Personally, I don't think it's right. However, I do support the Supreme COurt decision to allow them when they don't attract attention to themselves or have historical value.

I am also considering placing articles of other religions around Ten Commandments staues, i.e. passages from the Torah, Qur'an, Diamond Sutra, Wiccan Rede, Bhagavad Gita. Unobtrusively, of course. Thoughts?

Can't really see a problem with having things of other religions. Problem is is that you'd have the hypocritical sect of Christians bitching about it. Not saying it's right. Just the truth.

I don't really think that the Ten Commandments are so much a problem. They do have the historical value and are actually aren't too bad to live life by. Even if you don't be lieve in God and what have you, the bits about not murdering and generally not being a twat are pretty good.

All and all, I don't really have feelings on it. I'd actually rather see the sermon on the mount if I were to choose a biblical something to have a monument of.

I think that if the religious artifacts have cultural or historical significance, or if you're Vatican City, then I'm all for the displaying of religious artifacts.

If, on the other hand, this is not Vatican City and the government is displaying it for religious or moral purposes, then I have a big problem with it. Yes, the Ten Commandments say don't murder or covet or steal, but they also say 'have no god, but me' and 'don't make any graven images to worship' There's a reason that the seperation of church and state took place,(in many countries) and why it should still be enforced. When you start mixing up someone's religion, which they will more often than not, not question, with democratic governance, which as a matter of course you must continually question and hold accountable, then you get a government that runs rough shod over its people, who will be much much less likely to question and be critical of if it were simply a secular government.

(sorry, that was a run on sentence...)

If it's the Vatican, or Mecca, or a public museum, or an art show, then I'm all for a public display of a single religion. If it's something like a single manger scene on the Capitol lawn during Christmas/Yule/Hanukkah/Kwanzaa time, then I'm against it.

Simply put, if it's a public endorsement of a single religion, I'm against it. If it's a public learning experience about a single religion, or the physical embodiment of the center of that religion, then I'm all for it.

To me there's a big difference. You can't learn much about Christianity from a single manger scene (or about Hanukkah from a single menorah, or about Wicca from a single pentacle), but you can learn a lot about Christianity and it's art from walking in Vatican City, or through a display of early Christian art.

It is currently 3:57 in the morning, so if this makes no sense, I do apologize.

Okay, so I'm an atheist, first off, but I have absolutely no problem with others displaying their religion. More power to you, and rock on my spiritual brother. But public places? I dunno if I want to go to my court house and see the Ten Commandments... or the Five Pillars for that matter (though, in all likelyhood, it would be the Ten Commandments). I don't want the governemnt who represents ME to appear so affiliated with one religion or another, especially when I don't believe in that religion, and especially when MY government actually has this little rule about separation of church and state.

Court Houses, government buildings, hell, the Olympics... I don't want anything concerning the representation of my government and country and what it believes in and the religion of its people, to use religious propaganda as its median. Unfortunately, we are a people run by Republicans, and they like that sort of thing. Does that make any sense? I'm sorry, it's so very early.

Museums? Are they owned by the government? I dunno, public, I don't know if that means gov't affiliated. But inmy opinion, any privately owned business or what have you, can sport whatever colors they want. I was in some yuppy store not too long ago, and saw a teenie-bopping shirt with a superbly ugly monkey drinkin a glass of milk. Under the monkey it said, "got jesus?" which I thought was kind of odd, you know, not capping the messiah's name. Its their reputation, but hey, they're paying for it. It's what they want to do. The problem with all the gov't hooha is that it's representing ME and millions of other spiritually different people out there when a huge display of Jesus is put outside the capital building. Not cool.

The Vatican or Mecca? Holy cities and sites? Sure, why not. That's a poor excuse, but it's early, and it just seems right. The people who live there are sure to be okay with the popular religion, or they wouldn't, uh, be there. It's all about representation.

But all in all, I consider myself a pretty laid back person, and when that crusified Jesus does pop up in a painting or whatever behind the President's head at the Oval Office, it's not going to ruffle my feathers much. I'm used to being over looked and misrepresented in this country.

Okay, all that was random paragraphs trying very hard, though I have a feeling not very well, to express my views on this subject.

You expressed yourself very well, ARC.

