Dune

-Do some research on "In God We Trust" and "under God". They are not deistic. The driving force behind them was to promote christianity-

So? The point is why does it bother athiests? If you dont believe in God it has no meaning. Its not offensive in and of itself- why give power or meaning to it. Besides, by this point those sayings are part of our past national history- a symbol of where we have been not where we are. To change them now is simply spite at something we dont like. Its not going to change anything at all- exept perhaps to make people bitter at eachother.

Brighid-
The question isnt how non inclusive Christianity is- because ALL beliefs are non inclusive basically. Wiccans dislike xtians, xtians dislike everyone except themselves... athiests dont tolerate christians... that is well established. Promoting a non inclusive enviroment isn't the way to go either. Saying "you would get upset because of a non christian display so we wont allow yours" isnt very logical. What is some christian groups would allow it? In a town I lived in we had open displays of alternative religeons and although some townfolk didnt like it- too bad for them. They exist.
The real question is why are athiests so offended by religeous displays that lawsuits are filed? Arent we then being just as exclusionary and intoleratnt of opposing ideas as those we complain about?

keitht

Because you're spending my money on it! If its government sponsored, then some of my taxes are paying for it. You can have all of the religous symbols that you want, just don't ask me to pay for them or support them. If you want to pray, fine. Just don't expect me to have to waste my time standing around while you do it.

Keith

Toto

A lot of that "history" is in fact false. Self-styled right wing Christians (or right wingers who want to use Christianity) want to contend that this nation was founded as a Christian nation, ignoring the freethinkers, Deists, and dissenters who were instrumental in the foundation.

"Under God" was not added to the pledge to acknowledge history, but to provide a daily loyalty oath that would marginalize nonbelievers.

I may not believe in God, but I do believe in honesty.

BioBeing

There is nothing wrong with "In God we Trust" on our money

There is nothing wrong with "In God we Trust" signs in the Post Offices

There is nothing wrong with "In God we Trust" and religous displays of the 10 commandments in the criminal courts

There is nothing wrong with "In God we Trust" signs in schools

There is nothing wrong with mandated public prayer in schools

There is nothing wrong with teaching creationism in schools

America, after all, is a Christian country.





Ooops - looks like I went too far there!

dangin

Another important fact from the founding of this country is that the minority christian faiths (like babtists) were all for separation to keep the anglicans from enforcing their style of worship, and keep out the babtists, or making babtist's taxes pay to support anglicans. The christians themselves were using separation to protect them from other christians.

brighid

Dune,

I do know the history of what you speak and I have found no credible evidence (even when I was a practicing theist) that the Founders desired anything but a very generic/deist bent on that. It is actually quite clear (read Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Madison, et al) that they were quite against Christianity being the law of the land. As others have said "under God" is an interpolation that the original writer (a socialist, Baptist minister) specifically left out and it was added during the disreputable era of McCarthyism in order to test the patriotism of American citizens (not unlike what is going on right now.)

I do not have much problem with inclusive religious monuments, symbols etc., but history thus far dictates that there are few communities in the U.S. that are capable of handling such ecumenical dialogue, etc.

I wish NO governmental endorsement of religion period because that seems to be the best option to protect everyone from what we see happening in the US (and across the world) today. I think it is unconscionable when the group with the wealthiest lobbying groups force their desires on all people. Religious practice and worship should not be impeded by the government and people should be able to worship as they please (as long as it harms none), but it should remain a private matter.

As to Wiccans, being very familiar with that movement, I would say that although most dislike Christians it is not for the same reasons why Christians fear and hate Pagans. Christians fear and hate pagans by and large because their Book dictates such and also due to their ignorance of paganism. Wiccans (generally speaking) fear Christians for VERY good reasons - experience. You don't see Pagan groups protesting at Christian gatherings for worship. You don't see Pagans leaving an invocation given by a Christian. You don't see Pagans telling their schoolmates that they will rot in Hades for worshipping the wrong God.... The fear is legitimate and most pagans (just as atheists) are VERY familiar with Christianity because most were indoctrinated into it.

Therefore I would no oppose complete inclusive religious items in the public square, but I am extremely doubtful anything of this sort will likely occur on a national scale in this country (especially given the uberChristian climate we presently have.)

Brighid

Dune

do know the history of what you speak and I have found no credible evidence (even when I was a practicing theist) that the Founders desired anything but a very generic/deist bent on that-

I dont think I implied they did otherwise....If you got that impression I apologize for that was not my intent.

So-
The gist I am getting from this question is:
Christian symbology is offensive because of the actions of some of those who are part of that religeon and that christianity seems to be the predominant religeon in the US and that also is offensive?

I definately get the impression that the issue is focused on christians- and to some degree I find the characterization of the whole religeon as intolerant and hateful to be a bit narrow.
So far as my experience tells me- almost every religeous group is is exclusive of the others- as for Wiccans not be hateful towards xtians- depends on where you are, I guess. They can be just as cruel and vindictive as anyone else- they dont say things like you will burn in hell but are just as demeaning to those who oppose them (again- this is going from my personal experience). Unfortunately- it always seems to be the worst candidates for each faith that characterize the whole.
And just for clarification- I am not a christian nor do I promote the idea of a christian or religeous state.
I just notice a vindictive spirit towards faith based symbology- remember the govnt cannot BAN religeous displays either, even on public ground since public mean just that -FOR EVERYONE-Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof-

dangin

um. I don't know about ban, but an individual in a public park displaying a religious thing while they are there is fine. A permanent display in a public area is not fine. I think that is very clear.

As to a bias against christianity here. Most of us are from christian majority countries. It is natural that it is the religion that we deal with most, and focus on most.

Personally, islam is more distressing to me than christianity, but I am confronted with christianity a lot more.

keitht

Religoun is part of human history. It might be nice to be able to display the bible or the ten commandments or a cross along with other religous symbols of our history, such as the koran, and buddha, and totem poles, etc., and maybe include other historical symbols, like the Constitution, the Magna Carta, and the Code of Hammarabi, but this just doesn't ever seem to happen. Our society has not evolved to a point where all religuous symbols have the same rank. You put up a religous symbol and the faithful of that sect often want to treat that location like a church (or mosque or whatever sectarian noun you prefer). So does putting up a religous symbol on public property mean government is supporting religoun? If you want to be all inclusive, who is going to inventory all of the possible symbols? Who is going to decide which symbols are "significant" enough to be displayed? Which symbol gets to be displayed in the center (or whatever the most favored position happens to be). If you include things like the Constitution, you could even say the athiests have their symbol (at least it might be good enough for me). But the devil's in the details and sombody is always going to feel slighted. The only fair solution for all religouns, no matter how large or small, is to display no religous symbols.

Of course some "secular" symbols like the Pledge of Allegiance are not immune from arguments either. So maybe no symbol is safe for display (which is also fine with me). I carry my symbols in my mind, which is the only place they have any real influence anyway.

Keith

Theli

Ok, this is bothering the hell out of me.
Dune, it's spelled Religion and Religious, not "religeon" or "religeous"!

Arhhh! You turned me into a spelling-cop, I'll put a curse on you!