponsors some kind of 'forced' prayer service in the classroom or something (Regardles of the reason -- for example, we held moments of silence when things really bad happened, but not school wide "pray for him/her/thier family" moments).

And why is that?

The reason it's bad is because that's like forcing you to, say, take bio when you'd rather take chem or something of the sort. I'm not the best at analogies. The reason for moments of silence is to pay respects to the persons. That's not praying to a god and doesn't have anything to do with religion.






Not everyone is christian. Why aren't thier hannakuk candles there as well? This goes a bit far imo, if you wish to see a nativity -- go to any church in the area. City Hall is not the place for it.
Why not have Hanukkah candles?

If you start going that route then you're going to have to include all religions, which is basically nearly impossible. It's far easier just to not have any, especially since it shows that the goverment isn't being influenced by forces other than their job.





but others have no right to be displayed in a public/government setting (ie: the thou shalt not worship any other god but me or however it goes).
Why?

Again, that's showing that the goverment is being influenced by something the people elected them did not want them to be. Not everyone is christian and don't want them influenced by their principles.






Its not ok, however, for the government to sponsor and/or show favoritism, etc... towards a certain religon.
Banning religion isn't okay, that could be construed as sponsoring atheism.

He never said to ban religion, just refrain from actually participating or sponsoring any one kind.






The president should not be swayed based on what his religious beliefs are.
So why should I be able to vote based on religion if my vote can't be properly represented?

Not everyone is voting by religion. Most vote by their own beliefs, not others.




I dunno, force all male babies to be circumsized? Or to force all babys to be baptized?
That would be a law respecting religion, and thus illegal.

You just did a 180 on me.

[Xenon]

Anyone who can't see why the government sponsoring, or enforcing, or proclaiming an official state religion is bad doesn't belong in the IR. This is elementary stuff you're discussing here.

[Ender]

Personally, I support Whiteknight and Modred, and not because I'm an aethist.

To put it simply, I'm one of those rare people who can see a religious thing in public, like a the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, and it doesn't faze me at all. I'm not incredibly upset over being politically correct; I think some people take it far too seirously.

That does not excuse, however, the fact that if the aforementioned Ten Commandments were placed in the courthouse by government officials, it can give the semblance that our courts insist that these Ten Commandments must be followed, and for most of those, that's fine. Where you get into trouble is with "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image," "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain," "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me," and "Thou shalt remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy." When the government places something in their institution that endorses these commandments, it makes it seem that the government supports that sole religion. The United States cannot do that.

This nation is about religious freedom and equality for everyone. I, personally, just don't care, and despite the fact that I think other people need to chill out, the Jews and Muslims and Hindus and the other religions we have here in the United States will feel left out in the cold. When a government delcares an "official religion," we have issues. Look at the Middle East, or even France! I know this doesn't apply to everything, and I know some countries do have an official religion and get along perfectly well, but it can still cause resentment, and that is the last thing we need.

To be honest, Fallenlord, I honestly do not see what your problem is. Christianity has a lot more power in this country then you think. The majority of our populace is Christian, and that's fine. The majority of our legislator is Christian and lives by Christian values (at least, so they say and so we can hope, because Christian values are essentially good, not that only Christian are good people.)


So why should I be able to vote based on religion if my vote can't be properly represented?

Frankly, you can vote based on religion, because it is represented. As I above mentioned, with most of our legislator guided by religious beliefs, and who can forget our dear President mentioning God every other word and attempting to place a Justice to the Supreme Court simply because she is religious and lives by religious values? I wouldn't worry about your religion getting trampled. That is the beauty of the United States, your religion doesn't get trampled, and neither does anyone else's.

[Tissue]

No government should encourage, endorse or prohibit any religion.
Using school equipment to pray, putting signs in a court saying you should only worship the christian god can be very aggravating to non christains. Imagine that it was a Muslim praying out loud or a plaque saying that Allah is the only true god and that US was predominantly Islamic and I am sure your view on expression of religion in government and schools will change.

How does the government's "expression of religious credo" (presumably through officials) realistically affect anyone? Try Iran...Iraq...Isreal...Syria...

