Freedom from Religion Foundation

[Kosher Ham]

Okay, this road I will go down.

Remove them from public schools.

History has nothing to do with it. You come across as the same people that defend the confederate flag.

---------- Post added August-5th-2012 at 01:53 AM ----------

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...

Praise and honor is not the same as religion.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Okay, this road I will go down.

Remove them from public schools.

History has nothing to do with it. You come across as the same people that defend the confederate flag.

So you'd rather have school kids remain ignorant on an important part of U.S. history in order to make sure they don't see a cross while in school? lol...Even though their friends are probably wearing cross earrings and cross necklaces...

Oooh, another follow-up queston: should school kids be allowed to wear any jewelry that includes a cross while at school?

[Cept One]

Praise and honor is not the same as religion.

Praise and honor?

They are religious symbols

[Kosher Ham]

Cali, Kids should not be allowed to wear any jewelry. You couldn't wear a hat when I was a kid, you can't wear jewelry. Why would they have to be ignorant? Parents are the most important teachers, unless they are "ignorant" themselves.

Cept, if that is the case according to you...get rid of them too.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Cali, Kids should not be allowed to wear any jewelry. You couldn't wear a hat when I was a kid, you can't wear jewelry. Why would they have to be ignorant? Parents are the most important teachers, unless they are "ignorant" themselves.

So our public school system does not owe it to our kids and their students to teach history accurately and fully? Why not Photoshop out any crosses from the photos of missions? lol...then it will reflect that generic structure standing in for a mission on the L.A. County government seal :thumbsup:...if you noticed, their new seal uses an image of a mission, but devoid of any crosses...which makes it just a building now.

I'm guessing that a new rule of "no cash money will be allowed on public schools grounds" will be next lol...you know, with that whole "In God We Trust" thing goin' on...and don't get me started with the symbolism on those suckers!

---------- Post added August-4th-2012 at 11:18 PM ----------

Cept, if that is the case according to you...get rid of them too.

I'm really curious how we're gonna get rid of the Washington Monument lol

[Larry]

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?

But Islam was instrumental in settling southern California.

You want to try to claim that there wasn't a single Muslim person involved? Or a single Jew? Or an athiest?

Whatever religion the Indians followed was instrumental, too.

So was the greed for gold.

But gee, the majority Christian religion, through their Christian elected representatives, chose to decide that well, the Christians were important enough to recognise, and them other things weren't.

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.

Actually, the fact is being pointed out, that the US Constitution forbids governments from endorsing, or discouraging, any religion. And we've had the usual attempts to ignore that fact, including:

• Christianity isn't a religion.
  
• The Constitution allows the government to endorse Christianity, as long as it doesn't say whether it's Catholic or Baptist.
  
• Well, the cross on the county seal might not mean Christianity.
  
• The Constitution only forbids the government passing criminal laws about religion.
  
• The Constitution allows the government to endorse a religion, as long as the religion existed before the Constitution.

[Bang]

I know what the 1st says. Having a memorial is not a law, and it does not prohibit people from exercising religion. A memorial or a photo, or a star of David, or a menorah, or the ten commandments are not laws. When did the interpretation of the 1st swing from endorsement of religion to prohibition of any religious symbols? New Mexico as the "Cross of Burgundy" on it. Is that religious persecution? The seal of Florida says "In God We Trust". Arlington National Cemetary has the Star of David, crosses, and the crescent moon on head stones. Are these religious persecution?

I am not the militant atheist.

As Califan said, i really don't give a **** what other atheists do or what others do in pursuit of their faith.

the only thing I want, as an atheist, is to keep your religion to yourself. It is aprivate matter, and has no place in public spaces that represent everyone. (To a point, cemeteries are exempt, since after-death is the basis of faith. To require, say, all of the stones in Arlington to be non-religious would be an affront to decency and common sense, and in my mind, a violation of the rights of the dead individual and their family.)

But try to see it from another side.

What if you woke up one day, and your country was filled with islamic symbolism, everywhere you went, and to pledge allegiance to your country, you had to also acknowledge the existence of Muhammad as God, and that we are united beneath him? That your kids had to learn to say this before they really understood what they were saying?. that on all your money was islamic prayers, and in your courts they made you put your hand on a Koran to guarantee you'd speak the truth?

I bet you would get tired of it pretty quick. You'd probably start to demand equal treatment for your faith, as guaranteed by your constitution.

What if your faith was a decided minority, and every time you said "Hey, you know, this country guarantees that i don't need to have Islam pressed upon me in a hundred different ways every day, and I think we should not show favoritism to Islam in official capacities?"

and what if every time you said that, the majority got pissed, told you to shut up, demanded to know what the hell was WRONG with you, and then told you that because the founders were muslim, that makes this an islamic country, even though those same founders guaranteed in writing that is was NOT ?

You'd be a militant, i'd bet.

this atheist group pushing their desire to get rid of your symbols from public areas sure made you mad.

How would you feel from the opposite perspective?

this country is supposed to guarantee ALL the freedom to worship (or not) however they choose. Your insistence on putting crosses on publicly funded things goes against that. just as i'm sure you'd get tired of seeing cresents and stars,, or hammers and sickles.

