Since this topic started in another thread, I thought it deserved it's own.

For me, this is a tricky subject.  I can understand both points of view.  But to me, it is mostly about tolerance.

Since it's inception, the United States has stood for religious tolerance.  The "Founding Fathers" included all kinds.  Athiest, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish.  They were all able to agree enough to set down principals to guide us into the future.

I have read an essay in the past written by one of them (I think it may have been Madison, but am not sure) which talked about the language used.  When they wrote "God", they meant God as viewed by all religions.  And nobody other then the most anti-semitic among us fails to recognize that Catholics, Protestants, and Jews (and even Muslims) follow the same God.

If you look at our founding documents, God is everywhere.  It is even on our money.  Even my military promotion orders all had the phrase "In the year of our Lord" on it.

If you look at our historical landmarks, you see that too.  Courthouses traditionally have had a replica of the Ten Commandments on or in it.  The idea is not as much to bring in God, as to show how ancient the concept of law and order, good and bad is.  The Ten Commandments are among the oldest of Law Codes still in use.

But now, Athisetic forces are trying to change that.  In a Boise park, a copy of the Ten Commandments has been removed, even though it had been there for almost 50 years.  The Seal of the County Of Los Angeles was made in 1957.  Among 6 representations on it is the one that symbolizes 2 things.

The center-left symbol is of the Hollywood Bowl.  Above it is 2 stars, and a cross.  The Stars symbolize the entertainment industry (1 for Movies, 1 for Television), the Bowl represents Culture, and the Cross represents the Spanish missions that founded the state.  It did not represent religion, but the culture that helped found the state.

http://lacounty.info/seal.htm

If you look around Washington DC, you will see many similar religious symbols on various Government Buildings and monuments.

The Lincoln Memorial is in the shape of a Greek Temple.  At various places inside are a representation of the "Angel Of Truth".  The copies of his speaches and letters inside are full of references to God.  Are these to be removed?

http://www.nps.gov/linc/home.htm

Above the Supreme Court Building is a mural that shows Moses and the Ten Commandments.  Also depicted is Solomon passing down law, as depicted in the Bible.  In addition, each of the 2 massive doors that open into the court itself each has a representation of one of the tablets handed to Moses.  And on the wall directly above the Justices you see once again, the Ten Commandments.  Are these all to be removed?

There is a difference between promoting religion, and recognizing the historical influence of religion.  To me, God can be either "upper case" (The Judeo-Christian God) or "lower case" (the god of your choosing, be it God, Allah, Jove, Thor, or "Fluffy, Lord God of Bunnykind").

Since this topic started in another thread, I thought it deserved it's own.

For me, this is a tricky subject.  I can understand both points of view.  But to me, it is mostly about tolerance.

Since it's inception, the United States has stood for religious tolerance.  The "Founding Fathers" included all kinds.  Athiest, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish.  They were all able to agree enough to set down principals to guide us into the future.

I have read an essay in the past written by one of them (I think it may have been Madison, but am not sure) which talked about the language used.  When they wrote "God", they meant God as viewed by all religions.  And nobody other then the most anti-semitic among us fails to recognize that Catholics, Protestants, and Jews (and even Muslims) follow the same God.

If you look at our founding documents, God is everywhere.  It is even on our money.  Even my military promotion orders all had the phrase "In the year of our Lord" on it.

If you look at our historical landmarks, you see that too.  Courthouses traditionally have had a replica of the Ten Commandments on or in it.  The idea is not as much to bring in God, as to show how ancient the concept of law and order, good and bad is.  The Ten Commandments are among the oldest of Law Codes still in use.

But now, Athisetic forces are trying to change that.  In a Boise park, a copy of the Ten Commandments has been removed, even though it had been there for almost 50 years.  The Seal of the County Of Los Angeles was made in 1957.  Among 6 representations on it is the one that symbolizes 2 things.

The center-left symbol is of the Hollywood Bowl.  Above it is 2 stars, and a cross.  The Stars symbolize the entertainment industry (1 for Movies, 1 for Television), the Bowl represents Culture, and the Cross represents the Spanish missions that founded the state.  It did not represent religion, but the culture that helped found the state.

http://lacounty.info/seal.htm

If you look around Washington DC, you will see many similar religious symbols on various Government Buildings and monuments.

The Lincoln Memorial is in the shape of a Greek Temple.  At various places inside are a representation of the "Angel Of Truth".  The copies of his speaches and letters inside are full of references to God.  Are these to be removed?

http://www.nps.gov/linc/home.htm

Above the Supreme Court Building is a mural that shows Moses and the Ten Commandments.  Also depicted is Solomon passing down law, as depicted in the Bible.  In addition, each of the 2 massive doors that open into the court itself each has a representation of one of the tablets handed to Moses.  And on the wall directly above the Justices you see once again, the Ten Commandments.  Are these all to be removed?

There is a difference between promoting religion, and recognizing the historical influence of religion.  To me, God can be either "upper case" (The Judeo-Christian God) or "lower case" (the god of your choosing, be it God, Allah, Jove, Thor, or "Fluffy, Lord God of Bunnykind").


You make an interesting distinction.  Clearly, many of us - most of us - have been influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition, and  I personally don't object to the symbolism surrounding the justice, fairness, compassion aspects being displayed in public, although I can see why athiests might.

I do object to your notion of "upper case" God and lower case "God (or Godess)".  If one believes in Fluffy as God, we should accord as much respect to that belief as we do to those who believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

I also object to the practice (in my town) of allowing the local churches to hold revival meetings on the village green, which is public space.  In fact, I wrote to the town council about it, and even volunteered my back yard as anm alternate site (I don't object to the activity, just the venue), and was told that it was a legal use of the space.  Maybe legal, but I still disagree.