[GenocideAlive]

Yes, my quote just owned your sentence structure and shattered the grammatical structure. =D On to the point. There were two Ten Commandment's cases brought before the Supreme Court recently by the ACLU; one from Kentucky and one from Texas. The Court ruled the Kentucky display unconstitutional but ruled the Texas one legal. Do you know why? The Texas case centered over a monument outside the Texas Capitol that was donated and erected by a civic organization and has created little controversy during it's approximately 40 year existence. The Kentucky case centered over a plaque inside the courthouse that was placed by city officials in tandem with local clergy and almost intantly created controversy that has continued to the present case. What you can gather from this is that the problem is not the display of the Ten Commandments in public; it's when government officials erect the Ten Commandments on government property.
Actually, if I recall the case correctly, the reason that the one in Texas was accepted while the one in Kentucky was rejected wasn't because it was the gov't officials. Rather, it was because the Kentucky display was erected to be and stood alone. As in, it was placed almost solely for religious circumstances. The one in Texas was actually part of a much larger display including the history of influences on the justice system.

I believe during the process of losing its court cases, the Kentucky courthouse attempted to erect a mimicry of the Texas display in order to annex the same reasoning for their Ten Commandments display. It didn't work; the court pretty called them out for trying to do so and decreed that they remove it anyway. I'm pretty much in agreement with Xenon in re: this thread's overall basis, but I just wanted to clarify that one point which I believe will eventually form the quintessential crux of this debate.

And I firmly believe Tissue is a forum troll. I'm just waiting for him to prove it.

[FallenLord]

Mordred:

What happens under a strong-mayor modeled city when the mayor declares that all persons in the city must pause five times daily for prayer, as per Islam? He's not legislating, but he's definitely promoting one religion over another through the government. Should such a mayor be stopped? What if the offense isn't as blatant as requiring citizens to conform to a specific practice, but still causes unwaranted discomfort?Perhaps you are insinuating that the police are going to come banging on your door. In which case religious freedom is violated. Short of that, nobody's religious freedom is harmed because no one is stopping you from ignoring the mayor. (And there's obviously no such thing as freedom from discomfort.)

If we go with the "spirit" of the Establishment Clause, preventing endorsement or restriction of religious freedom by the government, then exectives must be checked.Endorsing a religion has no effect on religious freedom.

...

Whiteknight:

If you start going that route then you're going to have to include all religions, which is basically nearly impossible.If people want it, there's nothing wrong with a rotational system each year. Anyway, religious freedom isn't harmed by having Hanukkah candles every year.

It's far easier just to not have any, especially since it shows that the goverment isn't being influenced by forces other than their job.Lots of different organizations influence the government; why exclude religion?

Again, that's showing that the goverment is being influenced by something the people elected them did not want them to be. Not everyone is christian and don't want them influenced by their principles.Lots of different organizations influence the government; why exclude religion? (Not everyone favors feminism, either.)

Not everyone is voting by religion. Most vote by their own beliefs, not others.You make it sound like voting by religion is somehow different than voting by party. And I think you'll find that most people who oppose homosexual marriage and abortion do so because of religion.

...

Xenon:

Anyone who can't see why the government sponsoring, or enforcing, or proclaiming an official state religion is bad doesn't belong in the IR.Strawmen don't belong in the IR.

...

Ender:

To put it simply, I'm one of those rare people who can see a religious thing in public, like a the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, and it doesn't faze me at all. I'm not incredibly upset over being politically correct; I think some people take it far too seirously.I agree.

If the aforementioned Ten Commandments were placed in the courthouse by government officials, it can give the semblance that our courts insist that these Ten Commandments must be followed, and for most of those, that's fine. Where you get into trouble is with "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image," "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain," "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me," and "Thou shalt remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy."Nobody actually believes that people go to jail for not attending church, no matter how stupid they are.

When the government places something in their institution that endorses these commandments, it makes it seem that the government supports that sole religion.And then you remember that your religious freedom didn't change just because you glanced at a plaque on the wall. Anyway, endorsing a religion does not make it look like the government "only supports that religion." Nothing's stopping them from endorsing many religions.

