the point is not the banning of religious symbols everywhere, france only bans it in public schools and hospitals, also, there will come a law that forbids muslims to refuce a doctor on basis of his sexe (wimen often dont want to be treated by a man and vice versa)
the point is to show that the gouvernment has no religion, and is neutral, it is not a total ban of all religious symbols everywhere, just localised. but every muslim will encounter this ban in his/her life, making them think about it, and if they still want to wear it in public it should be their choice, and not one forced upon them, or at least not explicitly, there R lots of ways to force a wimen into doing something, such as wearing uncomfy high heels etc. some ppls argue that the head scarf is different, yet I dont see it that way.
the point is to show that the gouvernment has no religion, and is neutral, it is not a total ban of all religious symbols everywhere, just localised. but every muslim will encounter this ban in his/her life, making them think about it, and if they still want to wear it in public it should be their choice, and not one forced upon them, or at least not explicitly, there R lots of ways to force a wimen into doing something, such as wearing uncomfy high heels etc. some ppls argue that the head scarf is different, yet I dont see it that way.
DT4K
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
Of course not.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
You may wear it in the Privacy of your home or Temple but not in Public. In public it is considered the Promotion of Religion and that is illegal in the U.S. and now the world.
As long as they don't wear anything to suggest they have had, will have, could have, or might have sex, then I don't care what they wear. Sheezh.... Why should we care?
Who are worse, the prudes, or the anti-prudes?
(I get the anti-prude side!)
-Robert
Who are worse, the prudes, or the anti-prudes?
(I get the anti-prude side!)-Robert
I'm not the one bringing these Lawsuits. If all Roadside Crosses have to be removed, the Ten Commandments Illegal in Public etc then any religious symbol in public is Illegal including Clothing. It's all or nothing, just look at Chirac.
Once again you amaze me Dave. No one is suggesting that religious symbols be removed from public view...just public property in certain instances.
DT4K
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
You are getting confused.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Not even Atheists are arguing that all religious symbols should be banned from public.
That would be a clear violation of the freedom of religion guaranteed in our bill of rights.
The roadside crosses are an issue because they were being put up by a government agency.
The ten commandments were an issue because they were being prominently displayed in a government building.
The argument is that by displaying a symbol of one particular religion, the government is violating our constitution by "establishment of religion".
It is not illegal for someone to display the ten commandments or a cross on the front of their house.
It is not illegal for someone to wear a yarmulke, a star of david, a headscarf, a cross, or any other religious symbol.
It is not illegal for a private business to display religious symbols at their place of business.
Actually where I live, an Atheist has brought down a cross on a Catholic church, on private land, because you can see it from the freeway. Apparantly it upset him whenever he drove on the freeway. Go figure.
Yes, more detail please. This could be the Legal precedent the Athiests were talking about for getting the Roadside crosses removed.
For the person that said Government Agency put up Roadside crosses is wrong as usual. It is normally family or friends that put the crosses up. I just lost my neighbor to a wreck and I will be putting up a Roadside Cross Memorial on the corner where she died.
Edit: I found a mention of the Hawaii cross removal in this article:
2-17-1999 ATHEISTS WIN SMALL VICTORY IN BATTLE TO REMOVE SAN FRANCISCO CROSS
Here is the Hawaii Cross removal:
10-20-1997 Kolekole Pass cross ordered dismantled
Therefore since Athiests are being successful in removal of religious symbols seen in public all clothing or anything that can be seen in public must be removed.
Unless the guy stole it (or was responsible for the theft of it), I'll call BS on this without proper documentation. Think about it for a moment Miguel, an athiest brought down a cross on a church?!
DT4K
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
In some states like Montana, the state puts up crosses marking the location of fatal accidents.
If the issue is with people like you putting up crosses, then it is an issue because it is being displayed on public (government owned) property.
In that case, though, I would argue that it is not a govt attempt to establish a religion as long as family members of victims also have the option to display other symbols as tributes to their loved ones.
Here's more on the "crusade" that the Hawaiin Athiest is on to remove anything remotely religious from public view:
Atheist says he acts in good faith
Mitchell Kahle added another scalp to his belt when restrictions on apparel and accessories depicting Satanism were yanked from Kaimuki High School's dress code last week.
The point, he insisted, was that if one religious symbol is banned from a public school dress code, they all must go.
Fact is, should he ever decide to finish college, he wouldn't mind switching fields and getting a degree in theology himself.
What's his goal?
"To be saved," he said.
And then, with a sly and unrepentant grin he added, "... from God's followers."
Atheist says he acts in good faith
Mitchell Kahle added another scalp to his belt when restrictions on apparel and accessories depicting Satanism were yanked from Kaimuki High School's dress code last week.
The point, he insisted, was that if one religious symbol is banned from a public school dress code, they all must go.
Fact is, should he ever decide to finish college, he wouldn't mind switching fields and getting a degree in theology himself.
What's his goal?
"To be saved," he said.
