Crusades against Religious Symbols

[Belthasar727]

The second topic for my first day on here, then I'll cool it. sweatdrop

Anyway, this is just a question; what is the point of complaints and lawsuits over religious symbols on government property? I never really got that.

The wording on the dollar doesn't affect the value, the wording in the pledge never bothered me (I always hated the pledge in general though), and while I can't recall having prayer in school, as long as you're not forced to participate it's not as if your kids will be in school forever (or send them to a private school or home school them if it's that big of an issue). The ten commandments in front of courthouses is an ancient symbol of law, religious or not.

I see these things as non-issues, what do we get out of fighting over them?

If legal battles manage to remove religious symbols in the public sphere, I guess that's a win, but it's a pretty weak win. No minds were changed, only the state of material, and it ends up breeding more contempt and distrust against atheists.  

[Arios V]

You're right, it really doesn't change things dramatically and it would be a weak win for those involved in the fight.

However, it's not only atheists who would like to see it go, I know people of religions other than Christianity who would like to see it gone, because they believe these symbols are pro-Christian in nature. Don't ask me why, it's too confusing for even me to understand their logic.  

[Dathu]

They way I see it is: If it's historical, leave it be. But money, the pledge of allegience, and some public buildings are more than open for change. Our money has changed dramatically over the years, and "under god" was just put in the pledge in the 50's. Most public building only have a shelf life of fifty years, so in my opinion, changing them shouldn't be a big deal unless you're a zealot.

However, I do think we (Atheists) have bigger fish to fry. It would be more productive to focus on some of the bigger issues facing Atheists rather than bicker over letters. I would rather rally for less government involvement in church support, since that money could go to schools. I think we need to advocate for better seperation between church and state, since that line is getting more and more vague. And I would like to see precedents set about propaganda being splattered all over the green earth: door knockers, street harrassers, and tons of junk mail. I dunno. Maybe I'm being intolerant. And a bad speller. sweatdrop  

[Arios V]

Dathu

They way I see it is: If it's historical, leave it be. But money, the pledge of allegience, and some public buildings are more than open for change. Our money has changed dramatically over the years, and "under god" was just put in the pledge in the 50's. Most public building only have a shelf life of fifty years, so in my opinion, changing them shouldn't be a big deal unless you're a zealot.

However, I do think we (Atheists) have bigger fish to fry. It would be more productive to focus on some of the bigger issues facing Atheists rather than bicker over letters. I would rather rally for less government involvement in church support, since that money could go to schools. I think we need to advocate for better seperation between church and state, since that line is getting more and more vague. And I would like to see precedents set about propaganda being splattered all over the green earth: door knockers, street harrassers, and tons of junk mail. I dunno. Maybe I'm being intolerant. And a bad speller. sweatdrop

I agree that we should focus on separating the Church & State more, give less money to Churches and give it to schools and teachers, and maybe set up some laws on toning down or getting rid of that annoying religious propaganda. Let them have they're little token prizes of having "Under God" on the money, in the pledge and just the other minor things for now. Once the Atheists take this country, those will change.  

[cup_noodles]

Melchior727

The second topic for my first day on here, then I'll cool it. sweatdrop

Anyway, this is just a question; what is the point of complaints and lawsuits over religious symbols on government property? I never really got that.

The wording on the dollar doesn't affect the value, the wording in the pledge never bothered me (I always hated the pledge in general though), and while I can't recall having prayer in school, as long as you're not forced to participate it's not as if your kids will be in school forever (or send them to a private school or home school them if it's that big of an issue). The ten commandments in front of courthouses is an ancient symbol of law, religious or not.

I see these things as non-issues, what do we get out of fighting over them?

If legal battles manage to remove religious symbols in the public sphere, I guess that's a win, but it's a pretty weak win. No minds were changed, only the state of material, and it ends up breeding more contempt and distrust against atheists.

You know I really don't care about saying the pledge too much.
It's just what it means that pisses me off.

The reason they put "under God" in the pledge was to show the "godless" Commies that we were better than them because we had God on our side.
What it's pretty much saying is that theists are better than atheists.
A superiority statement from the country where all people are suppose to be equal.
That's what I dissagree with on the pledge.

 

[Belthasar727]

Arios V

Once the Atheists take this country, those will change.

You make it sound like there's going to be a revolution.  

[Arios V]

Melchior727

Arios V

Once the Atheists take this country, those will change.

You make it sound like there's going to be a revolution.

I'm thinking there will be, not in the near future, but probably in 100 years or so.  

[Sanguvixen]

Symbols are just that, Symbolic.

In some places they really don't belong. Some people may get a feeling of being unwelcome based on symbols alone.

That said there are bigger fish to fry, but Symbols I think really have a place and time, and some people don't understand that. That is where the problem comes.

