It depends. I can see legitimate grievances if someone were to, say, put up a cross or a full on crucifix on public land. But targeting a nativity scene is ridiculous and petty for one big reason. A nativity scene is not solely religious. Its a major decoration associated with Christmas, nearly on par with the Christmas tree. It even falls short as a religious symbol, being inaccurate with scripture anyway.
A Nativity scene is a Christmas Symbol. Besides Christians, who else celebrates it? Yes, Christmas is very secularized and commercialized, but it's a secularized and commercialized RELIGIOUS holiday. So, while you may not think so, putting up a creche/nativity scene on public land is a religious symbol. Just as a cross is/would be as well.
Imagine the outcry if a Muslim had said something similar in the USA! But people argue Christians are somehow different than this. Better, or something. And if you're thinking like, "It's not a threat, it's a warning". The same argument could be made for Muslims.
Another bit from the news. and from the Politics thread as well...
Conservatives Worry Feminists Are Using Witchcraft To Destroy Trump
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2017/12/conservatives-worry-feminists-using-witchcraft-destroy-trump/?fbclid=IwAR2x8b64yEN1ILiFBAZaoBozkg2DKHmvqRQXN4a_4ZsZ94wGEUvjOtXPKIQ Cue my reaction: O.O Feeding the gullible Christians, conservative website Breitbart reports on “the rise of feminist witchcraft,” noting: Following President Trump’s inauguration, witches, covens, and even A-list celebrities started to hex the president with frequent “spells.” The article, written by Breitbart tech reporter Charlie Nash, claims that the terms “witch” and “feminist” have now become synonymous. Earlier this week Nash appeared on Breitbart’s daily radio program to defend his bizarre and silly conspiracy theory, breathlessly claiming that there are “groups of people who are actually trying to hex the president.” On the program Nash tried to explain his crackpot conspiracy theory, noting: You’ve got the basic things like the Etsy stores, the Witchsy stores, where they link feminist issues with witchcraft and Wicca and there’s other kind of occult symbols, but then you also have these groups of people who are actually trying to hex the president.
See, this is what I don't get about this one. God is supposed to be more powerful than any witchcraft. So, as long as Trump is a Christian, he shouldn't have to worry. (or as long as his supporters pray for him- same difference). So, what are they afraid of?
It depends. I can see legitimate grievances if someone were to, say, put up a cross or a full on crucifix on public land. But targeting a nativity scene is ridiculous and petty for one big reason. A nativity scene is not solely religious. Its a major decoration associated with Christmas, nearly on par with the Christmas tree. It even falls short as a religious symbol, being inaccurate with scripture anyway.
A Nativity scene is a Christmas Symbol. Besides Christians, who else celebrates it? Yes, Christmas is very secularized and commercialized, but it's a secularized and commercialized RELIGIOUS holiday. So, while you may not think so, putting up a creche/nativity scene on public land is a religious symbol. Just as a cross is/would be as well.
Every major holiday we celebrate if religious in some way. By this argument, we should remove all holiday symbols from public land as well. Since they all represent a religious holiday.
Not every holiday with a religious history has exclusively religious symbols. Easter is based on the birth of Christ, but the Easter Bunny has no relation to any religion.
It depends. I can see legitimate grievances if someone were to, say, put up a cross or a full on crucifix on public land. But targeting a nativity scene is ridiculous and petty for one big reason. A nativity scene is not solely religious. Its a major decoration associated with Christmas, nearly on par with the Christmas tree. It even falls short as a religious symbol, being inaccurate with scripture anyway.
A Nativity scene is a Christmas Symbol. Besides Christians, who else celebrates it? Yes, Christmas is very secularized and commercialized, but it's a secularized and commercialized RELIGIOUS holiday. So, while you may not think so, putting up a creche/nativity scene on public land is a religious symbol. Just as a cross is/would be as well.
Every major holiday we celebrate if religious in some way. By this argument, we should remove all holiday symbols from public land as well. Since they all represent a religious holiday.
We should also change the names of most of the days of the week. Wouldn't want to offend anybody by using the names of Norse Gods. Planets, their moons and the names of the months should be renamed too while we're at it. Why have a planet named after the Roman God of War? I find that offensive (not really).
