atheists going too far?

[Spartana]

There is no requirement to separate religion from government, only that there can be no state sponsored or sanctioned religion. Allowing a religious display or event on public property is not a violation as long as all religions are given the same consideration.

I agree that this is a very important topic because it allows a dialog which can help dispel mis-conceptions.

I agree with you completely however, the problem comes in with the "as long as all religions are given the same considerations" factor. In many cases this either doesn't happen since the majority religion rules in most cases, or it can't happen because of the enormous number of belief systems and the rites and rituals they all encompass. And when you try to combine those many and varied religous rituals and beliefs into one for "same consideration purposes" something may happen as insulting to many religions as my (trying to be humourous) depiction of a school's "all religions included" nativity scene in an earlier post. I personally think it can't be done in a way that isn't disrespectful to many people's beliefs. And because religious rites, symbols or historical depictions really serves no purpose in such areas like education or board meetings or chamber of commerce events, etc..., then it isn't needed in the govmint arena IMHO.

Edditted to add: Of course many government arenas do depict relious symbols and wording in the state seals, emblems, on their buildings, etc... The Calif state seal has the Godess of Wisdom - Minerva - on it as well as other things. I personally don't know where you we should draw the line on religion in govmint venues - or even if you should (I personally think you should). So I struggle with this myself.

[Alan]

......

I personally think it can't be done in a way that isn't disrespectful to many people's beliefs. And because religious rites or historical depictions really serves no purpose in education or board meetings or chamber of commerce events, then it isn't needed in the govmint arena IMHO.

Is it necessary to respect other's belief's, and does the government have a duty to ensure that everyone does, or to censure religious expression in order to prevent it from happening?

[Spartana]

Is it necessary to respect other's belief's, and does the government have a duty to ensure that everyone does, or to censure religious expression in order to prevent it from happening?

If I pay taxes towards it, if it is representaive of me, and it is there to reflect my political not religious beliefs then - YES :-)!! I also don't consider censorship the same as non-involvement. There is no need for a state seal or govmint building to have a religious symbol on it, or for a prayer to be said, as they serve no needed purpose for the running of the government. So, if you never place a symbol or say a prayer to begin with, then there is no censorship if it wasn't intended to be put there in the first place. Now in a private venue like business, on the street corner, etc... I really think govmint should keep their grubby little hands to themselves :-)! Other than to protect the rights of individuals and their right to free speech, freedom of religion, etc...

[Alan]

If I pay taxes towards it, if it is representaive of me, and it is there to reflect my political not religious beliefs then - YES :-)!! I also don't consider censorship the same as non-involvement. There is no need for a state seal or govmint building to have a religious symbol on it, or for a prayer to be said, as they serve no needed purpose for the running of the government.

Government buildings, federal, state & local, all over the country have religious symbols as part of the architecture, our money boasts religious sentiments and our House of Representatives has a Chaplin (http://chaplain.house.gov/) and the Senate does as well (http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm). Should all this be abolished, and if so, for what purpose?

[peggy]

Peggy, I think we're talking about two different things. One is whether or not government should be restricting free expressions of religious faith in the public square; Two is whether or not people who may be offended should expect the government to protect them from offense.

My take on both is NO. What do you think?

I have no problem with religious displays, means nothing to me. However, as Spartana pointed out, someone is going to be offended and chances are it's another religious person. So, in that we are paying for that public arena, and I'm guessing we are talking about a street corner, public park, that sort of thing, then yea the government needs to ensure everyone who pays for that street corner can use it without being assaulted by someone preaching or handing out flyer's. Again, it's not the atheist who are being offended by the display. (well except maybe Iris Lily ) One persons delusion is the same as another persons delusion. Christians are offended by the Muslims and the Muslims are offended by the Christians and if the government doesn't keep everyone at arms length then we have the mid-east. The offense is when some try to use my tax payer supported arena to promote their religious belief.

It's hard to please everyone. Example, I used to live in this small town that tried diversity at Christmas time on the town square one year. There were 4 displays facing north south east west. There was the christian cross, the Jewish star, the Muslim symbol, and a Santa Claus/Christmas tree. Guess who complained and guess what they complained about. Spoiled it for everyone.
The fact that many keep trying to say this is a christian nation tells us right away who's prayer they expect to say when it is allowed in the public venue. So yea it is the governments business to keep religious display out of our business where it really has no place being.

