And then taken down, perhaps burned or recycled? How is it that Christian symbols on public property is not abuse of the first amendment? How would you feel if manger scenes on public property were also taken down? Would any of this bother you in the least?
2006-12-19 08:36:38 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I forgot to add: Why would this bother you? Does it bother you if I'm offended?
2006-12-19 08:41:25 · update #1
Also: I didn't mean the memorials on the side of highways, I meant the large memorials in parks, in front of public buildings etc.
2006-12-19 08:43:10 · update #2
Not really. As its all a marketing ploy to make you spend money. and for Christians its the Lords Bday. So they market it like that for you to go to Walmart and buy junk. They get your money. You celebrated Jesus Birthday by giving something to somebody and Santa gets sucked in as a salesman and toy sale booster. Quit selling Jesus.
2006-12-19 08:43:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I was taught in school that there was supposed to be a separation of state and religion. I have found that it is rarely there. It was a great idea to help prevent bias of any one group. I was raised on some strict christian idealology but I wondered why a person was to swear on the bible in court, an athesit could do it but does it mean anything? A memorial is meant to honor someone, so honor the person, or people, or what they stood for, not the religious ideals of a group of people.
It is one thing when you put the star of David, or a cross or whatever to mark a grave site. But if I go to an area that may have a veterans memorial, then I expect it to be about those veterans, not about the religious leanings of SOME veterans.
If it is a memorial for other reasons, then it would depend on its purpose and intent, as well as its location.
Memorial on a site owned by the goverment should not have religious symbols, or be there for religious meaning.
It can be done, a school in the south honored those lost during WWII, not the soldiers. It was to honor and remember the innocent men, women and children who were killed, in the concentration camps.
To often people get caught up in their personal views and forget that at one time there was an ideal of freedom, and that the ones who are different, have the same rights.
2006-12-19 09:01:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a Christian, no, it wouldn't bother me at all. The Bible teaches the separation of church and state and the disastrous results of not heeding this principle.
Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
Whenever Christianity or any religion for that matter has employed the power of the state or government to promote its beliefs, intolerance and persecution is the ultimate result.
In fact, God tries to warn people everywhere in the Bible about this. He is forecasting a final, deadly conflict over the issue of forced worship. The Bible teaches that church and state are a bad combination.
Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
Revelation 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
God does not save anyone against their will or without their loving cooperation.
It is possible that many well meaning individuals are misguided about this. Christians should not go out their way to offend or unnecessarily arouse a combative spirit in anyone.
Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
If we are offended over these things, it shows that self is still very much alive.
Show N Tell
2006-12-19 08:55:07 · answer #3 · answered by ccttct l 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends entirely on the type of memorial you mean. I would be upset if a cross on someone's grave that happens to be on public land were banned. That symbol is a testament to the person buried there.
As for other displays of religious symbols on public property, I do think they're an abuse of the first amendment.
2006-12-19 08:45:39 · answer #4 · answered by Let Me Think 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe in separation of religion and state. However, I see an exception when it comes to memorials. I believe that the deceased deserve to have whatever religious symbol represents whatever their religion was. So if they were a Christian, then a cross would be fine. If they were Jewish, then a star of David would be fine, and so on. It would certainly not be appropriate to place a cross on a Jewish grave of course. But on the Christian ones, I think that is acceptable.
I don't think a manger scene should be shown on government property.
But it ought to be allowed to be displayed publicly, if on private property. And this applies to any religious symbols.
2006-12-19 08:40:32 · answer #5 · answered by Heron By The Sea 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think that most of it is rather trivial as long as tax money isn't being spent on it. However, Christians better understand that when the Satanists or Wiccans want to put up similar displays you are going to have to allow that too.
If you are doing memorials as crosses, you are going to have to put whatever other symbol that another family of a different faith wants.
It gets to be too much to deal with pretty fast.
2006-12-19 08:43:07 · answer #6 · answered by Alex 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The First Amendment gives ALL religions the RIGHT to exercise their religion. It even says that it is illegal to make laws which would prohit them.
FIRST AMENDMENT
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.
There is no "wall of separation" taught in any part of the Constitution, Amendments or any other documents of our official laws. This "wall of separation" has been added recently by those who have no tolerance for religion.
2006-12-19 08:59:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What kind of kids are we raising that they're so easily offended? I'm not offended if I see a menorrah or a muslim temple, yet all these atheists are so flamin "offended" by the sign of a cross, they're likely to have heart attacks just looking at them. Good grief people, grow up already. Is our society so sensitive that they can't even deal with real life? If so, we need to make some changes, put some backbone back into our children. We're raising a generation of wimps and crybabies.
2006-12-19 08:47:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No it wouldn't, but then it doesn't bother me if they're there either.
Even though I'm an atheist and I'd just as soon do away with all those silly symbols, crosses on graves or whatever don't have a religious meaning for me. I just view them as the symbol that goes on graves.
2006-12-19 08:42:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The law only prohibits government agencies, not individuals, from displaying religious objects and symbols. Frankly, too much is made of this whole issue. If my town put a creche or a menorah or whatever on the lawn of the twon hall, it wouldn't bother me. I am not offended by the religious celebrations of others. Those who are, are more offensive to me.
2006-12-19 08:41:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