Well, to make this thread even more boring, I pretty much agree with everyone else. If it's the government, I don't want to see religion be a part of it. I guess I don't care if the president wants a Christmas tree on the White House lawn... but anything else, no. If it's someone's house, or a museum, or whatever, it's fine. The government shouldn't choose one religion to endorse. So say the President is Christian, okay, that's fine. But no ten commandments in the courthouse. I'm just echoing what everyone else said. >< By the way, it scares me that the commandments vote passed 5-4.

Oh no, we can't have him favouring European pagan traditions

It's only pagan until some other religion hits it over the head with a big stick and steals it for itself... Then its tradition!

I don't actually mind all that much. These are countries that were founded on a religious basis and it is that religion that gave many of them legitimacy (think inheritance laws in Medieval Europe, or the ludicrously religious founding fathers).

Religion is an integral part of their identity. In many ways it has helped define what it means to be a national of that country, and the freedoms you are therefor allowed.

I'm not a big fan of the 10 Commandments (etc) being slapped all over public buildings as I am not a Christian, but I won't deny the place such a religion has had in making the country a country in the first place. As a result it has it's role, even if it's just a symbol or icon of times gone by.

I think it only really becomes an issue when you are forced to aknowledge the 'truths' of these in your daily life, and submit to their superiority in matters. For example having to swear on a Bible in court (though you have options now).

If you were to ban such things then you may have to ban heraldry too, that derives it's power from religion and is commonly used all over public works and documents. I can't really see the point in attacking it.

I wasn't aware that was done in England at all . Nice to hear it's no longer compulsory. In my eyes, swearing to tell the truth on something you do not acknowledge the existence of is essentially promising not to tell the truth.

I've never been in court (thankfully) but I gathered that is what happens. You must state what you would be willing to swear on as it is realised that swearing on a Bible when not Christian is... well pretty pointless. I wonder what atheists can use... maybe a copy of their birth certificate?

Of course because there is no benchmark way of swearing, the person can simply lie about what they will swear on so the oath doesn't mean anything to them anyway. Theres no way of telling if that oath is binding.

Of course I don't for a minute think that promising not to lie has ever held much weight...

Not to derail the topic, of course.

In the old days you always used to have the choice between swearing on the Bible or swearing on an axe. I don't know if you still can though.



Not at all.

[/off-topic spammity spammity spam spam]

I voted yes. I know thats a shock.

I guess I honestly don't get the power some people attribute to these displays. I mean, religious symbols are special to get to people and its good to be at least be respectful for that reason. I don't go spitting on Atheist text or whatever the equivalent is. But really.. its just a symbol. Something that a group of people believe in or doesn't, there's no power in that by itself. Even the Bible doesn't want you to think there is power in 'graven objects'. I don't see the Ten Commanment display as so powerful that it somehow twists people toward religion or legitimizes it on a dangerous scale. I don't find Buddhist symbols threatening, nor pictures of famous Atheists or whatever symbol of people's political, social or moral beliefs threatening unless its bigoted or insulting. If someone had a mexican flag at work for their heritage, that doesn't threaten my being an American.. and I guess I see it as all part of the same thing. Things that are sacred to you and represent things that matter to you. That it doesn't represent some, I just see as life, I guess. Perhaps 3/4 of the Government doesn't represent my views now, even if some of them follow my religion. It doesn't seem like some display is going to affect that or how I feel about it. If people present a piece of them or their history, I don't see it as having to take away mine, even if my views differ. My beliefs should be stronger and more whole than that. I hope this makes sense. Its hard to put into words properly. >.> I just try to extend tolerance to most things and people I guess, whether its religion or a symbol of general beliefs.

The debate over holiday symbols just seem absurd. Why does someone celebrating a holiday or trying to get into the spirit of it take away from you? How did it become a personal and degrading insult instead of just a celebration? I can see people putting up a pagan display or something if they feel underrepresented, but to take it as something people are doing that harms them and their beliefs doesn't make sense to me. Especially when a fair share of the population considers these things part of the holiday to them and celebrate it simply for that reason, not as a personal crusade. Just the spirit in which its intended, I guess. It feels like making something that could be beautiful into a bit of a fight over an insult that was hopefully never intended. Maybe some people do make a war of it other places, but its not something I've seen in Oregon. And I'll shush now. >.>

Here here.

