Experts and users discuss religious symbols, church and state, religion in society, religion and politics: Censoring Symbols from Public Creates Less Freedom & Official Atheism
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.
Censoring Symbols from Public Creates Less Freedom & Official Atheism
- From Foundation for Moral Law
By Foundation for Moral Law - Defending Our Right to Acknowledge God
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Keeping religion out of the government is not censorship
Allowing the government to place a religious symbol on public property means either all religious and nonreligious symbols must be allowed to be placed: otherwise the government is endorsing one religion over another.
Refusal to endorse a religion is NOT censorship. Everyone is free to display their religious symbols on themselves, their property, and speak about it freely.
- Blue Linchpin
December 18, 2008 10:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Right but...
"Allowing the government to place a religious symbol on public property means either all religious and nonreligious symbols must be allowed to be placed..."
So what wrong with a little diversity in terms of belief systems? Does a stone with writing or a cross or image of the FSM harm anyone?
- F2XL
December 19, 2008 9:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
?
No, nothing is wrong with diversity, and I'm not sure what you're asking.
I'm saying if you put up a cross, you have to put everything else up, or else it's endorsement. That includes FSM if someone wants it.
- Blue Linchpin
December 20, 2008 9:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Agreed
"I'm saying if you put up a cross, you have to put everything else up, or else it's endorsement. That includes FSM if someone wants it."
I too feel all views irrespective of the belief have a right to be represented, which would mean everyone that wants a symbol in public should have that representation if they find it important to them.
- F2XL
December 20, 2008 11:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
But life isn't so ideal
Just look at the outrage over the atheists signs. We'd be foolish to think such a policy would actually be in place: it's better to keep religion away from government and let people display their signs on their own land.
- Blue Linchpin
December 20, 2008 11:55PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I live in the region where that occurred
And I can tell you such events would be less common if everyone had a right to their public expression and thus LEARNED to accept the fact that we are all different.
- F2XL
December 21, 2008 4:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agree, but
You're missing the point. They are not going to let everyone have a right to free expression in government buildings. There WILL be a line drawn, and that lesson would not be learned. Would they allow a Church of Hitler? Church of Scientology? Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Atheists? etc, etc? There will always be a line drawn.
- Blue Linchpin
December 21, 2008 6:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thomas Jefferson
While reading the Virginia Statue for Teligious Freedom writtem by Thomas Jefferson in 1779, I see where Religious Symbols have nothing to do with the seperation of Church and State.
Ignorance is the lack of knowledge, education, and experience.
Sec.2 of the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom:
"Be it enacted by the general Assembly, That NO MAN shall be COMPELLED to FREQUENT OR SUPPORT any religious worship, place, or ministry WHATSOEVER". This is about being forced to go to church and being forced to finacially support any church. Nor(shall any man) be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise SUFFER on account of his religious OPINIONS OR BELIEFS;"
So far, this does not pertain to any religious symbols at all.
""but that ALL MEN shall be FREE to PROFESS, and by ARGUMENT TO MAINTAIN, their OPINION in matters of religion, and that the same (OPINIONS) shall in NO WISE diminish enlarge, or AFFECT their CIVIL CAPACITIES. Do symbols affect peoples civil capacities?
Sec 3. And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ORDINARY PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION ONLY, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act IRREVOCABLE would be of NO EFFECT IN LAW; yet we are FREE to declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the NATURAL RIGHTS OF MANKIND, and that if ANY ACT shall be HEARAFTER passed to REPEAL THE PRESENT, or to NARROW ITS OPERATION, such act shall be an INFRINGEMENT OF NATURAL LAW.
Religious symbols is the object in question. Symbols are not a religious place of worship, nor are they a ministry. They do not ask for membership, not do they ask for financial support. They have a natural right to be erected by man anywhere. It is our natural nature to celebrate the birth and ressuraction of Jesus Christ our Savior. These religious symbols are establishments of faith--they are not establishments of religions! Simple as that. These silent symbols do not burdern people for financial support. Religious symbols have a silent voice.They only speak to the eye of the beholder. They are not in any way, shape, or form, disrupting public or civil order in our land. Instead, it is the athiest who are disrupting the establishment of civil order. These religious symbols bring beauty to our country which brings peace, love and charity throughout our land.
There might be a wall of seperation between church and state but there is not any law calling for the seperation of religious symbols and state. These symbols are not an establishment of religion--they are an ESTABLISHMENT OF FAITH. It is not against the law to display religious symbols on any public owned property. It is in fact our DUTY to display these symbols that represent religion, "OR the duty which we owe to our Creator". This is only one way to perform our duty which we owe to our Creator.
- lyntel
December 22, 2008 9:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes
Censorship of religious symbols from public properties would be rather wrong when a balanced approach to representation would be the better solution. Unfortunately, very few in government opt for a balanced approach which is why the symbolism of specific religions has crept into government endorsement. On any account, excluding any religious symbolism from public properties is by no means an endorsement of "atheism" - it is rather an endorsement of balance and fairness.
If you oppose that, it's rather good for the rest of us you must abide by the U.S. Constitution like everyone else.
"Atheism", by the way, isn't a philosophy or a religion. "Atheism" is a possible result of one's beliefs and practices but it is not and cannot be the basis of them. As the traditionally religious so aptly point out, that would be a "religion of nothing" which is nonsensical and, contrary to what many of them happen to believe, no one actually "practices atheism". Whatever the "atheist" happen to believe and practice MAKES them "atheistic", i.e., their positive beliefs and practices as seen from the theistic point of view renders a negative image in the theist mind. No one can operate from a negative. One can only live a life founded on positive beliefs and their associated practices.
Have you ever actually asked an "atheist" what their positive beliefs happen to be? I can assure you, unlike the theist who necessarily begins with "god exists" to reach their other philosophical conclusions, beliefs, rituals, etc., the "atheist" does not begin with "god does not exist". No. That is rather one of their very last conclusions, not the first or even among the first. If any "atheist" tells you that is where they begin, they have little understanding of how they wound up with that conclusion or are simply adopting that position on a whim or to parrot those they respect.
In any case, in all honesty, you ought to take an interest in an individual's positive beliefs. They are far more relevant to their character than are their negative conclusions about YOUR beliefs.
- Naumadd
January 2, 2009 5:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.