And then, with a sly and unrepentant grin he added, "... from God's followers."
DT4K
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
Dave,
did you even read the articles you linked to?
From the first one:
"the U.S. Supreme Court struck another blow to the Mt. Davidson cross, and similar Christian monuments in Hawaii, Oregon and elsewhere which had been constructed on public land."
From the second one:
"The Army has been under fire from the Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of State and Church, which filed a federal lawsuit Sept. 11 charging the 37-foot cross, built with taxpayers' dollars in 1962, was a "blatant and obvious violation" of the First Amendment."
Note the bold sections above and pay attention for a minute.
THEY WERE ON PUBLIC LAND AND BUILT AND MAINTAINED WITH PUBLIC MONEY.
symbols in public view DOES NOT EQUAL symbols on government owned property paid for with government money.
DT4K
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
ONCE AGAIN, DID YOU EVEN COMPREHEND WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN THAT ARTICLE?
The argument about religious symbols on clothing was IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL.
His claim was that it was an attempt at establishment of religion to allow some religious symbols and not others.
The rest of the symbols were things that were ON PUBLIC LAND, or being displayed in GOVERNMENT SPONSORED parades and festivals.
None of this stuff has anything to do with a privat person displaying their own religious symbols on their own person or property.
For the last time:
DISPLAYING RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS IS NOT ILLEGAL.
Wow, at least I admitted I was wrong as soon as I was shown evidence.
You are just plain nuts.
Originally posted by: Shanti
Dave,
did you even read the articles you linked to?
From the first one:
"the U.S. Supreme Court struck another blow to the Mt. Davidson cross, and similar Christian monuments in Hawaii, Oregon and elsewhere which had been constructed on public land."
From the second one:
"The Army has been under fire from the Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of State and Church, which filed a federal lawsuit Sept. 11 charging the 37-foot cross, built with taxpayers' dollars in 1962, was a "blatant and obvious violation" of the First Amendment."
Note the bold sections above and pay attention for a minute.
THEY WERE ON PUBLIC LAND AND BUILT AND MAINTAINED WITH PUBLIC MONEY.
symbols in public view DOES NOT EQUAL symbols on government owned property paid for with government money.
Do you ever read?
Mitchell Kahle added another scalp to his belt when restrictions on apparel and accessories depicting Satanism were yanked from Kaimuki High School's dress code last week.
View is view, whether you can see a religious symbol on, in or around public land or view.
Athiests are clearly winning. There are many Athiests Judges and they Rule!
DT4K
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Shanti
Dave,
did you even read the articles you linked to?
From the first one:
"the U.S. Supreme Court struck another blow to the Mt. Davidson cross, and similar Christian monuments in Hawaii, Oregon and elsewhere which had been constructed on public land."
From the second one:
"The Army has been under fire from the Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of State and Church, which filed a federal lawsuit Sept. 11 charging the 37-foot cross, built with taxpayers' dollars in 1962, was a "blatant and obvious violation" of the First Amendment."
Note the bold sections above and pay attention for a minute.
THEY WERE ON PUBLIC LAND AND BUILT AND MAINTAINED WITH PUBLIC MONEY.
symbols in public view DOES NOT EQUAL symbols on government owned property paid for with government money.
Do you ever read?
Mitchell Kahle added another scalp to his belt when restrictions on apparel and accessories depicting Satanism were yanked from Kaimuki High School's dress code last week.
View is view, whether you can see a religious symbol on, in or around public land or view.
Athiests are clearly winning. There are many Athiests Judges and they Rule!
It's a PUBLIC SCHOOL run by the government and paid for with tax money.
It is not the same as a guy walking down the street.
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Shanti
Dave,
did you even read the articles you linked to?
From the first one:
"the U.S. Supreme Court struck another blow to the Mt. Davidson cross, and similar Christian monuments in Hawaii, Oregon and elsewhere which had been constructed on public land."
From the second one:
"The Army has been under fire from the Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of State and Church, which filed a federal lawsuit Sept. 11 charging the 37-foot cross, built with taxpayers' dollars in 1962, was a "blatant and obvious violation" of the First Amendment."
Note the bold sections above and pay attention for a minute.
THEY WERE ON PUBLIC LAND AND BUILT AND MAINTAINED WITH PUBLIC MONEY.
symbols in public view DOES NOT EQUAL symbols on government owned property paid for with government money.
Do you ever read?
Mitchell Kahle added another scalp to his belt when restrictions on apparel and accessories depicting Satanism were yanked from Kaimuki High School's dress code last week.
View is view, whether you can see a religious symbol on, in or around public land or view.
Athiests are clearly winning. There are many Athiests Judges and they Rule!
It's a PUBLIC SCHOOL run by the government and paid for with tax money.
It is not the same as a guy walking down the street.
Oh, the street is not public?
and not in public view?You heard the Athiest, he is offended whenever he sees anything religious. Skull Caps, Crosses around peoples necks , everything must be removed from public view.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter