With all of the publicity over prayer in schools, prayers before sporting events, and even a public outcry demanding the removal of the Ten Commandments from a courthouse lobby, it seems that we need to relearn what the context and concept of "separation of church and state" really means and what its intended inclusion was meant for in the Constitution.
In many Islamic nations today, the government legislates through the guidance of the Quran and through the interpretations of the spiritual/political leaders. It is through them that Quran is applied to the laws of the nation. Many people do not agree with this but if they are citizens they must comply. Many immigrate to other countries when they can.
Many years ago, it was the Holy Roman Church that made its doctrines the law of most of Europe. Anyone who disobeyed, disagreed, was not a believer, was tortured and imprisoned or put to death in one of many agonizing ways. The art of torture may have been perfected during the Dark Ages, during the Inquisitions.
When the colonial leaders were drafting a form of government for the colonies, they saw how religious influence can corrupt the body government and enslave the people unto a particular doctrine of faith. To prevent that and to also insure that the people would remain free to practice their own religious customs and traditions without hindrance from the government. What they did not foresee was the bloated government that is surpassing the private sector in employment, but there is strong opposition to that large employee base commemorating any holidays of their faith publicly. No Christmas trees or Menorahs allowed. No pictures or statues or medals depicting saints or prophets, or any symbolism that may "offend" others.
We have gone beyond separation of church and state to the state determining where you may practice your "religious freedom." The legislative branch passed no laws prohibiting the display of symbols of a religious nature, but they are using a Constitutional liberty as a tool to prohibit the display of one's religion in a public (government) place.
I for one am not really for or against the public display of one's faith. Perhaps that is how you can identify others that feel as you do and meet new people with common beliefs. I am against spending money (taxpayer money especially) on decorations and tress because I feel that is people want to do that, it is up to them, but take responsibility financially and also to remove when the holiday is passed. I do not feel that I or any other taxpaying citizen needs to be burden with such a frivolous waste of tax dollars, and today it seems blatantly apparent as to why.
I do not feel that a person decorating their personal space is a violation of anything. Maybe if enough people of different faiths were doing it, they would all learn much about one another by sharing customs instead of denouncing their differences.
Fred, the way I see it is Atheism is also a religious view. When we cave to the atheists who demand that no religious symbols be displayed on public property, we are in fact permitting them, and only them, the freedom to exercise their religious beliefs and impose those beliefs on the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteRite, I agree with you. Religious views are what is being separated, not the practice of one's beliefs. An Atheist has as much rights as a Buddhist,Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Snake Worship, whatever.
ReplyDeleteBanning one from expressing their beliefs in public is a violation of their Constitutional rights. The fact that they display a religious symbol in a government office (their personal space) and that it can be seen by others, is no reason to prohibit one from doing so. No one has the right to impose their beliefs, religious or political on others.