quote:

---

The Cross is not the only holy symbol in existence

---

quote:

---

the Bible is not the only holy text that people revere.

---

quote:

---

I fear a Protestant Pope, anointed by his TV audience, a cross-denominational evangelical leader, will gather the other Evangelical churches around him to create a theological state in practice if not in fact.

---

quote:

---

I fear that those who claim "America was historically a Christian nation." are implying, "If you are not Christian, you are not a true American."

---

quote:

---

While it's obviously bein inferred, I don't think it's being implied.

---

quote:

---

Yes a cross is offensive to those who's religion or lack thereof do not adopt it.

---

My advice? Get over it. Islamic crescents don't offend me. Buddha statues don't offend me (I may even like to own a little laughing Buddha statuette at some point). Stars of David certainly don't offend me. Gay Pride flags and stickers don't offend me either. And all of those are symbols which represent belief systems I don't hold.

If a symbol advoctating someone else's faith offends you - then I think the problem is more with you than with those displaying it.

Too many people 'choose' to be offended, and we get so many ridiculous lawsuits over them.

Grow up, America.

[ September 24, 2004, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Tom, I think that's a pretty unrealistic, if not silly, question.
 

---

Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
 
Nicely stated, Dan. I agree with you completely.

-Matt
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
No, it's not. Does displaying a Gay Pride flag indicate that you are not religious? Does it indicate that you belong to a particular religion of any kind? Does it constitute the endorsement of any given religion? Is displaying a rainbow triangle in one's window not only equivalent to displaying a cross, but exclusive of the latter?
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
Depends which denominations you ask, Tom - remember, there are some professed Christian denominations that accept openly gay clergymen.
 

---

Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
 
Being religious and being gay are not mutually exclusive...

I'm always amazed, though, that being Republican and being gay aren't.
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 

quote:

---

Chad, why do you feel homosexuality stands in opposition to religious observance? Why is homosexuality equivalent to a religion?

---

quote:

---

I think the two (christianity/homosexuality) are parallel belief systems

---

I'm in the camp that Relgion is a belief system...and homosexuality is not. All of my gay friends will tell you that being gay was not a choice.

I'm guessing that you are in the camp of that they 'chose' to live this lifestyle? and that then is part of your assumptions in your arguement?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Dan, I hear you. I think listening and understanding each other's fears is very important to holding the balance that Chad mentioned. I am sorry that there are so many that would not hear you.
 

---

Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
 
I agree with Taalcon, whole-heartedly. And what Dan said in his opening post was both enlightening and intriguing.

Tolerance is a double-edged sword and there are many on both side of the religion debate who are too busy swinging the sword about to realized when they have cut themselves.
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
I'm in the "I was born a child of God" camp and that I can't change that, but that I can choose how to deal with it camp.

Again, just my opinion.

EDIT: You, and your friends and EVERYBODY has the right to their opinions of themselves and others.

I, my friends and my family have the right to our opinions of ourselves and others.

I believe there is room for both to be expressed equally.

[ September 24, 2004, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Lets take this calmly.

The question can be boiled down to this: I can stick a Gay Pride Symbol in my office cubical at the government court house. I can not hand a Cross there. Is this fair?

The cross represents your religion, your beliefs.

The Gay Pride Symbol represents your view on sexuality. (not neccesarilly your own sexuality. You might have it in support of a gay friend or relative or just because you believe in the idea that sexuality is not reason for discrimination).

Both of these things are a part of you and who you are. Why do we ban one and not the other in our government?

The Cross is a symbol of a religion. We have legal separation of state and religion in this country for one reason. Most religions are exclusive. Most claim to have the one true way and any other is wrong. There is a long history of detrimental treatment given to people who differ with the religion of the government representatives.

The governmental employee represents our entire government when he is at work. If he does so with a religious bias, he is breaking that separation.

The Gay Pride Symbol is not a symbol of religion. It is a symbol of Inclusion, saying that everyone will be treated equally here, regardles of sexual preference.

It is a statement of support for people who's sexual preference happens to be considered a sin by some religions. Is this an attack on those religions?

Frying hamburgers or eating cheeseburgers are signs of disrespect for some religions.

So is cooking ham or driving a car.

We seem to have three choices.

1) We disallow anything that may be taken as an attack on any religion, hence showing no bias to any religion.