It depends. I can see legitimate grievances if someone were to, say, put up a cross or a full on crucifix on public land. But targeting a nativity scene is ridiculous and petty for one big reason. A nativity scene is not solely religious. Its a major decoration associated with Christmas, nearly on par with the Christmas tree. It even falls short as a religious symbol, being inaccurate with scripture anyway.
A Nativity scene is a Christmas Symbol. Besides Christians, who else celebrates it? Yes, Christmas is very secularized and commercialized, but it's a secularized and commercialized RELIGIOUS holiday. So, while you may not think so, putting up a creche/nativity scene on public land is a religious symbol. Just as a cross is/would be as well.
Every major holiday we celebrate if religious in some way. By this argument, we should remove all holiday symbols from public land as well. Since they all represent a religious holiday.
President's Day? Thanksgiving? 4th of July? None of those are religious.
Not every holiday with a religious history has exclusively religious symbols. Easter is based on the birth of Christ, but the Easter Bunny has no relation to any religion.
It's actually a Pagan symbol. Bunnies are fertility symbols and signs of new life. Even the name "Easter" is based on that of a Pagan Goddess, Ostara, Eostre or Eostra. She was a Germanic goddess of Springtime: Ostara, or Eostre or Eastre, is the Germanic Goddess of spring and dawn. She is only mentioned once in scholarly writings of the period - Bede the monk states that during Eostremonath (the old Anglo-Saxon names for April), the pagan Anglo-Saxons help festivals in her honor.
It depends. I can see legitimate grievances if someone were to, say, put up a cross or a full on crucifix on public land. But targeting a nativity scene is ridiculous and petty for one big reason. A nativity scene is not solely religious. Its a major decoration associated with Christmas, nearly on par with the Christmas tree. It even falls short as a religious symbol, being inaccurate with scripture anyway.
A Nativity scene is a Christmas Symbol. Besides Christians, who else celebrates it? Yes, Christmas is very secularized and commercialized, but it's a secularized and commercialized RELIGIOUS holiday. So, while you may not think so, putting up a creche/nativity scene on public land is a religious symbol. Just as a cross is/would be as well.
Every major holiday we celebrate if religious in some way. By this argument, we should remove all holiday symbols from public land as well. Since they all represent a religious holiday.
We should also change the names of most of the days of the week. Wouldn't want to offend anybody by using the names of Norse Gods. Planets, their moons and the names of the months should be renamed too while we're at it. Why have a planet named after the Roman God of War? I find that offensive (not really).
Heck, some of the name of the stars are named in Arabisn And the names of the Constellations are from Greek Myths (Cygnis the Swan, Argo Navis (Argo, the Ship, whic was leter broken up into numerous smaller constellations) (except for some of those in the Southern Hemisphere, Like Fornax (The Furnace) and Antlia (the Pump).
Now that we've gotten this silly 'slippery slope' argument out of the way, shall we return to the original post, which was about how it's against the constitution to allow religious symbols on public lands?
Not every holiday with a religious history has exclusively religious symbols. Easter is based on the birth of Christ, but the Easter Bunny has no relation to any religion.
It's actually a Pagan symbol. Bunnies are fertility symbols and signs of new life. Even the name "Easter" is based on that of a Pagan Goddess, Ostara, Eostre or Eostra. She was a Germanic goddess of Springtime: Ostara, or Eostre or Eastre, is the Germanic Goddess of spring and dawn. She is only mentioned once in scholarly writings of the period - Bede the monk states that during Eostremonath (the old Anglo-Saxon names for April), the pagan Anglo-Saxons help festivals in her honor.
It depends. I can see legitimate grievances if someone were to, say, put up a cross or a full on crucifix on public land. But targeting a nativity scene is ridiculous and petty for one big reason. A nativity scene is not solely religious. Its a major decoration associated with Christmas, nearly on par with the Christmas tree. It even falls short as a religious symbol, being inaccurate with scripture anyway.