Articals of faith like this should be maintained in the same way you would not sanction the government clamping down on the freedom of expression. If you believe that other religions should be celebrated too, then get them up there. Make them represented too.

I don't see this as the seperation of church and state, but more secular people (and I consider myself outright agnostic) jostling for points.

If you are an atheist, then such symbols and reflections are no more than random scrawlings on a wall. But for those who it means something, why should you take this corner-stone away from them?

As long as you are not forced to embrace these as part of your own identity, allow others to have it in their world.

At least that's how I see it. I don't feel pressured, offended, or anything by living in the middle of 4 churches and having scripture written on my town hall.

After what has been said, what are your (collective) views about the lack of religion in French state schools? No headscarves, no crosses, no kippers (sp? No offence meant), no turbans, no R.S (religious studies).
Is this making it easier for the kids to get along as there are no religious things to get in the way? Or is it just enforcing ignorance of other cultures in todays youth?

I suppose that depends entirely on how those living in France would identify themselves. I suspect the vast majority have no issue with the lack of religious icons around. Maybe because of the wars of religion, the revolution, and the republics? There's quite a history of having the wrong flavour religion of the moment resulting in getting your head lopped off over there.

I think it is a shame as it pushes a rich cultural past aside, and ultimately it may be unneccessary. If this built up it could explode through resentment and ignorance. However it can be freely expressed in private life, or anything not connected with government. So people get to interact with it at their own pace.

Hmm.... so I suppose France uses this void of no religious artifacts as a blank slate. On this blank slate the people themselves can come together and create their own version of an identity, devoid of the historical influences of the past.

It's an interesting situation. The US has always been very religious, Europe has turned in the opposite direction. All I can imagine is that the best version would depend on the circumstance.

Well that was a lot of waffle without actually saying much!

The thing is, Cal, that Muslim and Sikh students in France have been expelled for continuing to wear items of religious significance into schools. For some religions, the adherent are commanded to wear certain things, and France no longer allows that in some places. I also seem to remember Catholic students not givin up their crucifixes and being expelled...

Well, the French take things too far. Like when they bombed London a week ago. Bastards.

Indeed! I say we sink their matchstick armadas and show them what for!

And thats the probbie. Most have decided to go along with it, but not everyone will be happy. Or tolerate it. Some don't even see the reason for it, and other still think they are being targetted specifically (oddly).

I guess the only alternative (if people still want the division) would be seperate schools. Of course that isn't exactly the way to bring about cultural understanding.

I don't see there as being any happy medium.
You could say that incoming migrants must automaticly accept this, otherwise they wouldn't stay. But that rides roughshod over those where were here before the law came about.

Personally, I wouldn't have inacted this law in the first place. It makes things far too messy and as I said, infringes expression. Could it ever work in a nation with such differing cultures and religions anyway?

Hmm... could the Soviet Union be an example were it was pulled off more or less successfully? I don't know much about their strict atheist policies.

Christianity was illegal in Soviet-controlled countries - I remember reading about missions to smuggle Bibles into them.

Yeah, along with other faiths. Orthodoxy sprang back afterwards, but during the Union was there religious unrest?

I don't mean the type where tanks would show up on your front door, but did people 'put up with' (if thats the correct term when a Gulag was just an order away) and understand the reason behind it?

Because I can't really think of anywhere in the modern or western world where it was managed. Maybe far out east?

With a democratic, free market, open boarders world such an attempt seems to me like King Knut trying to hold back the tide. Futile, delusioned, and perhaps a tad arrogant.

As far as I'm concerned, there are only 2 fair outcomes for this:

You either allow no religious displays in any public buildings, or you allow all religious displays in public buildings. Which means I'd expect to see the Satanist displays between the Christian and the Buddhist ones.

In the case where the judge wanted the 10 commandments in his courthouse, I'd like to have seen local Satanists try and put a display in the courthouse, and see how much of a froth that caused. I imagine that they could have argued that if the 10 commandments was there, they would be constitutionally allowed to place their own religious display there.

At the end of the day, you can't have it both ways - in a country where freedom of religion is enshrined, public servants ought to give equal weight to each religion.

Not necessarily.

Say there is a religion that requires frequent animal sacrifice? Or perhaps Bhaal worshippers running around wanting human sacrifice? Allowing such displays in a public building would be a slight tad excessive, I think

It's like the laws of free speech. You are free to say whatever you like, up to a point. Thats why we have lible laws, etc.