Religious symbols don't offend me. I see them everywhere all the time. In church yards, on private property, in homes, doesn't bother me a bit. These are the proper venus for religious display. This is where it belongs, and there is no lack of private property to put these displays on.

So let me ask you, why do you think these religious people insist on putting their religious displays on public property? Why? Why do they keep trying to have prayer in school, at public meetings, in public venues? It's not because they want to pray. They can pray any old time they want, silently, publicly, or shouting from their rooftop. Nope, it's not because they want to pray. It's because they want to make you pray. They want to make you acknowledge their religious icons.

Instead of asking why won't the government let them do it, ask why they keep insisting on doing it.

[benhyr]

Government buildings, federal, state & local, all over the country have religious symbols as part of the architecture, our money boasts religious sentiments and our House of Representatives has a Chaplin (http://chaplain.house.gov/) and the Senate does as well (http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm). Should all this be abolished, and if so, for what purpose?

Well, since "in God we trust" was added to our money at the height of the Soviet scare and simply added as pedagoguery to differentiate us from the godless communists... yes, I think it'd be worth reverting to their original (traditional!) pre-1950's version. Along with the "Under God" addition to our pledge of allegiance added around the same time.

For the religious symbols in federal buildings, I'd need more concrete examples... along with a chance to understand if they were religious symbols or symbols that had been usurped by a religion.

If I supported the house or senate chaplins then, if the demand arose, I'd also be happy paying my tax dollars for rabbis and imams. However, I'm not sure if I want my tax dollars paying for an employment perk that can easily be met via private industry (their local church, synagogue, temple, etc).

[peggy]

Government buildings, federal, state & local, all over the country have religious symbols as part of the architecture, our money boasts religious sentiments and our House of Representatives has a Chaplin (http://chaplain.house.gov/) and the Senate does as well (http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm). Should all this be abolished, and if so, for what purpose?

I know you asked Spartana but if I may also answer this. Yes, we shouldn't be paying for congressional chaplains. It's not like Washington lacks for churches and spiritual leaders. This is an outdated expense that should be eliminated. I would think the tea party folks would see this as a no brainer for elimination. Saved some money there!

the religious sentiment on the money was just added in the 50's so, again, this should be eliminated, along with 'under god' in the pledge. Completely uncalled for and not exactly a 'tradition'. A lot of us were alive when that happened and I'm not that old!

As far as the buildings go, well, that would be silly to try to remove these symbols as they are a part of the architecture. As far as I know none have giant neon signs pointing to the symbols and they are in fact just part of the architecture. However, no new public buildings should have these symbols as part of their construction.

[puglogic]

For the religious symbols in federal buildings, I'd need more concrete examples...

Benhyr, I just wanted you to know that I giggled when I read this. I know you're serious but it would also make a good one-liner.

[benhyr]

Benhyr, I just wanted you to know that I giggled when I read this. I know you're serious but it would also make a good one-liner.

Brick examples would be ok too!

[Zigzagman]

Brick examples would be ok too!

How about erecting this instead of a street sign honoring the firefighters? For those not from the bible belt this is a a kudzu vine on a utility pole?



Many Christians believe Jesus can be found anywhere. In southern Lenoir County, he may be found on a utility pole. Some say the kudzu-covered post bears a striking resemblance to Jesus’ crucifixion.

Kent Hardison, who runs Ma’s Hotdog House less than a half mile from the pareidolia, rides by the Christ-resembling post each day. He said when he first saw the kudzu growing he almost sprayed it with herbicide. “I glanced at it, and it looks like Jesus,” Hardison said. “I thought, ‘You can’t spray Jesus with Roundup.’ ”

The kudzu, which has thrived at the top of the pole, is all but dead at the ground. The source of the figure is only a few small vines of the uncontrollable plant.

“Maybe it’s a sign of the times,” she said while picking up lunch at Ma’s. “There’s been a lot going on in this area.”

Hardison agreed, “Maybe he’s looking out for us.”

While the site may not be considered holy the kudzu is symbolic. “It doesn’t matter what you do, it is going to be around,” she said. “Ain’t that a lot like Jesus?”

Peace