A Nativity scene is a Christmas Symbol. Besides Christians, who else celebrates it? Yes, Christmas is very secularized and commercialized, but it's a secularized and commercialized RELIGIOUS holiday. So, while you may not think so, putting up a creche/nativity scene on public land is a religious symbol. Just as a cross is/would be as well.
Every major holiday we celebrate if religious in some way. By this argument, we should remove all holiday symbols from public land as well. Since they all represent a religious holiday.
We should also change the names of most of the days of the week. Wouldn't want to offend anybody by using the names of Norse Gods. Planets, their moons and the names of the months should be renamed too while we're at it. Why have a planet named after the Roman God of War? I find that offensive (not really).
Heck, some of the name of the stars are named in Arabisn And the names of the Constellations are from Greek Myths (Cygnis the Swan, Argo Navis (argo, the Ship, whic was leter broken up into numerous smaller constellations) (except for some of those in the Southern Hemisphere, Like Fornax (The Furnace) and Antlia (the Pump).
Now that we've gotten this ridiculous 'slippery slope' argument out of the way, shall we return to the original post, which was about how it's against the constitution to allow religious symbols on public lands?
It's against the current interpretation of the constitution. There are no specifics about Nativity scenes...
In general, the Constitution is not specific about much of anything. It's one of the absolute shortest constitutions in the world, at less than 5,000 words (or less than 8,000 if you count all the amendments). For comparison, the average constitution, taking data from here, is 22,291 words. Constitutions in general are not specific; laws define the more specific parts of governance. The American tax code is about 4 million words.
The Constitution was intentionally kept vague so that it would remain flexible. If you were to take a rigidly technical, literal interpretation of the Constitution, we would be missing a LOT of rights. Technically, the right to privacy is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, nor is there any explicitly named prohibition against Congress banning a political party, restricting online speech, nationalizing industries, or spying on American citizens by recording them digitally. These rights come from interpretations of less-specific wording; not specific provisions in the actual text.
Hell, you could technically be simultaneously tried five times for the same crime because the Constitution only forbids being charged for the same crime "twice."
It comes under "Establishment of Religion". Putting up religious symbols of one faith or a limited number of faiths, gives governmental imprimatur to that faith or faiths. So you have to allow all or none, with no halfway measures. And it's usually easier to go with "none". Plus, it saves the money spent in the work of putting things up, which must be paid for. Candles, wreaths, greenery, are non-religious. Candles are symbols of light, the Winter Solstice is the time when the days begin to get longer again. Pines and greenery (like Holly) are the only thing that is usually living in the plent life during the winter. Wreaths can be made of any green stuff. None of that is religious.
And there is even a verse in the Bible, in Jeremiah, that can be taken to mean don't decorate tres with gold and silver. Some people equate that with Christmas Trees. Make of that what you will.
It comes under "Establishment of Religion". Putting up religious symbols of one faith or a limited number of faiths, gives governmental imprimatur to that faith or faiths. So you have to allow all or none, with no halfway measures. And it's usually easier to go with "none". Plus, it saves the money spent in the work of putting things up, which must be paid for. Candles, wreaths, greenery, are non-religious. Candles are symbols of light, the Winter Solstice is the time when the days begin to get longer again. Pines and greenery (like Holly) are the only thing that is usually living in the plent life during the winter. Wreaths can be made of any green stuff. None of that is religious.
And there is even a verse in the Bible, in Jeremiah, that can be taken to mean don't decorate tres with gold and silver. Some people equate that with Christmas Trees. Make of that what you will.
People may say whatever they want about their politics, but Ukrainians still have the best traditional Christmas Tree decoration of the world: spider webs! Cheap, light, won't burn down homes due to malfunctions and even gives our eight-legged friends a place to stay for the winter. Win-Win!
“Every parent knows young children do not have the ability to differentiate between what is real and not real,” explained the Minister of Child Safety Kari Kinnard. “It’s in the best interest of the child and the state that he or she is not in an environment where Bronze Age myths and prejudices are accepted as fact.”
Children of all ages are celebrating the move. Groups of students have spontaneously broken out in singing Steve Martin’s Atheists Don’t Have No Songs. The cheekier kids follow up Mr. Martin’s tune with the classic from Monty Python Every Sperm is Sacred.