The United States cannot do that.No, the US actually cannot make a law respecting or prohibiting religion.

When a government delcares an "official religion," we have issues.State religion is obviously wrong, but endorsing a religion does not equal state religion.

Frankly, you can vote based on religion, because it is represented. As I above mentioned, with most of our legislator guided by religious beliefs, and who can forget our dear President mentioning God every other word and attempting to place a Justice to the Supreme Court simply because she is religious and lives by religious values? I wouldn't worry about your religion getting trampled. That is the beauty of the United States, your religion doesn't get trampled, and neither does anyone else's.I'm only worried about banning things that are claimed to affect religious freedom, but don't.

[Neo]

Anyone can be offended if they goto a courthouse and see the Ten Commandments, especially if one of them said that you should not worship any other God. I mean, how exactly is that fair to any non-Christian out there?

This thread is pretty elementary, I don't understand what exactly you uhm.. want.

Religon endorsement is also wrong. If you can't function as an official without having to resort to religon then you shouldn't be an official. Being influenced by religon is fine -- I just don't want to hear about it.

Save it for church. Tell them all about how Gays Marrying is going to bring the apocylapse, or how God wanted you to do this, or whatever. I like to pretend that my officials are in enough to control to not have to believe that imaginary voices are telling them what to do.

-Neo

[Kingscrab]

And then you remember that your religious freedom didn't change just because you glanced at a plaque on the wall. Anyway, endorsing a religion does not make it look like the government "only supports that religion." Nothing's stopping them from endorsing many religions. Agreed. Like it or not, the country's history (USA) as a nation has been strongly influenced by Christianity. You're gonna see signs of it around. It is part of its HISTORY. It doesn't mean that anyone is forcing you to practice it. Anyone can be offended if they goto a courthouse and see the Ten Commandments, especially if one of them said that you should not worship any other God. I mean, how exactly is that fair to any non-Christian out there? Fair? Come on... Do you really care that much when you go to the court house? Is it really offensive or are we so bored as a society we are just nitpicking. Okay, there's a picture of W on the wall. I didn't vote for him. I find him offensive. Is that fair to me? No, but majority rules. Tough shit for me. No one's forcing anyone to worship. If you feel so strongly about it, then start a petition to put a copy of the Koran up there next to it... (or whatever) If enough people want it, it will happen.

[FallenLord]

Agreed. Like it or not, the country's history (USA) as a nation has been strongly influenced by Christianity. You're gonna see signs of it around. It is part of its HISTORY. It doesn't mean that anyone is forcing you to practice it.Exactly. It's a big part of the culture.

If you feel so strongly about it, then start a petition to put a copy of the Koran up there next to it... (or whatever) If enough people want it, it will happen.Exactly.

...

NeoX:

I don't understand what exactly you uhm.. want.To abolish the notion that government should be sterilized of religion.

Religon endorsement is also wrong.It isn't against the law and it isn't wrong. Of course, so many of these examples are not really "endorsing" religion anyway.

[Darmago]

Pertaining to the nativity scene outside town hall topic:

It is impossible to have any religious symbols and keep everyone happy. I know when your substitution idea comes up to a burning upside down cross, the satanists in my town would be happy, but the majoraty of christians would petition, protest, riot, at town hall to remove it. So the only way to keep people at least agreeing on somthing, if not happy, is to have nothing at all. "Happy new Years!. Happy
Holidays." But not "Merry christmas" "happy Hannukah" or "happy satan day" or somthing of that nature. because there is one religious yuppie out there who beleives that people have no right to worship any other god but his, and he will complain, loudly.

[Neo]

Agreed. Like it or not, the country's history (USA) as a nation has been strongly influenced by Christianity. You're gonna see signs of it around. It is part of its HISTORY. It doesn't mean that anyone is forcing you to practice it. Fair? Come on... Do you really care that much when you go to the court house? Is it really offensive or are we so bored as a society we are just nitpicking. Okay, there's a picture of W on the wall. I didn't vote for him. I find him offensive. Is that fair to me? No, but majority rules. Tough shit for me. No one's forcing anyone to worship. If you feel so strongly about it, then start a petition to put a copy of the Koran up there next to it... (or whatever) If enough people want it, it will happen.
If I goto the courthouse I don't want to see a religious symbol from ANY religon.