It's a question of where the line is drawn.

A case could be put forward that denies Satanist artifacts based on this. To my knowledge, Satanism (at least the modern version) is about glorifying and improving the self over all others. They can be manipulated and downtrodden if it benefits *you*. Such a standpoint clashes with that of public buildings and works, which are suppossed to be there for the benefit of ALL.

Fair point about the Satanist displays.

Let's say there is a religion that requires animal sacrifice. So what? I'm not that keen on praying meself, but I'm happy for other folk to have a bash at it. That's precisely the point here - if you let one religion into public, government buildings, you have to let all of them in. Even the bonkers ones. Because once one religion has a right to do something, ALL religions have that right. Until someone can scientifically, methodically and empiracally prove that one religion is 'better' than all the others, that's how it has to be.

Having a goat being sacrificed next to the 10 commandments might demonstrate to those who are hell-bent (no pun intended) on having religious stuff in public buildings the way that other religions feel about it.

True, but the place is more likely to be sieged by animal rights activists than religious nuts if such a thing were allowwed.

Perhaps even the cleaning unions, fed up with scrubbing down blood stains every fortnight.

Followers of Santeria sacrifice animals - usually chickens, I think. Bought through the usual channels (I confess to having no idea what the "usual channels" for buying livestock for slaughter are) and sacrificed in private rituals. There's a few of them in the US, where this practice is constitutionally protected. It's no more cruel to the animal than being slaughtered for food (doubtless its eventual fate otherwise) would be, and I'd wager it's probably less so.

Do you think a courthouse would mind much if we burnt a wicker man in front of it?
[/spam]
This discussion begs and interestnig question that's slightly unrelated, so I'll put it in pointies so as to not confuse followers of the other question.
<Although Holocaust artifacts have historical value, is it ethical to display them? I was thinking specifically of torture devices or gas chambers, but this could apply to other things>

If you live in a country where there is a secularisation between Church and State as I believe there is in part within the US and more fully within countries like France then I fail to see why there should be displays of religion on certain public buildings.

There is a place for religious symbols - in houses of worship (both those open to the public and private ones that aren't).

For government buildings I don't see why religion should be part of the furniture. Can someone suggest a few? I'm not saying that this is inherently a bad thing I just don't see the point.

In the US the constitution deals with (firstly) protection against any one dominant religion, and (secondly) the prevention of any imposition of religion on the people by the State. In this instance the idea of putting up other religious texts or symbols works with point one, and I think it should be done so as to reflect the religious makeup of the state.

I have a concern with the 10 commandments as there is always the whole:

You shall have no other Gods but me.
You will not worship any images.
You will not blaspheme.
You will keep holy the Sabbath day.

Which works well for Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but not much else.

So is this a problem? I suppose it might be...

Putting this up in (for example) a court room is dangerous as it sets a precedent for religious nutters who then use it to beat down other religions and aetheists, as well as promoting their own adgenda.

If someone asks me about religion, I would usualy say I would go with Bhuddist (sp?) teachings than any others as they are just basicaly telling you to be a good person and treat others in a good way regardless of their faith or background.
But there are other laws which say you shouldn't be allowed to dance or sing (correct me if I am wrong).

My point is, that if you take things to an extreme, they start to seem silly.

And no religious things in public places- does the White House come under this heading? Would the President not be allowed to show his faith, and if there was a non-christian President (very unlikely) would it be ok for them to show their faith?

That's an interesting question... It makes me wonder if the White House is primarily the President's residence or the seat of the Executive branch?

I can at see the arguments for no public buildings with religious symbolism, though I'd argue for christmas trees or whatever holiday bit is appropriate for that community. There's such a thing as becoming silly about it.



So the person that was elected with such beliefs known.. no longer has the right to follow his religion or personal beliefs because there's an audience? I'm not saying Bush doesn't abuse his, but that sounds highly messed up. A person may represent their state, but their still a person and generally elected with full knowledge of their beliefs. Its a bit silly to expect them to stop having them suddenly once they hit office.

Religious pariphanalia or displays have no place in secular buildings.

If I were Muslim and being tried in court I'd be scared and intimidated if it were smothered in Christian docterine.