The government of Finland recognizes that some events like marriages and funerals are commonly held in churches and may cause distress amongst parents who wish their children to attend. The new law states that parents may bring their young ones to such services as long as the children are read the official disclaimer by the officialized social worker before entering. Young child, you are living in a world where people seriously accept the claims that morality is based on a book where snakes talk, a donkey talks, and divine love is defined with the threat of eternal punishment. In short, don’t take this seriously.
For the very young, the social worker present will use puppets to explain how many adults have imaginary friends. Unsurprisingly the religious establishment in Finland is up in arms. They point to the long tradition of filling children’s heads with traditional prejudices and lies that supposedly hold the country’s social fabric together.
“If we keep going on this path, then we will become a godless hellhole like Sweden,” stated Bishop Hans Kotka.
The Finnish government refuses to rescind The Richard Dawkins Act. Anonymous sources in the government state that the Lutheran Evangelical Church will do just fine if they can convince those with critical thinking skills the merits of the Church’s ideas.
Experts predict the death of the Lutheran Evenaglical Church in Finland within decades.
Not every holiday with a religious history has exclusively religious symbols. Easter is based on the birth of Christ, but the Easter Bunny has no relation to any religion.
It's actually a Pagan symbol. Bunnies are fertility symbols and signs of new life. Even the name "Easter" is based on that of a Pagan Goddess, Ostara, Eostre or Eostra. She was a Germanic goddess of Springtime: Ostara, or Eostre or Eastre, is the Germanic Goddess of spring and dawn. She is only mentioned once in scholarly writings of the period - Bede the monk states that during Eostremonath (the old Anglo-Saxon names for April), the pagan Anglo-Saxons help festivals in her honor.
It depends. I can see legitimate grievances if someone were to, say, put up a cross or a full on crucifix on public land. But targeting a nativity scene is ridiculous and petty for one big reason. A nativity scene is not solely religious. Its a major decoration associated with Christmas, nearly on par with the Christmas tree. It even falls short as a religious symbol, being inaccurate with scripture anyway.
A Nativity scene is a Christmas Symbol. Besides Christians, who else celebrates it? Yes, Christmas is very secularized and commercialized, but it's a secularized and commercialized RELIGIOUS holiday. So, while you may not think so, putting up a creche/nativity scene on public land is a religious symbol. Just as a cross is/would be as well.
Every major holiday we celebrate if religious in some way. By this argument, we should remove all holiday symbols from public land as well. Since they all represent a religious holiday.
We should also change the names of most of the days of the week. Wouldn't want to offend anybody by using the names of Norse Gods. Planets, their moons and the names of the months should be renamed too while we're at it. Why have a planet named after the Roman God of War? I find that offensive (not really).
Heck, some of the name of the stars are named in Arabisn And the names of the Constellations are from Greek Myths (Cygnis the Swan, Argo Navis (Argo, the Ship, whic was leter broken up into numerous smaller constellations) (except for some of those in the Southern Hemisphere, Like Fornax (The Furnace) and Antlia (the Pump).
Now that we've gotten this silly 'slippery slope' argument out of the way, shall we return to the original post, which was about how it's against the constitution to allow religious symbols on public lands?
So, you don't really have a problem with religious symbols in general, just Christian ones?
@ThacoBell: For what it's worth, nobody in the U.S. really adheres to Greek mythology or ancient Germanic deities, so we'd be talking about symbols that have no religious meaning for anyone currently alive. Thor is a historical god, but nobody would treat Chris Hemsworth or the hammer from the Thor movies as a religious symbol.
If they were symbols from a living tradition, that would be different. You wouldn't be able to post a menorah, Star of David, Muslim moon and star, Arabic names for God, Buddha statue, or Hindu icons on public grounds anymore than a Christian symbol.
If you tolerated a Star of David but not a cross on public grounds, that would be an example of a double standard. Tolerating an Easter Bunny but not a nativity scene, however, is not an example of double standard, because barely anyone even knows the origins of the Easter bunny and the pagan religions associated with it no longer exist.
the pagan religions associated with it no longer exist.