Symbols matter to some people. and if you can't see how the Christians in this country fight to push their faith on everyone else, I don't know what else to tell you. You won't be able to know what it's like to be one of the forcees, because you don't care to try to understand what all that symbolism indicates to others, who have the exact same rights as you do when it comes to this..

Live and let live.

~Bang

[alexey]

There is a fine line between acknowledging and teaching history and endorsing a religion.

Around this gra area, Judges will generally rule in your favour.

Evidence: It still says "in God we trust" on our money even though some of us do not believe she even exists. People tried to sue about that and got rejected.

I am glad that there are people who spend their time and energy pushing back against religion in public spaces.

[Destino]

: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.

I disagree entirely with your reading of the constitution. It does not prohibit the government any contact with religion. It stops the government from endorsing a particular religion. Which is entirely why we find ourselves rolling so many religions into one big group.

---------- Post added August-5th-2012 at 12:40 PM ----------

There is a fine line between acknowledging and teaching history and endorsing a religion.

Around this gra area, Judges will generally rule in your favour.

Only to those that view any positive framing of religion as endorsement. Entirely due to their own agendas of course.

Education without religion is incomplete. Even a basic understanding of many cultures is difficult without religion let alone history.

[Larry]

I disagree entirely with your reading of the constitution. It does not prohibit the government any contact with religion. It stops the government from endorsing a particular religion. Which is entirely why we find ourselves rolling so many religions into one big group.

Christianity is a religion.

I know this may be shocking. I know that it would really help if we could claim that Christianity isn't a religion, therefore endorsing it is OK under the Constitution. But it is a religion.

---------- Post added August-5th-2012 at 12:47 PM ----------

Only to those that view any positive framing of religion as endorsement. Entirely due to their own agendas of course.

Only to those who want their religion to be granted special, elevated, status that other religions are denied. But they don;t have an agenda, of course.

Education without religion is incomplete. Even a basic understanding of many cultures is difficult without religion let alone history.

And if this were a thread discussing, say, people claiming that children must not be told that the Pilgrims came here for religious freedom, than that would be an excellent point.

But, again, as far as I'm aware, there are very few people (I'm not so stupid as to claim that there isn't one, somewhere in the world) who claims that it's wrong/unconstitutional for the government to ever admit that religion exists. This thread is about a group that fights against the government endorsing a religion. Again, by granting it special treatment and recognition that other religions are denied.

[Destino]

Christianity is a religion.

I know this may be shocking. I know that it would really help if we could claim that Christianity isn't a religion, therefore endorsing it is OK under the Constitution. But it is a religion.

If you look at US history they were clearly concerned with a specific religion, as in one ORGANIZATION, being endorsed. There are damn good reasons for this that I'm sure you're aware of. This concept that all religions that view Jesus as the son of God count as one is no different than lumping all abrahamic religions together.

Only to those who want their religion to be granted special, elevated, status that other religions are denied. But they don;t have an agenda, of course.

Is this where we get to the every religion must have equal time followed by a long impossible list? Yawn.

And if this were a thread discussing, say, people claiming that children must not be told that the Pilgrims came here for religious freedom, than that would be an excellent point.

But, again, as far as I'm aware, there are very few people (I'm not so stupid as to claim that there isn't one, somewhere in the world) who claims that it's wrong/unconstitutional for the government to ever admit that religion exists. This thread is about a group that fights against the government endorsing a religion. Again, by granting it special treatment and recognition that other religions are denied.

So the government can acknowledge religion but in ways those that hate religion determine is ok? A cross on a memorial is not ok... As we've seen in this thread. So where can I find a list of what is acceptable?

[Larry]

If you look at US history they were clearly concerned with a specific religion, as in one ORGANIZATION, being endorsed. There are damn good reasons for this that I'm sure you're aware of. This concept that all religions that view Jesus as the son of God count as one is no different than lumping all abrahamic religions together.

Ah, so now we're moving from claiming that Christianity isn't a religion, to claiming that well, the Constitution allows the government to endorse a religion, as long as there are divisions within that religion.

So, would you assert that the Constitution would allow the government to officially endorse Islam? As long as they remain mute on whether they're endorsing Suni or Shiite? In your opinion, does the Constitution allow that?

So the government can acknowledge religion but in ways those that hate religion determine is ok?

So. Reading comprehension problem? Or can't win against what I actually said, and the straw man is more fun?

A cross on a memorial is not ok... As we've seen in this thread.

Could you quote that post to me? I must have missed it.

So where can I find a list of what is acceptable?

The Constitution?

Just a thought.

[alexey]

There is a fine line between acknowledging and teaching history and endorsing a religion.

Around this gra area, Judges will generally rule in your favour.

Only to those that view any positive framing of religion as endorsement. Entirely due to their own agendas of course.

Education without religion is incomplete. Even a basic understanding of many cultures is difficult without religion let alone history.

I am not sure where you disagree. Education is OK and endorsement is not OK. There is a lot of grey area between clear endorsement and clear education. Courts judge this gray area on a case-by-case basis. I think judgements in the gray area will generally favor the religious side. For example, there was a case to remove "in God we trust" from our money and it failed.