Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just how can an atheist believe if he or she holds no belief system? They can't; therefore, their so-called belief that religion should not be injected into government is a political position of preference and cannot be offended in the same sense a religious belief can be offended. It is therefore clear to me that atheist should have no legal standing in such matters.
When religion is being forcibly injected into government agencies, they have every right to be involved... your comments make me think of Islamic countries, who don't believe any non-Muslims should have a voice. Would you be okay with that? Oh, and an Atheist can believe in MANY things, even if they don't happen to include God or the Bible - their personal values and beliefs are just as valid, IMO, and every American deserves an equal say.
I've been told on the general R&P forum that, because I am Jewish (a minority in this country), my opinions and feelings aren't as important - and let me tell you, that is not a good feeling, considering I pay the same taxes & hold the same passport as Christian Americans.
When religion is being forcibly injected into government agencies, they have every right to be involved... your comments make me think of Islamic countries, who don't believe any non-Muslims should have a voice. Would you be okay with that? .
You have completely misinterpreted my statement, and probably do not understand the concept of "standing" in the legal sense. To have standing in a matter, one must show they have personally been damaged or they are part of a class of persons who have or could suffer damage. This atheist claimed standing in that his belief as an atheist is offended by the display of a religious symbol. He is arguing that atheism should have the same legal standing as a religion, which it can’t, because by their own definition they are not religious. His view as an atheist and his demand that a religious symbol be removed is purely political and therefore subject to the same political process as any other political matter.
As an example: I do not believe in the current system of taxation. I believe the current income based taxation system violates several sections of the Constitution. I could claim this violates my belief system and try and press a lawsuit, but I am sure you can see it would get nowhere. The proper course of action is a legislative change in the taxation code.
In regards to the cross case, this so-called offended party does not have legal standing, even though the city caved in. Simply stated, he would not be able to show he was damaged by the display of crosses on the badges of the Chaplains. There are a number of reasons for this, but the two primary reasons lie in the fact that the state was not forcing him to accept the services of the Chaplains. Next, the crosses are not required by the state. The Chaplains choose their religious symbols. In addition, this suit denies other religions their own rights. I as a Mormon would be denied recognizable access to an LDS minister if the symbol of Moroni was not allowed.
If our spoiled child doesn’t like crosses on the badges of Chaplains, then he should have been forced through the political process and try and have the legislature pass a law outlawing religious symbols on any item associated with public agencies. Just like I would have to do if I want the tax code changed, which offends me.
Atheist of the ilk we are discussing shouldn’t give a damn about the display of religious symbols if they were truly atheist, but what they are is in fact angry self-centered egomaniacs, who don’t work and play well with others.
Alright, you lost me there... I'd have to get my attorney sister to translate, LOL. Sorry if I misunderstood anything, but I still think an Atheist has every right to be disturbed by having to wear a cross - I know it would disturb me! My college had crosses in a few of their symbols, but since I knew it was Methodist-based (and private), that never bothered me. A government agency, on the other hand, really shouldn't be favoring one belief over another.
Alright, you lost me there... I'd have to get my attorney sister to translate, LOL. Sorry if I misunderstood anything, but I still think an Atheist has every right to be disturbed by having to wear a cross - I know it would disturb me! My college had crosses in a few of their symbols, but since I knew it was Methodist-based (and private), that never bothered me. A government agency, on the other hand, really shouldn't be favoring one belief over another.
Unfortunately all of this stuff has become legalistic and it only hurts all of us. In matters of religion—we all—should put away our—offended—buttons. My last hurrah in the Army Reserve was Desert Storm, and as you can see, I am LDS. Most of the time, I couldn’t find another LDS member or Chaplain, so I would attend the services of other religions. In Vietnam, I had an encounter with some shell fragments. I remember a Catholic Chaplain asking me whether he could pray for me. Of course he could, and I know God heard every word, because I am writing this to you now. God hears the prayers of his children, and religion has nothing to do with it. We talk about tolerance, but we aren’t even close.
Oh, by the way. I did my graduate studies at USF. Now there's a school that drips with religious symbolism.
Whether it is stuff like this or the Ten Commandments on display in municipal buildings, whenver this kind of stuff comes up I really feel that many of my fellow Christians are missing the point.