2) We allow all religions and anything that may attack those religions, within the bounds of social good taste (no pronography, graphic violence, etc). The question becomes, who gets to decide what gets the most attention. We plan on the big Cross and Manger scene on the court house yard, but the temple down the street wants a giant Menorah instead. Would it be understood why a Jewish man might be intimidated going to a courtroom where the Judge has installed a 6 foot tall Cross, with Jesus, in front of his bench. Could you see why the Arabic Public Defender would have trouble with cases there?

3) We realize that there is a difference between religious symbols and symbols that represent things that some religions consider a sin.
 

---

Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
 
Well then...I'm all for expressing equally if that would translate into living equally.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Dan, you started off really well. Here's where I disagree:

"We have legal separation of state and religion in this country for one reason. Most religions are exclusive. Most claim to have the one true way and any other is wrong. There is a long history of detrimental treatment given to people who differ with the religion of the government representatives."

Any expression of belief automatically implies that all contrary/contradictory beliefs are wrong. Big deal. You can't stop holding/expressing beliefs because of it.

And I take issue with your claim as to the reason behind separation of church and state. There is not, in fact, only one reason for it. There are historical reasons involving the harmful influence that churches have had on governments and that governments have had on churches. But I think that one of the primary philosophical reason is one of loyalty. I think that the Framers recognized that, if a deeply religious person is forced to choose between his dedication to his religion and his loyalty to his homeland, the outcome of the decision might not be certain. Therefore, it is beneficial to the state to distance itself from involvement with religion.

"The governmental employee represents our entire government when he is at work. If he does so with a religious bias, he is breaking that separation."

No. Every citizen, no matter her position with respect to government, is entitled to both have a belief (religious or no) and to express it. There is no one who "represents" the government to such a degree that this fact should change. Besides, simply having a religious symbol at one's workstation (to use your example) does not constitute religious bias in one's work for the state.

"The Gay Pride Symbol is not a symbol of religion. It is a symbol of Inclusion, saying that everyone will be treated equally here, regardles of sexual preference."

Although it is not a symbol of religion, it is still a symbol of belief, and of a belief that many in our nation do not share anymore than they share the other worker's belief in Christianity. There is simply no justification in this case for treating them differently. Your description of this symbol as one of "Inclusion" is simply spin. The Christian might just as easily say his cross is a symbol of Inclusion, in that Jesus died on the cross for all mankind, extending certain opportunities to everyone. But, you see, you already set it up by painting religion as an inherent divider. There really is no distinction between the two beliefs on this basis.

"We seem to have three choices."

I can think of another. We can give treat all expressions of belief equally. If we ban one, we ban them all. If we allow one, we allow them all. Or, if we have to make a judgment between them, we make it on content-neutral criteria.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

No. I think Hatrack has demonstrated that, in general, the religious will team up against the areligious first, and only turn on each other later.

---

quote:

---

Would it be understood why a Jewish man might be intimidated going to a courtroom where the Judge has installed a 6 foot tall Cross, with Jesus, in front of his bench. Could you see why the Arabic Public Defender would have trouble with cases there?

---

quote:

---

I submit that Hatrack is a pretty bizarre place, and not normal at all.

---

Can't deny that with me around.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
There's display and there's display. I have no preoblem with, say, a judge who displays the ten commandments in his office, no matter how prominently. I have a big problem with a judge who wants the ten commandments on a pedestal on the courthouse lawn.

One is a display of personal belief, the other tantamount to endorsement.
 

---

Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
 
Well said Chris, it is a matter of proportion at times.

Let's take religion and sexual persuasion out of the discussion for the moment.

Let's say I am a really big fan of Cheet-ohs snacks. In my office, I should have the right to a Chester Cheetah poster and maybe a couple of pieces of Cheetoh memorabilia. That's fine, it's personal and on my own "turf".

But that doesn't give me the right to put up Cheetoh advertising posters in the hallways, or festoon the front of the building with "Eat More Cheetohs" banners.

And that's where a lot of this argument comes from. Some folks are simply stepping over the bounds established for living and working together in shared spaces. In government buildings, the workers share that space with all of the citizens as well.

If a court stenographer wants to keep a cross on her desk, or a driving instructor needs to wear a yarmulke (sp?), or a Departmental Secretary feels the need to keep a small statue of Vishnu on her desk, no problem.

But when they step outside of their own private part of a public space, they are intruding on everyone else, no matter how important or trivial their particular cause or inclination is.

When did it become okay for our own personal agendas to be more important than being civil?
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
And I think that's where the distinction should lie, Chris. I think people as individuals should not be expected to represent an entire nation, unless they're painted allegorical figures

I have great respect for the laïcité (don't know the best English equivalent - secularism?) inherent in the French government, but I object to their extension of it to individuals. Government employees, and now students in public schools, are not allowed to wear overt expressions of religion. This is turning an individual into a representative of a whole simply because he is employed by the whole. This is not right, in my opinion.

