Freedom from Religion Foundation

[Larry]

And I believe I have previously expressed my opinions on how incredibly narrow-minded your views on this thread have been lol...Oh, and I believe I have previously asked you what law was created when a government puts a cross among the numerous images on its government seal...and what the penalty for breaking that law would be. Did you answer that, because I must have missed it.

Already answered your question. In post 14. You quoted it when you tried to change what I stated, and decided to wander down the path of claiming that anything that doesn't have criminal penalties isn't a law.

Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't say that the government can't throw people in jail over religion, but that anything short of that level is OK. It says that the government cannot create an official religion. That it cannot take sides on religious matters.

For the record, a crucifix represents Christianity and that alone, not a cross. A cross represents far more than you apparently are aware of. If any of those crosses show a tiny Jesus Christ on it, you'll start to have a point.

I've already pointed out a few things that someone might try to claim that the cross represents in these cases.

If someone doesn't mind if everybody knows he's lying.

Would you like to claim that these particular crosses represent one of those lies? Or do you have a different one you would like to try to sell?

[Destino]

1). The cross is the symbol of one religion.

2). And the cross is in the public space, because people want to beat everybody over the head with Christianity. In violation of the Constitution.

1). I'm sure the founding fathers saw it exactly the same way, all people that held a cross as a religious simple are really just one religion. No matter what they may say. No differences at all. Just one big happy religion that fits this political argument. Would it matter if those people have killed eachother over their differences?

2). Crosses on memorials are there because Christians want to beat people over the head with it... and we would have gotten away with it to if not for those atheists and their dog.

[Larry]

Sure. No disagreement.

A crescent and star seems pretty inoffensive. Let's put that on a public building, preferably in the Bible Belt, and then see how people react.

I'm thinking the Courthouse.

---------- Post added August-5th-2012 at 12:04 AM ----------

1). I'm sure the founding fathers saw it exactly the same way, all people that held a cross as a religious simple are really just one religion. No matter what they may say. No differences at all. Just one big happy religion that fits this political argument.

Yes. One religion.

Notice I didn't say one CHURCH. One religion. (I'll give you a hint. It's called "Christianity".

2). Crosses on memorials are there because Christians want to beat people over the head with it... and we would have gotten away with it to if not for those atheists and their dog.

Guess you missed what I had to say on that subject, and decided to make something up, instead.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Sure. No disagreement.

A crescent and star seems pretty inoffensive. Let's put that on a public building, preferably in the Bible Belt, and then see how people react.

But the reason we--and the government--use symbols to begin with is to convey a specific thought or acknowledge a specific idea or fact. We don't just throw symbols with established meaning up on government buildings to see how people would react, like the country is one big lab experiment lol...

In what context would the government be putting a crescent moon and star on a building? What's it gonna represent?

---------- Post added August-4th-2012 at 09:15 PM ----------

Already answered your question. In post 14. You quoted it when you tried to change what I stated, and decided to wander down the path of claiming that anything that doesn't have criminal penalties isn't a law.

No you didn't ...you just stated that "everything government does is law". What law is established when they use a cross symbol among numerous others on a government seal? It's a very straight and direct question that you've yet to even try to answer, mainly I suspect because you know there is no answer.

If you want to ignore the penalty part of the question, that's more than fine...although a law without consequences is not a law...it's at most a suggestion lol.

Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't say that the government can't throw people in jail over religion, but that anything short of that level is OK. It says that the government cannot create an official religion. That it cannot take sides on religious matters.

There was a county in California that put a cross symbol on its seal, to represent the spanish missions that played a huge role in settling and establishing the area. It was one of many images and symbols used. The missions' role in the history of the area is established fact. So how could the government be "taking sides" by acknowledging that fact? I'm guessing that school history books should remove any mention of those missions as well, since the public school system is an arm of the government? That be cool with you?

I've already pointed out a few things that someone might try to claim that the cross represents in these cases.

If someone doesn't mind if everybody knows he's lying.

Would you like to claim that these particular crosses represent one of those lies? Or do you have a different one you would like to try to sell?

You are aware, aren't you, that the cross symbol far pre-dates Jesus Christ, nonetheless Christianity? Right?

[Larry]

But the reason we--and the government--use symbols to begin with is to convey a specific thought or acknowledge a specific idea or fact. We don't just throw symbols with established meaning up on government buildings to see how people would react, like the country is one big lab experiment lol...