I don't want any religious symbol in my government buildings. There is a place for these kind of things, and its called Church, or synogogues or wherever it is you practice your religon -- not on government property and surely not in the buidlings themselves.

Its fine for certain things, but I am one of those who would be offended if I say the Ten Cs at a government facility, either on the grounds or inside. That is my right, and you can't tell me thats wrong.

And as long as their are people like me, there will not be religious stuff in government facilities or on thier grounds.

Now this isn't to say that there will be nothing -- see I dont see the a problem with the Ten Cs down there in texas, since from my understanding its part of a larger uhm monument or w/e. But displaying these things alone, or inside just is not cool.

-Neo

[FallenLord]

NeoX:

Your view is simply personal whim and absolutely arbitrary.

[Ender]

Yet it is his opinion, and you have no right to criticize it.

[UnHoly-Assassin]

Sadly, separation from church and state is fading to a myth just like the American Dream. I'll let these quotes speak for itself:

The Associated Press (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20020627/ap_on_go_pr_wh/pledge_bush_1) quotes President Bush this morning saying that the decision is "out of step" with the country's history. "America is a nation ... that values our relationship with the Almighty," Bush said. "We need commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God."

The action, coming coincidentally on Flag Day, means that schoolchildren nationwide can continue to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, including the words "under God."

True, you don't need to say the pledge anymore, however most of those who opposed the decision is still in power. It bothers me that most government officials are white christians.

[FallenLord]

Ender:

If NeoX had said that, I think my brain would have exploded.

[Modred]

Your view is simply personal whim and absolutely arbitrary.
The pot calling the kettle black? ;)

Perhaps you are insinuating that the police are going to come banging on your door. In which case religious freedom is violated. Short of that, nobody's religious freedom is harmed because no one is stopping you from ignoring the mayor.
So the only way for your religious freedom to be violated is if the police come and break down your door and force you to do something against your will? That makes no sense. This is like the argument that no one makes children watch violent television; the parents could turn it off or change the channel. Nevermind that networks place violent programs during prime time hours when children are likely to be watching. No one makes you read the display or do what it says; it's just conveniently placed where you can't ignore it. Therefore it is your fault for being offended, not the government's for offending you.

[Darmago]

NeoX:

Your view is simply personal whim and absolutely arbitrary.

Its not just personal whim, its the view of many of the people making the exact same arguments to court. Religious structures, for example statues, do not belong in, around, near, on government or public property, because that is obviously the government endorsing some religion, which is against the basis of the first amendment. Separationt of church and state.

[GenocideAlive]

So the only way for your religious freedom to be violated is if the police come and break down your door and force you to do something against your will? That makes no sense. This is like the argument that no one makes children watch violent television; the parents could turn it off or change the channel. Nevermind that networks place violent programs during prime time hours when children are likely to be watching. No one makes you read the display or do what it says; it's just conveniently placed where you can't ignore it. Therefore it is your fault for being offended, not the government's for offending you.
Oop...wait...THERE IT IS. The sound of someone's fragile, poorly constructed argument being shattered into a million tiny pieces. I know I said I wasn't going to get involved in the argument, but technically I still haven't. :)
It bothers me that most government officials are white christians.
Does it bother you that the majority of their constituents are white Christians? Equally, it bothers me when people start making baseless, idiotic comments designed to portray the entire political system as a white brotherhood. It may not be perfect, but I really don't know to what you're trying to compare it.

[FallenLord]

Mordred:

The pot calling the kettle black? Pretend I'm a homosexual trying to get married and NeoX wants to stop me because it offends him. The only reason I have any affect on him is because he arbitrarily decided to get pissed off.

So the only way for your religious freedom to be violated is if the police come and break down your door and force you to do something against your will? That makes no sense.I'd like to see you or anyone else violate my religious freedom without police. (A mob would do the trick, except you go to jail, not me.)