Government employees are individuals just as any other citizen in the country is and should be allowed to display their own beliefs, in accordance with regulations for safety and regard for public decency. If someone can have a rainbow flag in a government office, that is an expression of personal belief and should be equated with the display of a personal religious symbol.

A courtroom is not a judge's office - it is a public space. If we're not going to allow displays of a religious nature in a public space (which is only fair), we can't allow displays of any other personal belief that has the potential to offend. You can say that a gay pride flag is a symbol of inclusion, but put a Christian housewife in that room and see how included she feels.

[ September 24, 2004, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Annie ]
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 

quote:

---

Yes, I can understand why they would have trouble, but having the cross or not having it is not going to change the fact that the judge is a Christian, nor is it an indicator of how he's going to try the case. The defendee might "feel" bad but it's only because the judge has laid his cards on the table. The only real complaint the defendee should have is if the judge is unfair because of his beliefs. Just because you're a Christian doesn't mean you can't follow the law when it comes to judging in a courtroom.

---

quote:

---

Are you just going to throw him out because he believes in God?

---

No, I'd throw him out because he doesn't respect the office he holds enough to avoid public displays of personal belief.

[ September 24, 2004, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I'll go back and re-read this thread, but permit me to point out as an agnostic:

I identify Christians as the predominant religious group in America and the one most likely to confront me in some fashion or form.

If the Christians suddenly became less populous for some reason, I suspect any other religion would become pro-active in trying to convert me. Unless of course the Quakers became supreme.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
Long live the Amish!

Amish rule YAY!

Sorry, couldn't resist.
 

---

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 
I hate to tell you this, but both the Amish and the Quakers are Christians (nominally, at least; I'm afraid I can't speak for them individually, as I don't know any.)
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
Ok, but Amish still rule in barn raising. Sure the quakers beat them in the oatmeal department...
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I loved Taalcon's post.

None of us has the right to not be offended. If you don't like my Christian bumper sticker, get over it. I probaby don't like what's on the back of your car, but it's not my car, it's yours.
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
The Constitution allows people who hold "offices of public trust" to offer an oath (religious), or affirmation (secular) before taking that office. The Presidency is the most obvious of these offices.

Every president to date has added the words "so help me God" while taking their oath of office, despite the fact that the constitution does not include these words. That the Presidents have all chosen to make their religious belief known to the public isn't the same as using their government authority to endorse or establish religion. It's just a personal statement.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise" (of religion).

That includes wearing your religious belief on your sleeve, as it were. The Supreme court has upheld the right of a judge to display a religious emblem or quotation in his/her workspace, or on jewelry, etc.

There are two reasons I can see for declaring one's religious belief. One is merely honesty. I feel uncomfortable when someone isn't forthright about their religious beliefs. Like when someone refuses to identify their brand of christianity, as if there is only one type, and theirs is the right one. My experience says that this is the type of person who will insist that Catholics aren't Christians.

Also, when dealing with a judge, could you imagine an anti-semitic judge who hides his religious belief so that no one will question his motives in passing judgment on Jews?

So identifying your religion might simply let others know who you're dealing with.

The other reason to publicly declare your belief is sort of evangelism. You are "spreading the word" by wearing an emblem. I think these days this is the assumption people have when someone talks about a judge who displays religious items, like judge Moore. These are the guys that mess it up for everyone else.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Worst. Dobie. Ever.

j/k
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 

quote:

---

Like when someone refuses to identify their brand of christianity, as if there is only one type, and theirs is the right one.

---

quote:

---

When one, possibly underage person responded, he replied that he'd appreciate proof-of-age or parental permission because, as a teacher, he cannot be seen meeting up publicly with underage people he met online.

---

quote:

---

I submit that Hatrack is a pretty bizarre place, and not normal at all. I still say that if an evangelical protestant denomination got control of everything, things would be better off for the atheists and agnostics than for the "devil-worshipping" (a term I have heard used) Mormons.