Correction: the modern pagan religion associated with Ēostre is nowadays called Heathenry and still very much alive. At least over here in Europe, for what's worth. Even the Greek pagan believes got their comeback with Hellenism.
Not every holiday with a religious history has exclusively religious symbols. Easter is based on the birth of Christ, but the Easter Bunny has no relation to any religion.
It's actually a Pagan symbol. Bunnies are fertility symbols and signs of new life. Even the name "Easter" is based on that of a Pagan Goddess, Ostara, Eostre or Eostra. She was a Germanic goddess of Springtime: Ostara, or Eostre or Eastre, is the Germanic Goddess of spring and dawn. She is only mentioned once in scholarly writings of the period - Bede the monk states that during Eostremonath (the old Anglo-Saxon names for April), the pagan Anglo-Saxons help festivals in her honor.
It depends. I can see legitimate grievances if someone were to, say, put up a cross or a full on crucifix on public land. But targeting a nativity scene is ridiculous and petty for one big reason. A nativity scene is not solely religious. Its a major decoration associated with Christmas, nearly on par with the Christmas tree. It even falls short as a religious symbol, being inaccurate with scripture anyway.
A Nativity scene is a Christmas Symbol. Besides Christians, who else celebrates it? Yes, Christmas is very secularized and commercialized, but it's a secularized and commercialized RELIGIOUS holiday. So, while you may not think so, putting up a creche/nativity scene on public land is a religious symbol. Just as a cross is/would be as well.
Every major holiday we celebrate if religious in some way. By this argument, we should remove all holiday symbols from public land as well. Since they all represent a religious holiday.
We should also change the names of most of the days of the week. Wouldn't want to offend anybody by using the names of Norse Gods. Planets, their moons and the names of the months should be renamed too while we're at it. Why have a planet named after the Roman God of War? I find that offensive (not really).
Heck, some of the name of the stars are named in Arabisn And the names of the Constellations are from Greek Myths (Cygnis the Swan, Argo Navis (Argo, the Ship, whic was leter broken up into numerous smaller constellations) (except for some of those in the Southern Hemisphere, Like Fornax (The Furnace) and Antlia (the Pump).
Now that we've gotten this silly 'slippery slope' argument out of the way, shall we return to the original post, which was about how it's against the constitution to allow religious symbols on public lands?
So, you don't really have a problem with religious symbols in general, just Christian ones?
When did she say that? Come on, if someone wanted to erect a statue of Zeus on public grounds, people would object to that just as they would to a statue of Jesus.
FWIW, the question isn't "Could this be construed as religious", it's more "Is there a secular reason for this" [spending of public money, use of public space, etc.]. If there is not, it shouldn't be made or it should be removed if it slipped in somewhere.
Not every holiday with a religious history has exclusively religious symbols. Easter is based on the birth of Christ, but the Easter Bunny has no relation to any religion.
It's actually a Pagan symbol. Bunnies are fertility symbols and signs of new life. Even the name "Easter" is based on that of a Pagan Goddess, Ostara, Eostre or Eostra. She was a Germanic goddess of Springtime: Ostara, or Eostre or Eastre, is the Germanic Goddess of spring and dawn. She is only mentioned once in scholarly writings of the period - Bede the monk states that during Eostremonath (the old Anglo-Saxon names for April), the pagan Anglo-Saxons help festivals in her honor.
It depends. I can see legitimate grievances if someone were to, say, put up a cross or a full on crucifix on public land. But targeting a nativity scene is ridiculous and petty for one big reason. A nativity scene is not solely religious. Its a major decoration associated with Christmas, nearly on par with the Christmas tree. It even falls short as a religious symbol, being inaccurate with scripture anyway.
A Nativity scene is a Christmas Symbol. Besides Christians, who else celebrates it? Yes, Christmas is very secularized and commercialized, but it's a secularized and commercialized RELIGIOUS holiday. So, while you may not think so, putting up a creche/nativity scene on public land is a religious symbol. Just as a cross is/would be as well.
Every major holiday we celebrate if religious in some way. By this argument, we should remove all holiday symbols from public land as well. Since they all represent a religious holiday.