Museums are different, they are there to show people all sorts of stuff, from all faiths ,if one has a Sikh display and another has a Hindu one then fine - the context is correct its there to 'show and tell'

Obviously the President will practise his/her faith, as is their right. But s/he couldn't cover the White House with religious paraphenalia, no, because it's a public building.

I have always felt it odd how a public building can also double as a private home.

For example, wouldn't it mean that the Royal Family (UK) were technicaly squatters? As far as I know, Buckingham Palace is a public home held in trust to the house of Windor.

Meh.

I thought that Buckingham Palace was the private property of the Queen, and that she graciously opens it for public viewing on occasion?

Taking that logic to its extremes, one wouldn't be able to hang up a cross in a council house.

Meh. There's a difference between a publicly owned building, and a publicly owned building that's open to the public.

You mean like Canterbury Cathedral?

In the UK - The Crown as represented by Her Majesty the Queen (as the regining Monarch) technically owns the whole of Britain - with the exception of Embassy land. In reality privately owned land belongs to the person who's registered as owning it. Public land is owned by the state (an dalthough the Monarch is the head of state the reality is that the land is owned by Parliament. Buck Palace and all other Crown lands are owned by the Crown / Monarch but conversely not the State.


Given that there is no secular separation between Church and State in the UK - Buckingham Palace, the Royal Courts of Justice, the Palace of Westminster and what few Council Estates remain can be covered in religious iconography without there being any problems. Here in the UK, the Monarch is also the Head of the Church of England.


Caterbury Cathedral isn't publically owned. It's owned by the Church of England. Publically owned buildings don't tend to include places of worship.
_________

I suppose my concern is not whether council flats in (for example) Paris have their tennants putting up Christmas trees and crosses in the privacy of their own homes... the problem would be if the state were to force people to do this - OR (perhaps more likely) if a religous state chose to put up a big crucifix in the main lobby next to the lifts of this council estate.

If Civil Servants have a copy of the Bible or the Torah or Khoran on their desks at work then that's fine, but these should only ever be about personal expressions of faith rather than public impositions of faith (either through obtrusive imagery / iconography - or specific religious texts). I would also be concerned if someone's religious beliefs prevented them from doing their government job - eg. I cannot process your benefits claim as you aren't a Methodist like me... or I am arresting you for not believing in the same God as me... or I am going to withold billions of dollars of aid to Africa to help combat HIV AIDS unless it goes to aid agencies that will NOT allow the use of condoms.

To use a tenuous analogy: Walking past someone wearing a crucifix or a yamulka isn't a problem. Walking past someone telling me I must follow their belief or I'm going to go to Hell is a problem, especially if I need to ask them for directions.

That reminds me of those pharmacists who refused to dispense birth control because they thought it was wrong... the Supreme court said that was okay, for some odd reason.

Well, while my mind's not made up on all the issues involved in that entirely.. would you expect a hindu to sell you beef? Except for the very smallest towns, there's more than one pharmacy and even then, there's the internet. In the vast, vast majority of the cases, one pharmacist isn't likely prevent the woman from getting it altogether.

The arguments for limiting it public buildings generally sound quite reasonable when posted here. I just wish Americans could get past the 'everything is a personal affront' bit. There's enough that have that mindset to make and sometimes write the news. >_O Or at the least, protest loudly.

What happens when all the pharmacies in town follow suit? What then?

Given the reports that I read - it seemed that many women asking these pharmascists for birth control then got a tirade of religious "opinion" with some having to flee feeling utterly abused. If a pharmacist is going to do that then they should put up a clearly visible notice. Personally, when it comes to healthcare I don't see why people should be denied something like birth control or related medication. Why should the emphasis be on them to go look somewhere else? Not everyone has access to the internet, and not all prescription medication (like a lot of birthcontrol drugs) are readily available on the net. Why should someone be forced to go searching for what could be miles to find a chemist that will supply drugs?

I don't have a problem with these pharmascists holding dear their religion - but why enforce it on others who clearly don't follow that faith?

You talk about a Hindu not selling beef - and in a Hindu butcher's that's fair enough (though most Hindu or Muslim butchers I know state quite clearly what is on offer and what isn't, and if you make the mistake of asking for beef or pork then they tend to politely explain why they don't stock it).

