I'm not sure what you mean here. By "equal opportunity" to be represented, do you mean equal freedoms to be represented, or do you mean an unequal representation wherein less popular religions have the right to enforce an equal representation???
Really? You should visit the Supreme Court then where a frieze shows Muhammed along with Moses, John Marshal, Charlemagne, Hammurabi and others.
What about them???
See, I think you're using the word "allow" when you want it to mean something else. It takes nothing to "allow them all" other than a respect for people's choices. However, it takes much for force people to represent things that they have no wishes to represent.
The government represents us all. And I don't think there is enough respect of other religions for them all to be allowed representation.
I've never been to the Supreme Court building and that is only one example. And why are religious figures needed in a court room that shouldn't use those ideaolgies in it's rules?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
If all religions are given an equal opportunity to be represented and we don't have laws and curriculum based on religious beliefs..
This is the crux of the issue, in my opinion. Displaying a symbol is far different from passing a law. I think passing the law in unconstitutional, but the symbols are not.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The government represents us all. And I don't think there is enough respect of other religions for them all to be allowed representation.
Help me out here -- where are they being "disallowed"?
I've never been to the Supreme Court building and that is only one example. And why are religious figures needed in a court room that shouldn't use those ideaolgies in it's rules?
Despite any hostility you may have to religion, religion is in itself an ideology that is not really that much different from your own. Furthermore, one cannot escape the influence, both positive and negative, of religious ideology on our justice system and other political systems. There's nothing inherently bad about such influence, so long as it does not create contradictions with the fundamental rights of the people.
The only contradiction I see here (at least on the surface), is the one created by those who profess to believe in religious freedoms who then run around trying to decide what is "allowed" and what is not.
The government represents us all. And I don't think there is enough respect of other religions for them all to be allowed representation.
I've never been to the Supreme Court building and that is only one example. And why are religious figures needed in a court room that shouldn't use those ideaolgies in it's rules?
Isn't it something like 90% of Americans identify themselves as Christian? Wouldn't it make sense for the majority of the religious symbols to be allowed to be Christian?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Isn't it something like 90% of Americans identify themselves as Christian? Wouldn't it make sense for the majority of the religious symbols to be allowed to be Christian?
That doesn't allow for much freedom of religion to me if only one is in your face at school, court rooms and other govt offices.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
That doesn't allow for much freedom of religion to me if only one is in your face at school, court rooms and other govt offices.
Freedom of religion has nothing to do with "what's in your face", unless it's the government telling you that you have no right to practice, represent, or celebrate your own religious choices.
Help me out here -- where are they being "disallowed"?
Despite any hostility you may have to religion, religion is in itself an ideology that is not really that much different from your own. Furthermore, one cannot escape the influence, both positive and negative, of religious ideology on our justice system and other political systems. There's nothing inherently bad about such influence, so long as it does not create contradictions with the fundamental rights of the people.
The only contradiction I see here (at least on the surface), is the one created by those who profess to believe in religious freedoms who then run around trying to decide what is "allowed" and what is not.
So all religions are the same? There are religious beliefs that have no reasoning other than being in religious text. They have no place in our court rooms or class rooms because laws are for us all not just those of us that are Christian, same thing with curriculum. It's not freedom if only one is being represented.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Freedom of religion has nothing to do with "what's in your face", unless it's the government telling you that you have no right to practice, represent, or celebrate your own religious choices.
You have to go to school, court and use govt offices. They should represent us all or none at all.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
There are religious beliefs that have no reasoning other than being in religious text.
So?
They have no place in our court rooms or class rooms because laws are for us all not just those of us that are Christian, same thing with curriculum.
Who do you mean by "for us all"? Surely the vast majority of this country who are Christian would be included in that, as well as those who are not, right?
It's not freedom if only one is being represented.
This makes no sense. It's not freedom is only one is allowed to be represented. I don't hear anyone telling you that non-Christian symbols should be banned.
Freedom of religion has nothing to do with "what's in your face", unless it's the government telling you that you have no right to practice, represent, or celebrate your own religious choices.
Bingo!
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
You have to go to school, court and use govt offices. They should represent us all or none at all.
They do represent you all, by the very logic of your democracy. The majority will be the final arbiter, correct? So it stands to reason that Christian symbols will dominate. And this does not constitute a violation so long as other symbols are not banned. Do you understand this?
This makes no sense. It's not freedom is only one is allowed to be represented. I don't hear anyone telling you that non-Christian symbols should be banned.