We should also change the names of most of the days of the week. Wouldn't want to offend anybody by using the names of Norse Gods. Planets, their moons and the names of the months should be renamed too while we're at it. Why have a planet named after the Roman God of War? I find that offensive (not really).
Heck, some of the name of the stars are named in Arabisn And the names of the Constellations are from Greek Myths (Cygnis the Swan, Argo Navis (Argo, the Ship, whic was leter broken up into numerous smaller constellations) (except for some of those in the Southern Hemisphere, Like Fornax (The Furnace) and Antlia (the Pump).
Now that we've gotten this silly 'slippery slope' argument out of the way, shall we return to the original post, which was about how it's against the constitution to allow religious symbols on public lands?
So, you don't really have a problem with religious symbols in general, just Christian ones?
Did I say I had a problem with it? I don't recall that. I was saying that giving some religions privilege in public displays is not allowed by the constitution. I'd have the same sort of argument (and do) against Menorahs, Islamic symbols, Zoroastrian, etc. If they are displayed on public land without allowing all religions to do the same. The thing is, the USA is like 90-something percent christian, so they are the symbols most often abused in this way, with Judaism (Menorah, usually) thrown in as an afterthought.
Were this country 90% Muslim (and with identical laws), I'd have a similar problem with their symbols. i.e. in this country, Christianity is the nail that sticks up.
@ThacoBell: For what it's worth, nobody in the U.S. really adheres to Greek mythology or ancient Germanic deities, so we'd be talking about symbols that have no religious meaning for anyone currently alive. Thor is a historical god, but nobody would treat Chris Hemsworth or the hammer from the Thor movies as a religious symbol.
If they were symbols from a living tradition, that would be different. You wouldn't be able to post a menorah, Star of David, Muslim moon and star, Arabic names for God, Buddha statue, or Hindu icons on public grounds anymore than a Christian symbol.
If you tolerated a Star of David but not a cross on public grounds, that would be an example of a double standard. Tolerating an Easter Bunny but not a nativity scene, however, is not an example of double standard, because barely anyone even knows the origins of the Easter bunny and the pagan religions associated with it no longer exist.
Actually, I recently refreshed myself on Norse mythology because I'm replaying an ancient DOS game (Ragnarok) lately, and found that neo-Germanic paganism is a thing. So, "no religious meaning for anyone currently alive" isn't really correct.
However, most of them are, obviously, in Germany or the Scandinavian countries, not 'Murrica. And we're talking at most a few hundred thousand worshippers globally.
Well all religion is at least partially mythology based sometimes with some distorted facts added in for making it more "real"'. Convincing a follower of any religion that their religion is not the absolute truth is another matter entirely.
Scientology on the other hand is just bad science fiction.
Well all religion is at least partially mythology based sometimes with some distorted facts added in for making it more "real"'. Convincing a follower of any religion that their religion is not the absolute truth is another matter entirely.
Scientology on the other hand is just bad science fiction.
It is no less valid than anything else offered out there, it's just that it's fantastical origin story is mocked and for whatever reason others (such as living in the belly of a whale and rising from the dead) are taken seriously. What is the difference between alien overlords and talking snakes?? I'd argue the book of Revelation is 10x more ridiculous than anything Scientology has to offer. Angels with trumpets, mythical riders breaking 7 seals, a mountain falling from the sky into the ocean, locusts (for old time's sake I guess), and a seven-headed dragon. Those are just a smattering of the highlights. I'm not sticking up for Scientology, but it's patently absurd to argue it is somehow uniquely crazy in it's mythology. The only way you can believe that is to just ignore massive sections of the Christian Bible. The only difference between them is the amount of time they have been around.
That their "origin myth" was actually a plot written for L. Ron Hubbard's some 700 pulp fiction magazines isn't so bad in of itself. Now, their business model of monetezation of Enlightenment on the other hand... let's just say that even the Roman Catholic church taxes vastly pale in comparison.
Well all religion is at least partially mythology based sometimes with some distorted facts added in for making it more "real"'. Convincing a follower of any religion that their religion is not the absolute truth is another matter entirely.
Scientology on the other hand is just bad science fiction.