In what context would the government be putting a crescent moon and star on a building? What's it gonna represent?

It could represent lots of possible things.

The crescent on the courthouse MIGHT represent the role that outhouses had on the settlement of he territory.

And anybody who points out that every one of us knows WHICH of those many things it represents, is obviously ignorant and narrow minded.

[Destino]

Yes. One religion.

Notice I didn't say one CHURCH. One religion. (I'll give you a hint. It's called "Christianity".

So which are the Christian "churches" and who decides that? You? Why not just lump all abrahamic religions together. In fact screw that lets just go with "Religion". That way we can just attack anything on public land that might suggest any belief in god or gods is valid or even acceptable is an endorsement of a particular religion. That religion being "Religion". Perfect.

Btw - I'm glad you didn't touch number 2 again. I wouldn't have wanted to reopen that dumpster fire other.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

It could represent lots of possible things.

And anybody who points out that every one of us knows WHICH of those many things it represents, is obviously ignorant and narrow minded.

You don't have answers for ANY of this stuff, do you? lol ...

---------- Post added August-4th-2012 at 09:28 PM ----------

So which are the Christian "churches" and who decides that? You? Why not just lump all abrahamic religions together. In fact screw that lets just go with "Religion" and go with that. The details are for Larry to decide.

Yeah, who exactly decides which religions/churches/whatever fall under the umbrella of Christianity? Does the government? Do the individual religions/churches/whatever? Does Larry? lol...

What about Jehovah's Witnesses?

[Larry]

So which are the Christian "churches" and who decides that? You? Why not just lump all abrahamic religions together. In fact screw that lets just go with "Religion" and go with that. The details are for Larry to decide.

:secret: the Constitution prohibits the government from interfering in RELIGION.

Christianity is a RELIGION.

The Constitution doesn say "The government may select an official religion, as long as it doesn't select a particular subset of that religion". It prohibits the government from endorsing a religion.

That's why I keep referring to a religion.

This song I called Alice's Restaurant. It's about Alice. And the restaurant. But Alice's Restaurant was ever the name of the restaurant, it's just the name of this song. That's why I call this song Aluces Restaurant.

[zoony]

I keep reading the amendment. Congress shall make no law, and government should not restrict.

So how are they "technically correct" in lobbying for any religious symbols to be removed from any public space?

What am I missing?

[HeluCopter29]

I keep reading the amendment. Congress shall make no law, and government should not restrict.

So how are they "technically correct" in lobbying for any religious symbols to be removed from any public space?

What am I missing?

The difference between public and private.

---------- Post added August-5th-2012 at 12:41 AM ----------

The cross can stand for a multitude of things...not just a religion.

Please don't tell me that you're arguing the cross (or as you said the crucifix) doesn't necessarily refer to Christianity in the context used here in the USA.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Christianity.

Christianity....or a seafood restaurant.

Government establishing law about religion and endorsing/promoting Christianity...as well as establishing laws about oil, science, sharks, boats and cows...and something that looks suspiciously like a crescent and stars. No one is safe.

Government establishing no laws about anything whatsoever. Everyone rejoices.

I think I get it now :thumbsup:

---------- Post added August-4th-2012 at 09:52 PM ----------

Please don't tell me that you're arguing the cross (or as you said the crucifix) doesn't necessarily refer to Christianity in the context used here in the USA.

A cross does not represent a singular religion...it predates Christianity. Yes, it is used BY Christians as a symbol of many things dealing with their beliefs (although as I said before, they tend to use a crucifix, not a cross...actually showing Jesus Christ ON the cross is what makes it potent and makes it better represent their faith.

As for "here in the US"...a cross is as much a fashion statement as it is a symbol of Christianity lol...we all see people wearing cross earrings, necklaces and the sort without being given any clue whatsoever as to their relationship with Christ, their following Christianity, or anything doing with their religious beliefs. But when it comes to the importance of allowing/preventing governments and locales from what they can and can not use as symbols, we need to go much further down than the surface of "Cross = Christianity". And even if it did mean Christianity, it needs to be shown that the government is using the symbol as part of an effort to establish an official religion and/or promote/endorse a specific religion above all others. Again, simple acknowledgement should not be enough.

---------- Post added August-4th-2012 at 09:54 PM ----------

I keep reading the amendment. Congress shall make no law, and government should not restrict.

So how are they "technically correct" in lobbying for any religious symbols to be removed from any public space?

What am I missing?

You're not missing anything lol...others may be, but you're not.

