|
Grex > Agora46 > #92: Keep your religion off your private property! | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 185 responses total. |
novomit
|
|
response 98 of 185:
| 
Jul 26 14:23 UTC 2003 |
Religious icons on public property do not "impose" anything on anyone. As Jan
mentioned, it can make certain normally non-stressful events more stressful
on occasions, but no one id being forced to do anything by a public display
of faith. That is tantamount to saying the agys holding hands in public are
"imposing" their sexuality on heterosexuals. If you don't like it, fucking
ignore it. Ignorung things is a uch more potent form of vengeance than
singling them out and criticising them.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 99 of 185:
|
Jul 26 18:09 UTC 2003 |
What religious icons on public property is give tacit governmental support
to the particular creeds represented by such icons. They can induce some
apprehension that if you are not of that creed that there may be some
degree, even if small, intimidation or discimination. Religious icons
on private property only express the creed of those private individuals and
do not reflect governmental support of such.
|
novomit
|
|
response 100 of 185:
|
Jul 26 21:20 UTC 2003 |
I disagree. An icon may to you represent a "creed", however, from what I see,
most religionists cannot agree even with themselves even over the most
trifling things, thus to say that a picture imposes any particular creed is
to me kind of silly. As for as the degree of intimidation, I can see what you
mean but if my local hospital had a statue of Krishna on the front lawn, it
wouldn't bother me even though I am basically a heathen. Looks more like
nitpicking to me.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 101 of 185:
|
Jul 27 07:00 UTC 2003 |
Is it a government owned hospital? If so, I do not think a statue of
Krishna would be appropriate. One of Galen would have more relevance.
|
novomit
|
|
response 102 of 185:
|
Jul 28 13:10 UTC 2003 |
More appropriate perhaps, but I doubt either would make a bit of difference
to me. If it had a plaque on the wall that said "Hindus Served First", I might
try another hospital, but just a statue of some god or guy wouldn't bother
me. Especialyl if I had just been short or was crapping blood or something.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 103 of 185:
|
Jul 28 17:48 UTC 2003 |
If I'd been short (sic) or crapping (sic) blood, or other wise sic, I
would be glad of any hospital: they could have any statues, icons,
plaques, etc they wanted. But we are talking THEORY here.
|
novomit
|
|
response 104 of 185:
|
Jul 28 17:54 UTC 2003 |
Ah, THEORY, well why didn't you say so??? Sicem, rover!
|
pvn
|
|
response 105 of 185:
|
Aug 17 06:46 UTC 2003 |
Oh, "theory". That which those with no facts claim when backed into a
corner.
The fact is that the "establishment clause" was there simply to prevent
the state declaring a state religion. Folk then were really sensitive
as folk had been murdered by a state merely for being members of a
particular religion. In the case of the edifice in the public park, the
mere fact that it was put up is not a violation of the establishment
clause so long as it had community approval. Thus a community of
satanists could just as easily erect a statue of stan without it being a
violation. Where is enters into the area of violation is when the state
prohibits the same.
Rcurl, do you really mean to suggest that if NAMBLA declared itself a
religion then its proclivities are socially acceptable?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 106 of 185:
|
Aug 17 18:32 UTC 2003 |
Of course not. Even religions must adhere to the laws of society. (Where did
I mention NAMBLA, anyway?)
|
gull
|
|
response 107 of 185:
|
Aug 17 21:55 UTC 2003 |
Re #105: Isn't erecting a monument to one religion in a public park, but
not to other religions, essentially the same as banning those religions
from erecting their monuments?
|
bru
|
|
response 108 of 185:
|
Aug 18 01:21 UTC 2003 |
|
scg
|
|
response 109 of 185:
|
Aug 18 03:31 UTC 2003 |
I think pvn is claiming that there's a difference between the government
erecting a monument, and "the community" erecting it. The problem with this
argument is that in a democracy the community is the government.
|
pvn
|
|
response 110 of 185:
|
Aug 18 05:15 UTC 2003 |
In a democracy yes, but folk should remember that the USA was originally
supposed to be a republic.
|
gull
|
|
response 111 of 185:
|
Aug 18 12:51 UTC 2003 |
In this case, though, aren't we talking about a local government?
|
i
|
|
response 112 of 185:
|
Aug 19 04:15 UTC 2003 |
Given how frequently locally-overwhelming-majority religions have abused
minorities, i'd say that this sort of "soft money" state sanctioning of
religion needs to be firmly discouraged.
|
pvn
|
|
response 113 of 185:
|
Aug 19 04:49 UTC 2003 |
Which means then that you logically support polygamy/polyandry on the
grounds that a minority religion might practice it?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 114 of 185:
|
Aug 19 06:08 UTC 2003 |
Are you suggesting there is something "wrong" with polygamy/polyandry? If
so, what?
|
oval
|
|
response 115 of 185:
|
Aug 19 06:28 UTC 2003 |
the hooter's chick and wifey-poo didn't get along..
|
lynne
|
|
response 116 of 185:
|
Aug 19 17:58 UTC 2003 |
114: well, it's illegal, for starters. also, from the admittedly little
I've seen of it, practitioners of polygamy are rarely able to support all
the resulting children and wind up on welfare. there was an interesting
case that got prosecuted not too far back--tom green, or tom smith, or
something like that, I think.
|
slynne
|
|
response 117 of 185:
|
Aug 19 18:30 UTC 2003 |
Well, they dont necessarily need to end up on welfare. Seriously, I
think it is just as wrong to ban polygamy as it is to ban homosexual
marriage. The idea that marriage can only be between one man and one
woman isnt one I subscribe to. Anyhow, most kids on welfare are either
born to unmarried parents or to parents of more traditional marriages.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 118 of 185:
|
Aug 19 19:49 UTC 2003 |
Re #116:
"all the resulting children" - how is this different than single motherhood
or large families of couple marriages. etc?
"on welfare" - how is this different than all the single mothers on welfare
(as slynne aludes to)?
The most major problems that I have read about involve spousal abuse.
|
russ
|
|
response 119 of 185:
|
Aug 19 23:26 UTC 2003 |
Anyone who thinks that local government should be able to
give land (or anything else) to religious groups for the
purposes of the latter ought to read about the Rajneeshis
and their attempt to take over a town's government.
|
i
|
|
response 120 of 185:
|
Aug 19 23:56 UTC 2003 |
Re: #113
I'm afraid that i may not be able to follow your logic, pvn. Could you
explain in more detail?
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 121 of 185:
|
Aug 20 07:10 UTC 2003 |
resp:116 Most of those examples, I would think, are when there are
many, many wives-- about 5 or more-- not, say 2 or 3. Personally, I'm
not a real supporter of multiple marriages, but at least let's be fair
with the illustrations.
This is also where the marriage contract is *practiced*... I know of
at least one relationship that is like this that isn't cemented by
marriage all the way around. There's a husband, a wife, kids between
them, and a boyfriend, with kids from his previous marriage. They all
live together and seem to live pretty stably. I don't approve of
this, but I don't see welfare circumstances. They do live in a
house...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 122 of 185:
|
Aug 20 15:25 UTC 2003 |
If you're not a "real supporter" of multiple marriages, I presume you
won't enter into such. But shouldn't other people do so if they want to?
It really isn't any of your business. Your "appoval" is irrelevent.
|