I think there is a difference from having religious symbols in a historical monument, such as the Lincoln monument, and having them in a courthouse, public school, or tax office or whatever.

The difference is that a monument is there in a historical and somewhat sacred context. A courthouse is a working institution of law for all citizens and religious symbols have no place there. We have a secular state whether people want to admit that or not. Having a monument of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is unmistakably an example of the law showing preference to the Judeo-Christian beliefs. It is unfair for others who believe differently not to have a monument of their own, and since their are innumerable belief systems in this country, the only sensible thing to do is to keep public offices and arms of the government free of religious paraphernalia.

Our government already shows remarkable courtesy to the institution of religion by exempting religious organisations from paying taxes. That should be enough. Religious symbols and prayers and whatnot are private and personal matters. There is no persecution of any religion by our government, despite the cries of fundamentalists. By keeping all religions at bay from the public sector, we ensure that they are all treated equally.

And lastly, let's not act as though there is a huge outcry from any non-Christian religious leaders to keep God in government. The Jewish population are generally staunch separatists and so are the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Pagans. It's not just the Atheists as these religious lobbyists would have you believe. These minority religions know better because they know that the separation of church and state is the only thing that will keep the livelyhood of their faiths protected. So please, don't act as though you're championing all people off faith when you're complaining about these things, whoever and wherever you are.

On the first point, I somewhat agree.  IMO, there are "Gods" and "gods".  If I were writing about (to use the above example) "the god Fluffy", I would refer to it as "a god", not "a God".  Fluffy (or Allah, or Jehovah or whatever the god's name was) would, of course, be capitalized.  Sorry, it's just the "English Major" in me coming out ;)

On the second point, I have to disagree with you.  If it's a public space, then the "public" is free to do with it as they choose (within city regulations).  I don't know if they charge for the use or what, but if so, and the church pays, then they have no right to deny them access to it.  As long as no laws are being broken, I don't see the problem with it.  My point being that if you deny them the use for a "religious revival", then you have to deny use for ALL religous events, even marriages.


I have NEVER seen a wedding in the park. The only religous events I have seen had  been the Christian revivals or a live nativity at Christmas time. Carlos thinks that I should hold one of my Pagan rituals in the park. I understand his notion but I told him that I wouldn't do that because that would be using my religion for a political statement which to me, is...well...dare I say...sacriligious  :-\\




Cat

IMO, people make too much of an issue over things such as these. If it offends you, don't look at it. It's not like you are being "forced" to convert to a certain religion simply by looking at an object.


I agree with you 100% Cheer.  Symbols are just that, symbols.  I see lots of symbols from belief systems different from mine.  Using the Darwin fish as an example.  Personally that offends me, so I choose not to get one.  I don't think that because of my feelings he should have to take it down.  Freedom of expression is a right for all, not just those that agree.




I have NEVER seen a wedding in the park. The only religous events I have seen had been the Christian revivals or a live nativity at Christmas time. Carlos thinks that I should hold one of my Pagan rituals in the park. I understand his notion but I told him that I wouldn't do that because that would be using my religion for a political statement which to me, is...well...dare I say...sacriligious :-\\

Cat


well said, Cat.

Instead  of the ten commandments, why not display a copy of the law code of Hammurabi, translated into English and carved into a black stone monument similar to that of the original?   Its historical significance is much more in keeping with the spirit that those who support displaying the ten commandments allege is behind the displays. 


Well, there are many reasons why not.  For one, the sheer size of the code of Hammurabi!

Unlike the Ten Commandments, Hammurabi's code runs over 282 "legal rules".  They also run to a lot of things that people would find rather disturbing, especially those about slavery.  And a lot of other items are largely meaningless, like Law 275:  If any one hire a ferryboat, he shall pay three gerahs in money per day.

The Ten Commandments have tha advantage of being short, simple, conscise, and still relavant today.  "Thou Shall Not Kill", "Thou Shall Not Steal", "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.".  Those are just as important today as they were thousands of years ago.  How relavant today is Code 52 of Hammurabi:  If the cultivator do not plant corn or sesame in the field, the debtor's contract is not weakened.

Here is a translation of the Code Of Hammurabi:

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

I have NEVER seen a wedding in the park. The only religous events I have seen had  been the Christian revivals or a live nativity at Christmas time.

Cat


I have, in a very nice park near me, and it was upset by my dog who decided to run after something
and ran right between the bride and groom as I hid behind the trees hoping I wouldn't be seen.  It
was okay though, the whole wedding party laughed about it.  I have no objection to religious groups holding events in public parks, get a permit, get the time, but limited to maybe 2 hours or so, so as not to
disrupt public access.

Oh, I didn't realize that.  There are weddings in our local "pavillion park" (and at public spaces in neighboring towns) almost every weekend during the summer.  I assumed (yes, I know what happens when one assumes ;D ;)) that most places were the same.  I know that churches in my area have also used the pavillion park for stuff in the past.  I still think that as long as they aren't breaking any laws, and have the right permits, etc., they should be allowed to use the space.  As long as any other "religion" has the same opportunity to do so as well.



Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing weddings in the park. I just don't know why they aren't. In fact, when we were planning our wedding, the thought had crossed my mind about holding it there but then we picked a better spot-on the college campus where we met.  ;D



Cat

If having some sort of monument is a must, then why isn't the obvious choice the Constitution? It is the document whose precepts the courts are there to uphold and protect. What better monument. And there are a few commandments that are not relevent to modern law... like the adultery one or the one where "Thou shallt not covet thy neighbour's ass..."