It is no less valid than anything else offered out there, it's just that it's fantastical origin story is mocked and for whatever reason others (such as living in the belly of a whale and rising from the dead) are taken seriously. What is the difference between alien overlords and talking snakes?? I'd argue the book of Revelation is 10x more ridiculous than anything Scientology has to offer. Angels with trumpets, mythical riders breaking 7 seals, a mountain falling from the sky into the ocean, locusts (for old time's sake I guess), and a seven-headed dragon. Those are just a smattering of the highlights. I'm not sticking up for Scientology, but it's patently absurd to argue it is somehow uniquely crazy in it's mythology. The only way you can believe that is to just ignore massive sections of the Christian Bible. The only difference between them is the amount of time they have been around.
I kind of like the ol' killing a thousand Phillistines with the jawbone of an ass too. Kind of makes me want to play a barbarian grandmastering in bone clubs. Charname has nothing on Samson!
Well all religion is at least partially mythology based sometimes with some distorted facts added in for making it more "real"'. Convincing a follower of any religion that their religion is not the absolute truth is another matter entirely.
Scientology on the other hand is just bad science fiction.
It is no less valid than anything else offered out there, it's just that it's fantastical origin story is mocked and for whatever reason others (such as living in the belly of a whale and rising from the dead) are taken seriously. What is the difference between alien overlords and talking snakes?? I'd argue the book of Revelation is 10x more ridiculous than anything Scientology has to offer. Angels with trumpets, mythical riders breaking 7 seals, a mountain falling from the sky into the ocean, locusts (for old time's sake I guess), and a seven-headed dragon. Those are just a smattering of the highlights. I'm not sticking up for Scientology, but it's patently absurd to argue it is somehow uniquely crazy in it's mythology. The only way you can believe that is to just ignore massive sections of the Christian Bible. The only difference between them is the amount of time they have been around.
I kind of like the ol' killing a thousand Phillistines with the jawbone of an ass too. Kind of makes me want to play a barbarian grandmastering in bone clubs. Charname has nothing on Samson!
Speaking of Philistines, David and Goliath is actually one of the less fantastical stories. I can at least conceive of the possibility of a large warrior being felled by a rock to the temple. It's unlikely, but not downright impossible.
Comments
Wisconsin Lawmaker: Convert To Christianity Or Be ‘Destroyed’
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/12/wisconsin-lawmaker-convert-to-christianity-or-be-destroyed/?fbclid=IwAR15bdxcQMTKwX6WpIb1SDu1bis2BgJuTj6twnZEcqT1RfvI2ESKvUf0cZ8Imagine the outcry if a Muslim had said something similar in the USA! But people argue Christians are somehow different than this. Better, or something. And if you're thinking like, "It's not a threat, it's a warning". The same argument could be made for Muslims.
Conservatives Worry Feminists Are Using Witchcraft To Destroy Trump
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2017/12/conservatives-worry-feminists-using-witchcraft-destroy-trump/?fbclid=IwAR2x8b64yEN1ILiFBAZaoBozkg2DKHmvqRQXN4a_4ZsZ94wGEUvjOtXPKIQCue my reaction: O.O
Feeding the gullible Christians, conservative website Breitbart reports on “the rise of feminist witchcraft,” noting:
Following President Trump’s inauguration, witches, covens, and even A-list celebrities started to hex the president with frequent “spells.”
The article, written by Breitbart tech reporter Charlie Nash, claims that the terms “witch” and “feminist” have now become synonymous.
Earlier this week Nash appeared on Breitbart’s daily radio program to defend his bizarre and silly conspiracy theory, breathlessly claiming that there are “groups of people who are actually trying to hex the president.”
On the program Nash tried to explain his crackpot conspiracy theory, noting:
You’ve got the basic things like the Etsy stores, the Witchsy stores, where they link feminist issues with witchcraft and Wicca and there’s other kind of occult symbols, but then you also have these groups of people who are actually trying to hex the president.
See, this is what I don't get about this one. God is supposed to be more powerful than any witchcraft. So, as long as Trump is a Christian, he shouldn't have to worry. (or as long as his supporters pray for him- same difference). So, what are they afraid of?