However, an analogy that's closer to our pharmacsits would be if a check-out clerk at a supermarket refused to process / sell a pack of beefburgers. The question is why not? They aren't going to eat them. Yes it is a religious afront to them that a cow has been slaughtered, but unless we are all prepared to accept legal differences between faiths and communities all that will result will be prejudice and sectarianism, often with the minority groups being the ones that suffer the most.

For me this is a floodgates style situation. If you allow even the mildest form of religious intollerance in then it's very difficult to exclude the worse examples - as the precedent has been set. Chemists are a peculiar and specific example of a much needed public service being sometimes owned and run by private individuals and not large multinationals or the state. Should people be denied access to something because of a religious view? Some religions don't accept blood transfusions - so what if a JW Paramedic refuses to save a car crash victim's life because blood transfusions are evil? What if the Victim is an aetheist and the blood donor a Catholic? Should someone be so inconvinienced because of a specific faith?

Should rape victims be denied access to birth control if brought to Catholic run hospitals by paramedics? This was being debated in a couple of US States not too long ago, I'd appreciate of anyone could update me as to what the outcome was. Personally I think that it is a sickening example of continuing the violence against the victim when she is most vunerable, and as a Catholic I am disgusted that my faith could be misused in such a horrific manner.

If religion is to be expressed it should only be in relation to those who hold that faith. Sure you can explain it to others, but it should never be forced on anyone - by the state or by private citizens or by churches.

Yes, but at the same time, can you force secularism? That is another sort of belief forcing, no?

It is very unlikely that every pharmacist will turn into a raging conservative or a passionate catholic. I'm not saying the precedent couldn't or won't be abused, but I will argue scale.



I agree that they shouldn't abuse their position to lecture. Thats just not appropriate for their job description and an issue for their manager, if they have one.



On the same token.. how is it appropriate to force others beliefs on them and demand that they act on them? The pharmacists whether they handled it appropriately or not, believe it is morally wrong and forbidden by their faith. Forcing them to do it, is forcing them to go against their faith. Just as I don't expect you to go against your moral beliefs, I think its wrong to force them as well. Far more wrong than a person have to be inconvenienced by going somewhere else to find the medication they prefer.

I won't say that a particular pharmacy is never the only option for a woman, but with the number of teens and older women that manage to get on birthcare, I have never heard, read about or seen TV programs that suggest these exceptions seriously impair the bulk of women to a degree that makes me believe that we can intrude on people's freedom to practice their religion.



If they do not prevent other clerks from doing taking care of it, I don't see the problem. They feel its inappropriate, did not wish to do so personally and did not, thats their prerogative. The business that clearly supports the practice of eating beef would be the one to decide whether or not they wish to keep said person with the extra effort they'd entail or just place another clerk on it.

There will always be prejudice and sectarianism, regardless of whether we try to force people to go against their faith. Humans manage to keep up the tradition in secular and religious circles. I don't think forcing someone to do something morally repugnant to them will change this more than teaching some degree of respect or tolerance, depending on which definition you're using.



Why is refusing to compromise your beliefs innately intolerance? I won't argue that the individual behavior in some of these situations was appriopriate (ie lecturing), but obeying your religion is not the same thing as intolerance. Tolerance should never mean we personally owe people 1) approval and 2) particpation, if we violently oppose something.



No, for several reasons. One, the person is not necessarily in a position to make that decision for themselves and/or go to another provider. It isn't appropriate to make that choice for another in a life or death situation, where an alternative cannot be procured. Secondly, the paramedic signs on and is trained to do blood transfusions, a subtle 'hint' of what is expected. He had the option of arrange a way around it or refusing to take the job altogether. I don't have a problem with bosses rather in your grocery store example or the paramedic's boss, expecting the employee to follow procedure or have already found a way to work around it. To be clear, I feel a boss has a right to set expectations and expect they will be followed. I believe the religious person has the right to refuse to participate, but not physically prevent someone else from doing it.



While a disturbing example, birth control does little good to the rape victim during the rape kit and treatment of wounds. Is it really expected to work as a day after pill, now? I don't believe the day after pills are legal, if they are, I've totally spaced it. I don't really get or agree with the Catholic view of birth control, but provided she is capable of getting it for herself the next day or elsewhere.. I think it would fall under the court decision for pharmacists.