[No Excuses]

In what context would the government be putting a crescent moon and star on a building? What's it gonna represent?

In a religious context. The same religious context for which the cross might be used. Or the ten commandments. Or any other symbol associated with Christianity.

And for the sake of the topic of this thread, let's cut the nonsense that the cross may or may not represent Christianity. The group being discussed here goes after any form of religious endorsement in public space, the cross being only one of the many.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

In a religious context. The same religious context for which the cross might be used. Or the ten commandments. Or any other symbol associated with Christianity.

Ok, so...using my actual real-world example, if Islam was instrumental in settling southern California and the county government acknowledged it as thus in their government seal, what's the problem?

And for the sake of the topic of this thread, let's cut the nonsense that the cross may or may not represent Christianity. The group being discussed here goes after any form of religious endorsement in public space, the cross being only one of the many.

But the point is being argued that the cross being used as a symbol is equal to the government trying to establish one religion above the others, and making this into some kind of law...or something lol. So the question of whether or not we should ALWAYS equate a cross with Christianity is actually relevant.

[Cept One]

So i suppose all of the posters who are in favor of removing these "Christian" symbols are also in favor of removing the non Christian religious symbolism our Govt uses?

[HeluCopter29]

A cross does not represent a singular religion...it predates Christianity. Yes, it is used BY Christians as a symbol of many things dealing with their beliefs (although as I said before, they tend to use a crucifix, not a cross...actually showing Jesus Christ ON the cross is what makes it potent and makes it better represent their faith.

As for "here in the US"...a cross is as much a fashion statement as it is a symbol of Christianity lol...we all see people wearing cross earrings, necklaces and the sort without being given any clue whatsoever as to their relationship with Christ, their following Christianity, or anything doing with their religious beliefs. But when it comes to the importance of allowing/preventing governments and locales from what they can and can not use as symbols, we need to go much further down than the surface of "Cross = Christianity". And even if it did mean Christianity, it needs to be shown that the government is using the symbol as part of an effort to establish an official religion and/or promote/endorse a specific religion above all others. Again, simple acknowledgement should not be enough.

The cross is the obvious front and center figure of Christianity. We're not talking about a candle you might find in a church. We're talking about the mother****ing cross. To say that using it for governmental purposes or as a fashion statement is ignorant at best.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

So i suppose all of the posters who are in favor of removing these "Christian" symbols are also in favor of removing the non Christian religious symbolism our Govt uses?

The government doesn't use religious symbols except the ones for Christianity...how else are they gonna promoste one religion over all others and establish any kind of religious law??...Did you NOT see the L.A. County seal up above?!?!...If governmemt also used symbols from other religions for any reason, it would dilute the coercive powers of that tiny cross you see on the seal!

[No Excuses]

Ok, so...using my actual real-world example, if Islam was instrumental in settling southern California and the county government acknowledged it as thus in their government seal, what's the problem?

My problem in general is the extent to which a public space displays (and perhaps end up endorsing) a particular religion. I don't find the display of a religious symbol to be a major issue, or worthy of being protested (waste of time). I do have an issue with something like the ten commandments being displayed in a public school or a public courthouse.

My idea of hoping to see the crescent and star in a public building, is mainly to be amused by the hypocrisy of a certain portion of our society. Which is notorious for demanding it's own type of religious endorsement while remaining hostile to others.

But the point is being argued that the cross being used as a symbol is equal to the government trying to establish one religion above the others, and making this into some kind of law...or something lol. So the question of whether or not we should ALWAYS equate a cross with Christianity is actually relevant.

That is an argument you are having with others. I'm not interested in joining in on an argument that is headed absolutely no where.

[Kosher Ham]

Cali, The point is freedom from it.

Symbolism is an example of promotion.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

The cross is the obvious front and center figure of Christianity. We're not talking about a candle you might find in a church. We're talking about the mother****ing cross. To say that using it for governmental purposes or as a fashion statement is ignorant at best.

??...It IS used as a fashion statement ...I never said everyone does (which my post clearly points out is not the case). Did you actually read and understand my post? Because I acknowledged that even IF the government is using it to represent Christianity, that ALONE should never be enough...the actual context in which it is being used should be paramount.

Here, I'll quote myself lol:

But when it comes to the importance of allowing/preventing governments and locales from what they can and can not use as symbols, we need to go much further down than the surface of "Cross = Christianity". And even if it did mean Christianity, it needs to be shown that the government is using the symbol as part of an effort to establish an official religion and/or promote/endorse a specific religion above all others. Again, simple acknowledgement should not be enough.