Remember the words of Jeremiah:
"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." (Jeremiah 31:33)
Being a child of God isn't about having crosses on your bades or the Ten Commandments in the courtroom. It's about having God's love and law in your heart and living it. We Christians need to take the advice often given to writers: "Show me. Don't tell me."
I have not read the article, and quite honestly, I have only skimmed some of the responses. (Great point, Mark S.)
Here's what I see...
NEWS: Crosses to be removed from police CHAPLAIN badges.
Then I think, Chaplain... Isn't that the one who leads others in prayer? I guess I'm just confused. They aren't asking all police officers to wear a cross on their badge, are they? Is it just the CHAPLAIN? Does the Captain of the police force have something that indicates he's the Captain? Or what about the medics?
Just how can an atheist believe if he or she holds no belief system?
Sarge, what kind of question is this?
Do we need to argue over the definition of the word "belief"?
I have no RELIGIOUS belief. And I have no system of RELIGIOUS belief.
To you, does that mean that I cannot, therefore, believe in anything?
That I cannot have a system of belief that is outside the realm of religion?
You seem to think that my lack of religious belief is grounds for nullifying my political position (I say these are my beliefs - but you are free to deem them something different if you do not like standard definitions) on how my government handles matters that deal with the religious beliefs of others.
If so, you are wrong.
Non-believers do have a legally-recognized voice regardless of whether or not you believe that it should be heard by the US government.
Sarge, what kind of question is this?
Do we need to argue over the definition of the word "belief"?
I have no RELIGIOUS belief. And I have no system of RELIGIOUS belief.
To you, does that mean that I cannot, therefore, believe in anything?
That I cannot have a system of belief that is outside the realm of religion?
You seem to think that my lack of religious belief is grounds for nullifying my political position (I say these are my beliefs - but you are free to deem them something different if you do not like standard definitions) on how my government handles matters that deal with the religious beliefs of others.
If so, you are wrong.
Non-believers do have a legally-recognized voice regardless of whether or not you believe that it should be heard by the US government.
As you state, b, you have no religious belief; therefore, you do not believe in religious matters. If Atheists don’t believe in religion or religious matters, then religious symbols should be of no consequence. It should have no more meaning than the Toyota or Chevrolet logo. This does not mean you don’t believe in anything; it only means you don’t believe in religious matters and therefore should not care or be offended by any matters pertaining to religion.
If Atheists want to argue about religious symbolism, then do it in the normal arena of politics; don’t appeal to the courts as if Atheism is deserving of the status of a religion that is offended by the appearance of a different religious symbol, such as a Jew, who might be offended by a Crucifix. This, b, is the height of hypocrisy.
Finally, show me how an Atheist can be damaged—so as to qualify for standing in the legal sense—by the appearance of a Crucifix on a badge? Let’s face it, b, such suits are brought by people who are just being pissy.
As you state, b, you have no religious belief; therefore, you do not believe in religious matters. If Atheists don’t believe in religion or religious matters, then religious symbols should be of no consequence. It should have no more meaning than the Toyota or Chevrolet logo. This does not mean you don’t believe in anything; it only means you don’t believe in religious matters and therefore should not care or be offended by any matters pertaining to religion.
Sarge, this whole paragraph is so fallacious that I cannot even respond to the rest of your post.
Stop stating what "should" or "shouldn't" offend me. Your logic does not compute.
I can use a form of logic to tell you what you should or shouldn't feel too, (for instance: You are LDS and many other Christians don't believe that you are a true follower of Christ. Therefore, you shouldn't be concerned about the Christian issue of whether crosses can be worn by government officials. See what I'm doing here?) but I think, in that case, the fallacy would be quite obvious to you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry if I misunderstood anything, but I still think an Atheist has every right to be disturbed by having to wear a cross - I know it would disturb me! My college had crosses in a few of their symbols, but since I knew it was Methodist-based (and private), that never bothered me. A government agency, on the other hand, really shouldn't be favoring one belief over another.
Isn't that the one who leads others in prayer? I guess I'm just confused. They aren't asking all police officers to wear a cross on their badge, are they? Is it just the CHAPLAIN? Does the Captain of the police force have something that indicates he's the Captain? Or what about the medics?