---

I definitely disagree. Maybe the Mormons would be next on the chopping block, but the "athiests" would definitely be the first target of a fundamentalist Christian theocracy. The right-wing news media has already done an excellent job of portraying Christians as the innocent victims of a God-hating liberal elite... and the anti-areligious voices are getting stronger every day. Even at Hatrack, which I submit to be far more open-minded and considerate than your average gathering of a few hundred people. It's certainly been a large part of my growing discomfort with the tone of the discourse here. I'm really uneasy about what conversations like the ones here sound like in "mainstream" America.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
Next time you're in a Christian bookstore, try and compare the books designed to outreach the 'unchurched', and then skim the ones claiming things like "Mormonism UNMASKED!" "What Mormons REALLY believe!" "The Kingdom of the CULTS!", etc. It'll be in the same section with books telling you how evil Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Islamics are.

In many people's mindsets, athiests and agnostics are just 'confused', whereas those of "seeming-Christian" faiths who teach doctrines that aren't in agreement of their own are "Dangerous DECIEVERS!"

Once the DECIEVERS are out of the picture, the 'confused' will be easier to 'help'.

Now, of course not all Christians are like this. Very few 'real' Christians are, and have any vehemence against Athiests OR those of other faiths. BUT... the 'crazy overzealous" type who would be bound to follow a TV Evangelist Prophet-type as you hypothesized would probably be the kind to follow this kind of example.

[ September 24, 2004, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
It's a sign of the times, Storm. Back in the day, pedophiles were almost unheard of.

Today, they show up in the news every other day, quite often as authority figures who deal with kids.

Unfortunately, the old adage about smoke and fire rings true for too many people, which forces new precautions when before such things weren't necessary or deemed to be required.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
I stand corrected.

I was having trouble with some of my earlier (Gay Pride/Christian) ideas and I think some of you hit them pretty well.

I like the idea of personal religious symbols representing the ideals of the people who work for our government, but I do not like the idea of large, institutional monuments to various religions being installed.

I still think that a Gay Pride symbol, saying "Gay people are people first" should not be an ideal that is anti-christian.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Depends on how you define Christian, I suppose.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
TMedina -- as far as I can think of, every major time period has had a pretty decent number of pedophiles (and that's just that we know of).
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
True, but how often were the crimes publicized?

There is a phenomenon of mass media - the more we see particular crimes reported, the perception is those crimes are on the rise.

Statistically speaking, crimes happen every day and we only see a tiny fraction of those stories in the media, but people don't understand that concept.

So with the influx of stories regarding pedophiles and the truly disturbing positions of authority they hold, people are more sensitive about even the appearance of impropriety because even if an accusation is found to be baseless and is ultimately dismissed, the person's reputation will be stained, complicating anything they try to do in the future.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
Going back to the original topic, I suspect that extremist Protestant Christianity is not organized enough to take over the country. They'd be too busy arguing about whether to burn gays, wiccans or abortion doctors first . If the religious right does not have the power to push the gay marriage ban through Congress with the support of the President, then how on earth will they take over? They don't seem particularly well-equipped for violent revolution.

I would however, be worried about extremist Christians resorting to terrorism. It's a lot easier than taking over the goverment. Doesn't require any positive public opinion, or a lot of people, or stockpiles of nuclear weaponry. I think it's better to focus less on those trying to use the government to push religion and more on people who perceive themselves as marginalized and persecuted. Although I will say that I am concerned about people trying to use the public schools to spread their belief system, whatever that may be.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I would however, be worried about extremist Christians resorting to terrorism."

Don't let Dag hear you.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
My personal overreation-phobia is The Handmaid's Tale. (Of note is that this plot rests on a specific and marked acute decline in fertility as well as an increasingly militaristic and religiously fundamental State.)

I understand that this is paranoid fantasy. The concerns don't come for me in a suspicion that the exact same thing will happen; rather, it manifests itself as a pretty certain suspicion that were we to continue in the current vein, we would eventually require a military draft, and that would mean going through US Customs "just to protect the safety of Americans" before Canada Customs.

I think the border will be getting tighter soon - for leaving the country as well as (more understandably) for entering it. Overreaction? Yes. But I would have pooh-pooh'd The Patriot Act as a possibility myself, before it passed.

[ September 25, 2004, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 

quote:

---

In many people's mindsets, athiests and agnostics are just 'confused', whereas those of "seeming-Christian" faiths who teach doctrines that aren't in agreement of their own are "Dangerous DECIEVERS!"

---

quote:

---

Going back to the original topic, I suspect that extremist Protestant Christianity is not organized enough to take over the country.

---

quote:

---

But I completely agree that Christians in America have completely lost any sense of "oneness" that they may have had

---

quote:

---

"I would however, be worried about extremist Christians resorting to terrorism."

Don't let Dag hear you.

---