Now that we've gotten this silly 'slippery slope' argument out of the way, shall we return to the original post, which was about how it's against the constitution to allow religious symbols on public lands?
The Constitution was intentionally kept vague so that it would remain flexible. If you were to take a rigidly technical, literal interpretation of the Constitution, we would be missing a LOT of rights. Technically, the right to privacy is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, nor is there any explicitly named prohibition against Congress banning a political party, restricting online speech, nationalizing industries, or spying on American citizens by recording them digitally. These rights come from interpretations of less-specific wording; not specific provisions in the actual text.
Hell, you could technically be simultaneously tried five times for the same crime because the Constitution only forbids being charged for the same crime "twice."
And there is even a verse in the Bible, in Jeremiah, that can be taken to mean don't decorate tres with gold and silver. Some people equate that with Christmas Trees. Make of that what you will.
Finland Votes To Protect Children From Christianity
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/laughingindisbelief/2017/03/finland-votes-to-protect-children-from-christianity/?fbclid=IwAR0hdrNSzjy-xHXNNSHSQ_SsNBf1dLwPm-zJuDOfp3DOOETmq2iwcHyfjvgHelsinki, Finland – In this Scandinavian country of just over 5 million souls, the government ratified a new law curbing the power of Christianity over children. Dubbed The Richard Dawkins Act after the renowned British biologist and atheist, the regulation bans children under the age of 13 from religious indoctrination.
“Every parent knows young children do not have the ability to differentiate between what is real and not real,” explained the Minister of Child Safety Kari Kinnard. “It’s in the best interest of the child and the state that he or she is not in an environment where Bronze Age myths and prejudices are accepted as fact.”
Children of all ages are celebrating the move. Groups of students have spontaneously broken out in singing Steve Martin’s Atheists Don’t Have No Songs. The cheekier kids follow up Mr. Martin’s tune with the classic from Monty Python Every Sperm is Sacred.
The government of Finland recognizes that some events like marriages and funerals are commonly held in churches and may cause distress amongst parents who wish their children to attend. The new law states that parents may bring their young ones to such services as long as the children are read the official disclaimer by the officialized social worker before entering.
Young child, you are living in a world where people seriously accept the claims that morality is based on a book where snakes talk, a donkey talks, and divine love is defined with the threat of eternal punishment. In short, don’t take this seriously.
For the very young, the social worker present will use puppets to explain how many adults have imaginary friends.
Unsurprisingly the religious establishment in Finland is up in arms. They point to the long tradition of filling children’s heads with traditional prejudices and lies that supposedly hold the country’s social fabric together.
“If we keep going on this path, then we will become a godless hellhole like Sweden,” stated Bishop Hans Kotka.
The Finnish government refuses to rescind The Richard Dawkins Act. Anonymous sources in the government state that the Lutheran Evangelical Church will do just fine if they can convince those with critical thinking skills the merits of the Church’s ideas.
Experts predict the death of the Lutheran Evenaglical Church in Finland within decades.
(Yes, it's satire.)
If they were symbols from a living tradition, that would be different. You wouldn't be able to post a menorah, Star of David, Muslim moon and star, Arabic names for God, Buddha statue, or Hindu icons on public grounds anymore than a Christian symbol.
If you tolerated a Star of David but not a cross on public grounds, that would be an example of a double standard. Tolerating an Easter Bunny but not a nativity scene, however, is not an example of double standard, because barely anyone even knows the origins of the Easter bunny and the pagan religions associated with it no longer exist.
FWIW, the question isn't "Could this be construed as religious", it's more "Is there a secular reason for this" [spending of public money, use of public space, etc.]. If there is not, it shouldn't be made or it should be removed if it slipped in somewhere.
Were this country 90% Muslim (and with identical laws), I'd have a similar problem with their symbols. i.e. in this country, Christianity is the nail that sticks up.
However, most of them are, obviously, in Germany or the Scandinavian countries, not 'Murrica. And we're talking at most a few hundred thousand worshippers globally.
Oh wait... completely forgot about Scientology. My bad.
Carry on, nothing to see here.
Scientology on the other hand is just bad science fiction.