Therefore it is your fault for being offended, not the government's for offending you.I'm sure you can be offended in plenty of other ways, what's special about being offended by religion?

[Neo]

Mordred:

Pretend I'm a homosexual trying to get married and NeoX wants to stop me because it offends him. The only reason I have any affect on him is because he arbitrarily decided to get pissed off.

I'd like to see you or anyone else violate my religious freedom without police. (A mob would do the trick, except you go to jail, not me.)

I'm sure you can be offended in plenty of other ways, what's special about being offended by religion?

Gay Marriage doesn't offend me. Religious symbols on government property do.

Thats a fact with many people, regardless of majority of christians out there. This country was founded on religious freedom not christianity.

-Neo

[GenocideAlive]

Gay Marriage doesn't offend me. Religious symbols on government property do.

Thats a fact with many people, regardless of majority of christians out there. This country was founded on religious freedom not christianity.
Wow. This is like watching the '94 Dream Team. FallenLord is eating it like nobody's business.

[singo]

Yet it is his opinion, and you have no right to criticize it.

Why not? Several people in this world have been of the opinion "Lets kill everyone who does not agree with our opinion" Why should that attitude be tolerated?

I'd like to see you or anyone else violate my religious freedom without police. (A mob would do the trick, except you go to jail, not me.)


So, freedoms cannot be infringed without the secret police kicking in your door? That IS a new one.

Okay, looking back, someone else has already said that....bugger.

Gay Marriage doesn't offend me. Religious symbols on government property do.


Why? Who gives a shit what the government decide to paint on the side of their buildings? Does it really matter? If you really believe that what the government belives is what you should belive (if you do or not) then you need to wake up.


Its not just personal whim, its the view of many of the people making the exact same arguments to court. Religious structures, for example statues, do not belong in, around, near, on government or public property, because that is obviously the government endorsing some religion, which is against the basis of the first amendment. Separationt of church and state.

So, a church cannot be built "near, on or in" government OR public property?

So, if the public wants to build a/an [insert relegious structure of choice here] they cannot? or want to build one within [so many feet] of a government owned building they cannot?

Personally, the whole religeon thing has been taken to far.

EVERY religeon says, effectively, "Be nice to people". Is that an argument to
which there can be a disagreement? but then people take it too far.

The US is a bit too religeous, "one nation under god", "in god we trust" etc. fuck it, it does not matter.

So, obvious solution, stop complaining and get on with important things eh? Relegion is a nice sideline to take up a few hours of free time, it is not a be all and all that tells you to go out and "burn the infidel"

[GenocideAlive]

Why? Who gives a shit what the government decide to paint on the side of their buildings? Does it really matter? If you really believe that what the government belives is what you should belive (if you do or not) then you need to wake up.
I'm sorry, this is so fucking stupid that I have to comment. If some dumbass hick county in the rural South paints "Stupid niggers are worthless" on the side of their courthouse, then I'm pretty sure someone should do something. Arguing that signs, words, etc. "don't hurt anybody" is something you tell children as a "suck it up when someone calls you a doo-doo head" slogan. It's not meant to be interpreted as "ignore it when your government begins adopting discriminatory propaganda on public buildings."

[Neo]

I'm done, this is just going no where, once again if I am not christian then whatever I say is bullshit/doesnt matter/worthless/etc... God forbid that I take offense to something related to the almighty church.

-Neo

[FallenLord]

NeoX:

Gay Marriage doesn't offend me. Religious symbols on government property do.QED, you are exactly the same as those offended by gay marriage.

This country was founded on religious freedom not christianity.The only way this makes any sense is if non-Christian religious symbols didn't offend you. Yet they do, therefore you should stop babbling on on about Christianity. You can be religious and not Christian.

God forbid that I take offense to something related to the almighty church.Being offended doesn't automatically give you the right to limit my freedom.

once again if I am not christian then whatever I say is bullshit/doesnt matter/worthless/etc...Actually, it would be the same either way.

...

Wow. This is like watching the '94 Dream Team. FallenLord is eating it like nobody's business.When you debate on the Internets, everybody has their own scoreboard.