Do you think schools will ever allow other religious teachings and symbols? Or do you think they will reject such requests? So because they are in minority, it's ok to deny them representation? That's not freedom.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You have to go to school, court and use govt offices. They should represent us all or none at all.
exactly...
I wonder how many people woud be in support if using taxpayer money to build a monument to display a Koran in their local courthouse or government building...
You have to go to school, court and use govt offices.
And there's your violation of freedoms. The symbols at those places have absolutely nothing to do with freedom, however.
They should represent us all or none at all.
You keep saying this, but it really makes no sense. You seem to be advocating for each and every position on any subject to be represented at such institutions, which really would invalidate the institution itself. The end game of your logic is the latter part of your statement above -- "none at all".
They do represent you all, by the very logic of your democracy. The majority will be the final arbiter, correct? So it stands to reason that Christian symbols will dominate. And this does not constitute a violation so long as other symbols are not banned. Do you understand this?
"Your" democracy? That's funny. By the way, we are not a strict democracy - so, while the majority receives the most favor, they are not allowed to "dominate."
My question is, why does the Christian right need to have these symbols displayed on public property?
I'm not part of the "Christian right", but I need them to have the right to display those symbols or I won't be able to claim that I have a right to display symbols.
What exactly are they trying to say?
Probably that God rocks, or some such thing. Does it matter?
They do represent you all, by the very logic of your democracy. The majority will be the final arbiter, correct? So it stands to reason that Christian symbols will dominate. And this does not constitute a violation so long as other symbols are not banned. Do you understand this?
And you know as well as I do that they would be met with fierce resistance. That's why it's best to leave them all out the way we are doing now. Go ahead and pretend all day that such tolerence exists. But I know it doesn't. There is freedom of religion not just freedom of religion for the majority.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
And there's your violation of freedoms. The symbols at those places have absolutely nothing to do with freedom, however.
You keep saying this, but it really makes no sense. You seem to be advocating for each and every position on any subject to be represented at such institutions, which really would invalidate the institution itself. The end game of your logic is the latter part of your statement above -- "none at all".
And of course every position can't be represented, thats' why we go with none.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Freedom of religion has nothing to do with "what's in your face", unless it's the government telling you that you have no right to practice, represent, or celebrate your own religious choices.
It works the other way also. The government telling you to practice, represent, or celebrate a certain religion.
The government representing a certain religion in tax payer funded building isn't being neutral.
Justice Hugo Black: Everson v. Board of Education (1947):
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
I don't really see anything too crazy in that interpretation.
Basically, the government can't force you to be a part of a religion, force you to pay for any religion, prevent you from being a part of a certain religion, promote a religion etc.
I'm not part of the "Christian right", but I need them to have the right to display those symbols or I won't be able to claim that I have a right to display symbols.
You have every right to display whatever symbols you want. The government, however, does not it seems. And here I thought you were all for limiting government expression.
Probably that God rocks, or some such thing. Does it matter?
Yes it does. Especially when you consider that they have every right to do just that. My question is, why does it have to involve our public (I know how much you hate that word) institutions? Seems they're trying to make a point about who's welcome and who isn't.
And you know as well as I do that they would be met with fierce resistance.
Fiece resistance?? Where's the "fierce resistance" against Muhammed being in the Suprement Court? Where's the "fierce resistance" against public celebrations of Ramadan? Where's the "fiece resistance" against menorahs in public places? The only fierce resistance I see is that against Christian symbols.
That's why it's best to leave them all out the way we are doing now.
The best way to religious freedom is to ban religious expression in public spaces? Gotcha.
Go ahead and pretend all day that such tolerence exists. But I know it doesn't. There is freedom of religion not just freedom of religion for the majority.
First, the logic you and many of your counterparts subscribe to deem that the only rights a person have are based on majority choice. So I fail to see the consistency here.
Secondly, I don't understand why you keep equating "freedom" with what these people see others doing? Do your posts violate my freedom, just because I don't share your perspective? Do my posts violate yours?
Comments
The government represents us all. And I don't think there is enough respect of other religions for them all to be allowed representation.
I've never been to the Supreme Court building and that is only one example. And why are religious figures needed in a court room that shouldn't use those ideaolgies in it's rules?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
This is the crux of the issue, in my opinion. Displaying a symbol is far different from passing a law. I think passing the law in unconstitutional, but the symbols are not.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Help me out here -- where are they being "disallowed"?