A public place for all is a place where people of many beliefs will pass through. If you have a great big cross there, it might make others feel insignificant. That's just feelings though...and that would be an awful lot of people having to feel small just so that one group can feel big. I don't like that but there are more important things to address such as the required "Swear on the Bible" thing in our gov't that is hypocritical, and the "Under God" part of the pledge that is the basis for corruption in classrooms between religious teachers and non-religious students.

 

[Harvested Sorrow]

It's very simple:

Having these symbols in public places, having God in the pledge, etc. violates the constitution. Some of us don't like seeing the constitution raped.

Do we have bigger fish to fry? Sure. But we can't expect to win the big battles if we can't even win the small ones. Not to mention, it's a bad sign when some of this stuff is used by an ex-president (Bush senior) to promote anti-atheist bigotry. This alone should show that it does have some importance.  

[Belthasar727]

Harvested Sorrow

It's very simple:

Having these symbols in public places, having God in the pledge, etc. violates the constitution. Some of us don't like seeing the constitution raped.

Do we have bigger fish to fry? Sure. But we can't expect to win the big battles if we can't even win the small ones. Not to mention, it's a bad sign when some of this stuff is used by an ex-president (Bush senior) to promote anti-atheist bigotry. This alone should show that it does have some importance.

I don't think religious symbols in public places qualifies as the constitution being raped. In fact I'm pretty sure financial usury, going to war without a congressional declaration, warrantless surveillance, censorship, gun laws, legislation against private contracts, etc, and other things happening in Washington fall under that category.

Whether a battle is little or big doesn't equal the difficulty. I think theists would see it a bit more noble to seek acceptance or at least tolerance of atheists and atheism in their country, before petty squabbles over whether it's politically correct to hang a cross here and there.  

[Harvested Sorrow]

Having it on government buildings does as it violates the separation of church and state by supporting one particular religion.

The fact that are worse crimes against the constitution going on does NOT by any means negate that as a crime.

Also, note that this lack of tolerance is long reaching and spans thousands of years, so I highly doubt it has much to do with wanting to maintain the separation of church and state, unless we're speaking of the fundamentalists that want to turn this country into a theocracy, of course. But, getting in the way of that goal is simply one of many reasons they hate us.  

[Theophrastus]

I'm part of a special group of people called Americans.

I get special protection from other Americans (police, military, etc). I'm looked out for (even if they don't always do a good job) by governors, state representatives, mayors and a bunch of chubby white guys in suits.

I pay money to make sure my roads aren't shitty, my infrastructure remains solid and that the free market can deliver good things to me.

All of my money sinks into this country, by purchase, tax or effort. I am housed, employed, represented and protected as an American.

Part of the contract I stick to as an American is that I'll do things good like follow the laws to the best of my ability, not attempt to destroy our political foundations, and respect the *private* practices and beliefs of others. I have to - it's in the American Constitution.

But there's another side to it. The rich white guys in nice suits work for me. I serve their burgers and run their companies and dig their ditches. In exchange they promise to keep all of the above things going in my favor. And one of the oldest promises was that, though they'll never discriminate against any religion, those guys in suits will never use MY money to *endorse* any religion, either.

Once again, in the constitution. There will be no government affiliation with religions, endorsements thereof or implications in that vein.

There has been TREMENDOUS uproar every time something like mentioning "God" on our money is enacted. Curiously enough, it's often during wartime fervor that such things happen. Patriot Act, anyone? On a side note, the Pledge Of Allegiance is /not/ required to be respected. It's suggested by US civil code but not a legal requirement at all. It's just been adopted by pop culture to the point that we sometimes assume it is.

So when a religious symbol shows up on government property, that means that the money that came from MY paycheck went to support a religious group I may or may not agree with.

And that's total bullshit. This is where I get semi-Libertarian and say, "Listen, ******** - that's my money, and I agreed to let you use it if you did it fairly and in the interest of bettering my country, not kissassing to some group of fairy tale believers."

It's important that there be a thick, hard line between the infrastructure I support as an American and willy nilly spiritual ******** is why we care about religious symbols on communal property.  

[Cirosan]

The reason I'm so concerned about it is because I believe the Constitution of the United States of America is the greatest and noblest document in the history of the world (Can you guess that I'm a patriot yet?). Therefore, I'm extremely opposed to any Constitutional violation. The religious symbols violate the principle of the separation of state and church.

I would still be opposed if instead of "In God We Trust" it read "There Is No God, Evolution Is True" because, again, that's a Constitutional violation. True, part of the reason I'm so passionate about the issue is that it is directly offensive to me, but even more so because of the high regard I hold the Constitution in.

EDIT: I just found a very appropriate quote for this: "Here's the thing. There's this little piece of paper - it's called the United States Constitution - and you're pissing on it right now." -- Jimmy Hook