So, [religious] freedoms cannot be infringed without [...] police [...involvement]? That IS a new one.Fixed. (I still don't see even one example. How hard is it to disprove an absolute statement? (Pretty hard, if it's correct.))

[SuiCidAl-KiSmEt]

I think the people should respect every religion, it's not like any god or God recently popped out from the sky saying all other religions are wrong...

But since I’m a form of Christianity and about 98% of Americans are too - which I herd from the news - I think the government should protect Christianity and its holidays. Ever herd about schools and banning a simple Christmas tree and them not celebrating Christmas, that kind of offends me because many un-Christians are bickering about it. Also, stores aren’t allowed to say "Merry Christmas", if someone says Happy Hanukah to me I would say Happy Hanukah back and not bicker about it.

[Neo]

NeoX:

QED, you are exactly the same as those offended by gay marriage.
Theres a major difference, Gay people don't have sex in public within a government building for all to see.

The only way this makes any sense is if non-Christian religious symbols didn't offend you. Yet they do, therefore you should stop babbling on on about Christianity. You can be religious and not Christian.
A majority of americans are christian though. And its Christian symbols being displayed in government areas. So there for we are discussing christians. I would have a problem with passages of the Koran being displayed, or a giant buddha statue or w/e.

Being offended doesn't automatically give you the right to limit my freedom.
I AM NOT LIMITING YOUR FREEDOM. YOU ARE FREE TO PRACTICE YOUR RELIGON AS YOU SEE FIT. NO ONE IS TELLING YOU TO STOP DISPLAYING NATIVITYS OR THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Your freedom to express your religon is fine, you are free to wear a tshirt that says "Jesus' Bitch" for all I care (ok yeah thats to far) but it is not ok for a statue of the holy mother to be constructed on the grounds of a courthouse.

Actually, it would be the same either way.
You are refusing to even see it from my point of view. It seems as if you are completely discounting what offends me, and my own beliefs becuase of your own. I understand why you wouldn't see a problem with the Ten Cs being displayed, or nativity scenes -- why is it so hard to accept that I would be offended by seeing them on government property?

You are acting as if being offended by your religious symbols on public property is restricting your freedom or something. Its not.

Oh, and 98%? Where the fuck did that come from?

Christian 78% (Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%)
other 10%
none 10%
Jewish 1%
Muslim 1% (2002)

Not everyone celebrates christmas, and I am pretty sure Jewish people don't go around saying Happy Hannukuh. Happy Holidays is just fine and no one should take offense for saying/hearing that.

-Neo

[Modred]

For the "only police can violate religious freedoms" argument:

Man Fails Drug Rehab because of Refusal to Convert to Pentecostal Faith (http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/22354prs20051206.html)

Twenty-three-year-old Joseph Hanas of Genesee County pled guilty in the Genesee Circuit Court to a charge of marijuana possession in February 2001. He was placed in a “drug court” for non-violent offenders, allowing for a deferred sentence and dismissal of the charges if he successfully completed the Inner City Christian Outreach Residential Program.

Note that this program is part of a government approved rehabilitation program; by requiring the completion of this program in order to dismiss the charges, the government implicity condones the actions of that program. Read on:

After seven weeks of receiving no drug treatment whatsoever and being prohibited from attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, Hanas requested placement in a secular drug treatment program. Although a judge acknowledged that Hanas was not being allowed to practice his own religion, and was pressured to convert to the Pentecostal faith, his request was denied.

The judge also acknowledged that Christian Outreach was a religious program rather than a treatment program because there were no drug or alcohol counselors on staff. Nonetheless, the judge determined that Hanas did not satisfactorily complete the program, removed him from the drug court, convicted him and sentenced him to jail for three months and then to boot camp. It was only after his release from boot camp that he finally received drug treatment at a secular residential rehabilitation program.

The police did nothing save their normal jobs--bringing him in for possession of an illegal substance and taking him to jail after his conviction. In no way did the police actions violate his ability to practice his religion, which is Catholocism, by the way. The big problem is that a government approved program attempted to force someone to change his religious practices. Had the judge required a secular, drug-oriented rehabilitation program, this whole fiasco would have been avoided. The government required a man to pass a program that required religious conversion; how is that not wrong?