Despite any hostility you may have to religion, religion is in itself an ideology that is not really that much different from your own. Furthermore, one cannot escape the influence, both positive and negative, of religious ideology on our justice system and other political systems. There's nothing inherently bad about such influence, so long as it does not create contradictions with the fundamental rights of the people.
The only contradiction I see here (at least on the surface), is the one created by those who profess to believe in religious freedoms who then run around trying to decide what is "allowed" and what is not.
Isn't it something like 90% of Americans identify themselves as Christian? Wouldn't it make sense for the majority of the religious symbols to be allowed to be Christian?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
That doesn't allow for much freedom of religion to me if only one is in your face at school, court rooms and other govt offices.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Freedom of religion has nothing to do with "what's in your face", unless it's the government telling you that you have no right to practice, represent, or celebrate your own religious choices.
So all religions are the same? There are religious beliefs that have no reasoning other than being in religious text. They have no place in our court rooms or class rooms because laws are for us all not just those of us that are Christian, same thing with curriculum. It's not freedom if only one is being represented.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You have to go to school, court and use govt offices. They should represent us all or none at all.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
All things included? No.
In the context of freedom of religion? Yes.
So?
Who do you mean by "for us all"? Surely the vast majority of this country who are Christian would be included in that, as well as those who are not, right?
This makes no sense. It's not freedom is only one is allowed to be represented. I don't hear anyone telling you that non-Christian symbols should be banned.
Bingo!
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
They do not represent everyone and they never have.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
They do represent you all, by the very logic of your democracy. The majority will be the final arbiter, correct? So it stands to reason that Christian symbols will dominate. And this does not constitute a violation so long as other symbols are not banned. Do you understand this?
Do you think schools will ever allow other religious teachings and symbols? Or do you think they will reject such requests? So because they are in minority, it's ok to deny them representation? That's not freedom.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
exactly...
I wonder how many people woud be in support if using taxpayer money to build a monument to display a Koran in their local courthouse or government building...
And there's your violation of freedoms. The symbols at those places have absolutely nothing to do with freedom, however.
You keep saying this, but it really makes no sense. You seem to be advocating for each and every position on any subject to be represented at such institutions, which really would invalidate the institution itself. The end game of your logic is the latter part of your statement above -- "none at all".
I'm not part of the "Christian right", but I need them to have the right to display those symbols or I won't be able to claim that I have a right to display symbols.
Probably that God rocks, or some such thing. Does it matter?
And you know as well as I do that they would be met with fierce resistance. That's why it's best to leave them all out the way we are doing now. Go ahead and pretend all day that such tolerence exists. But I know it doesn't. There is freedom of religion not just freedom of religion for the majority.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
And of course every position can't be represented, thats' why we go with none.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
It works the other way also. The government telling you to practice, represent, or celebrate a certain religion.
The government representing a certain religion in tax payer funded building isn't being neutral.
Justice Hugo Black: Everson v. Board of Education (1947):
I don't really see anything too crazy in that interpretation.
Basically, the government can't force you to be a part of a religion, force you to pay for any religion, prevent you from being a part of a certain religion, promote a religion etc.
Funny how?
The only people talking about domination here are those speaking of "banning" and "allowing".
Why do they need to say their god rocks in a public building? It is a public building not their own.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yes it does. Especially when you consider that they have every right to do just that. My question is, why does it have to involve our public (I know how much you hate that word) institutions? Seems they're trying to make a point about who's welcome and who isn't.
In the public sphere. I don't think anyone is talking about banning or allowing in a personal or private way.
Fiece resistance?? Where's the "fierce resistance" against Muhammed being in the Suprement Court? Where's the "fierce resistance" against public celebrations of Ramadan? Where's the "fiece resistance" against menorahs in public places? The only fierce resistance I see is that against Christian symbols.
The best way to religious freedom is to ban religious expression in public spaces? Gotcha.
First, the logic you and many of your counterparts subscribe to deem that the only rights a person have are based on majority choice. So I fail to see the consistency here.
Secondly, I don't understand why you keep equating "freedom" with what these people see others doing? Do your posts violate my freedom, just because I don't share your perspective? Do my posts violate yours?
Or why do the Pagans need to have their tree displayed on public property?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Beats me. Insecurity, probably. I don't really care.
Exactly!! So if they're not free to do what they want, on what grounds can I be free to do what I want?
Then why not just tear down the building and get it over with?