I"m guessing that either you didn't understand that part, or you felt it didn't warrant a response. But your post makes me lean in one direction, I gotta be honest...

And again...doesn't mere logic dictate that the government has to be using that religious symbol in an attempt to endorse/promote one religion above all others, as well as using it to establish some kind of religious law? Surely merely using it, regardless of the context, isn't enough in your eyes.

---------- Post added August-4th-2012 at 10:20 PM ----------

Cali, The point is freedom from it.

Symbolism is an example of promotion.

So I'll ask you as well...should the L.A. School District remove any mentions of the spanish missions from their history books?

[HeluCopter29]

Cali, The point is freedom from it.

Symbolism is an example of promotion.

And bingo was his namo.

---------- Post added August-5th-2012 at 01:26 AM ----------

So I'll ask you as well...should the L.A. School District remove any mentions of the spanish missions from their history books?

I wasn't aware that learning about the Spanish missions promoted Christianity. I always thought they were just a notable part of history. Please, tell me more.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

My problem in general is the extent to which a public space displays (and perhaps end up endorsing) a particular religion. I don't find the display of a religious symbol to be a major issue, or worthy of being protested (waste of time). I do have an issue with something like the ten commandments being displayed in a public school or a public courthouse.

See, to me, everything you said there speaks strongly to letting the context play a huge role in how that government/religion coupling should be portrayed.

Spanish missions played a role in the settling of Southern California is a fact. The 10 Commandments are not fact. Spanish missions were basically Catholic. That's a fact. Using the cross to represent the missions and their importance--and not the Catholic religion itself--should be more than fine.

However, entering a court of law and having the 10 Commandments prominently displayed crosses WAY over the line from acknowledging fact, and into promotion...the laws of Christianity placed in the building that deals with government enforceable law. Bad combination.

My idea of hoping to see the crescent and star in a public building, is mainly to be amused by the hypocrisy of a certain portion of our society. Which is notorious for demanding it's own type of religious endorsement while remaining hostile to others.

But there's hypocrisy on both sides....both sides have their segment who will take things to far.

That is an argument you are having with others. I'm not interested in joining in on an argument that is headed absolutely no where.

Yeah, but you commented on it and basically told everyone to drop it ...so you inserted yourself into it, even if just for a few posts.

---------- Post added August-4th-2012 at 10:32 PM ----------

I wasn't aware that learning about the Spanish missions promoted Christianity. I always thought they were just a notable part of history. Please, tell me more.

It actually promotes it far more than a cross on the government seal does...what do you think missions were? lol...

I'll let Wiki fill you in:

The Spanish missions in California comprise a series of religious and military outposts established by Spanish Catholics of the Franciscan Order between 1769 and 1823 to spread the Christian faith among the local Native Americans.

It would be damn near impossible to TEACH about the importance of missions in U.S. history and completely skip over all of that. Can't be done.

However, seeing that singular cross amid all the other symbols and graphics on a government seal is supposed to "promote" Christianity simply because it's ON a government seal? That cross symbolizes the MISSIONS, people...there are those who have zero knowledge of missions and think the cross solely represents Christianity...and we're all ok with letting their ignorance dictate what's real and what is not lol...jeebus.

[Cept One]

Cali, The point is freedom from it.

Symbolism is an example of promotion.

So i guess you are in favor of getting rid of these symbols

[Kosher Ham]

So I'll ask you as well...should the L.A. School District remove any mentions of the spanish missions from their history books?

Is religion a part of that symbolism ?

So i guess you are in favor of getting rid of these symbols

Those have a religious connection ?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Is religion a part of that symbolism ?

Religion is a part of the missions' history...well, unless we advocate re-writing history.

But if you're hung up on the apparent overwhelming power of symbols over actual words, test and homeworks assignments being given lol...lemme ask you this: Should the public school text books remove any images of missions from the history books? Because all missions had crosses on them:

Surely we shouldn't be advocating showing religious symbols on anything government-sanctioned...so all the pics of missions get removed, correct?

[Cept One]

Is religion a part of that symbolism ?

Those have a religious connection ?

The VA seal contains a depiction of the Roman Goddess Virtus...

The Washington Monument is an Obelisk which is a phallic symbol used in the worship of several Egyptian deities...

Liberty is also a Roman deity...