And please note that this is not even between vastly different religions. Both Pentecostal and Catholic faiths fall under the Christian label.

[FallenLord]

Morded:

Excellent article! My statement can now be revised without loosing any significance: Violation of religious freedom involves forcing someone against their will. (Consider, if you will, that forcing people against their will is the purpose of the police.)

However, it is unclear whether or not police where (are?) involved in the orderly maintenance of this filthy, backwards, anti-Christian establishment. Perhaps they simply employ burly preachers.

Anyway, violation of religious freedom is obviously a very clear line; no slippery slope exists. Thus this example should throw into sharp relief the small-minded views of those who oppose religious symbols on government property simply because they are offensive.

...

NeoX:

Theres a major difference, Gay people don't have sex in public within a government building for all to see.When plastic Joseph decides to ravage the plastic Holy Virgin in front of plastic baby Jesus, be sure to let me know.
After gays get "married" in a court house (as if I care where they do it), it gets plastered all over the media. Not to mention they want to change the laws. But what am I talking about, your opinion isn't any better than mine.

A majority of americans are christian though. And its Christian symbols being displayed in government areas. So there for we are discussing christians. I would have a problem with passages of the Koran being displayed, or a giant buddha statue or w/e.Thanks for clearing that up.

You are refusing to even see it from my point of view.
It seems as if you are completely discounting what offends me, and my own beliefs becuase of your own. I understand why you wouldn't see a problem with the Ten Cs being displayed, or nativity scenes -- why is it so hard to accept that I would be offended by seeing them on government property?Stop me if I'm going to fast (if this makes sense, you'll be caught up to where I was about 2 posts ago):

One. I accept the fact religious symbols offend you when they are located on government property.

Two. It is possible, however improbable, that you accept the fact that gay marriage offends me.

Three. You (and others like you) claim that if I don't like gay marriage, tough shit - not having it restricts people's freedom.

Four. By your logic, tough shit if you don't like religious symbols on government property.

Summary. You have no problem offending people. Ergo, you have no right to whine about being offended.

Note. To maximize the probability that your reply (if any) will demonstrate comprehension of these basic points, try randomly banging on your keyboard for a few minutes.

[Neo]

NeoX:

When plastic Joseph decides to ravage the plastic Holy Virgin in front of plastic baby Jesus, be sure to let me know.
After gays get "married" in a court house (as if I care where they do it), it gets plastered all over the media. Not to mention they want to change the laws. But what am I talking about, your opinion isn't any better than mine.
My point being that Gay couples don't go down to the courthouse and... be gay. I dunno, I am pretty sure that gay couples aren't stuffed into displays in a courthouse kissing and redecorating (lol?)

Thanks for clearing that up.

Stop me if I'm going to fast (if this makes sense, you'll be caught up to where I was about 2 posts ago):

One. I accept the fact religious symbols offend you when they are located on government property.

Two. It is possible, however improbable, that you accept the fact that gay marriage offends me.
People who are offended by gay marriage have my pity.

Three. You (and others like you) claim that if I don't like gay marriage, tough shit - not having it restricts people's freedom.

Four. By your logic, tough shit if you don't like religious symbols on government property.
You are putting words into my mouth. If gay marraige offends you (for god only knows why since it doesn't actually effect you at all) then fine, let it offend you. I feel sorry for people who feel like that, but I don't overly care that much. Eventually the subject will get settled, whether they are allowed to marry or join in Civil Unions or w/e they wantt o call it.

Summary. You have no problem offending people. Ergo, you have no right to whine about being offended.
Pot, Kettle, Black?

I can be offending by whatever the fuck I want to. Telling me that I have no right to be offended is kind of odd, since last I checked in this country we have something called freedom of speech.

Note. To maximize the probability that your reply (if any) will demonstrate comprehension of these basic points, try randomly banging on your keyboard for a few minutes.
I would suggest you stop trolling.

You know, in fact, I think this thread is through.

People are offended by symbols from your religon.

I am one of them.

Deal with it.

-Neo