Religious scriptures in the public Arena

[Flores]

I wasn't sure whether to place this thead in religious, under politics, or in Ethics, so it's starting here, and moderators feel free to put it where you wish.

Our constitution is very clear regarding separation of state and religion, yet many public servants continue to have power hour lunches in the conference rooms of government buildings, place bibles on their desks, advertise church revivals on their cubicle space, and hold hands and pray for Jesus or god in the public buildings.

I was wondering whether these little things that are obviously mixing our state with our religion constitutional? And how would one start or cause a shake down and reform in this area.

Is it even constitutional for President Bush to even keep a copy of the bible inside the white house (Which is technically the STATE) or within any of our public libraries or buildings. Is it constitutional for the president of the United States to be a practicing christian/muslim/jew?

 

[spidergoat]

You have to understand that there is a difference between personal expressions of religion and a state-sponsored establishment of religion. It is perfectly ok for Bush to have a bible in the white house, for people to pray in government buildings, ect...

 

[Flores]

I disagree completely. Personal expressions regarding religion should be removed from the public arena and that's the essence and intent of separation of state and religion. Religion was not ommited or stricken by our constitution, yet it was separated from the government and placed in the private arena. private churches, private schools, private charities, ect.....President Bush can go to church or read the bible, but on his OWN time and in his OWN place. The white house is not his god damn OWNED property, and thus he can't keep religious scriptures inside it's walls, much like I would have to respect the walls of the cubicle that I work in and take my kids pictures down when asked to by the government agency. Practicing religion in the white house is unconstitutional, but he is free to do all he want in his mansion in Texas. The white house is not his personal space, it's a public office, and all of his conduct while he's in the white house should be in accordance with our constitution that separates religion from the public arena.

 

[SpyMoose]

The words "Seperation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in the constitution. What it does say is that "Congress shall make now law respecting an establishment of religion" we aught to get a few new amendments that put things into the constitution like the right to bear arms which isnt actualy in the second amendment (It is in there, but is preceded by a qualifying statement that renders the right void in this day and age), and the seperation of curch and state.

Also, Flores, if you were working in a place that advised you to take pictures of your children off your cubicle walls I would advise you to quit and perhaps vow some sort of revenge because that really sounds like an unreasonable thing for them to ask you to do. I also support the right of government workers to display the festoons of thier religion while at work as long as its clear that its that employee's private desicion and not institutional policy.

 

[Flores]

I wonder what Tiassa and Raithere would think about this issue.

I appreciate your responce spymoose, and I wonder what Tiassa and Raithere would think about this issue.

Originally posted by SpyMoose
Also, Flores, if you were working in a place that advised you to take pictures of your children off your cubicle walls I would advise you to quit and perhaps vow some sort of revenge because that really sounds like an unreasonable thing for them to ask you to do.

It is not a matter of being advised, forced, ect. It's purely the law and the enforcement issue. Noone has asked me to take the kids pictures down, but they have the right to do so and it's legal because I don't own the space which I occupy when I work for the government. That's the distinction between public and private. As a public servant, I must conform to public standards, and there is no room for the personal expressions....Of course, if I find out that I have a bad deal, I can move elsewhere where I can be more MYSELF.

Bush and other public servants can't be THEMSELVES anymore, the self have to left behind before they step in the public office. Religion is part of that self that must be completely left behind.

Originally posted by SpyMoose
I also support the right of government workers to display the festoons of thier religion while at work as long as its clear that its that employee's private desicion and not institutional policy.

I don't share your support whatsoever. I find personal displays specially those of religion, like the muslims praying in conference rooms or the christians having power hours or revival and testimonies dates on flyers to be utterly inapproriate, unprofessional, and unethical. There is a place and time for everything.

 

[James R]

Flores:

Essentially, you are saying that because you personally don't like something, it should be banned. This has nothing to do with separation of church and state. That principle is in place to support the more basic right to freedom of religious expression. That, in turn, is related to the right to free speech, which is a founding feature of every democracy.

Because you live in a democratic society, unfortunately that means that you will sometimes have to tolerate other people expressing opinions you do not agree with. Tough luck.

 

[okinrus]

Flores, you have freedom of religion not freedom from religion. If someone wants to peacefully say prayers during lunch time or before meals, then I don't see anything wrong with that. However, if someone is handing our chick comics, which could distrupt those at work, then maybe you have a point.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by okinrus
Flores, you have freedom of religion not freedom from religion. If someone wants to peacefully say prayers during lunch time or before meals, then I don't see anything wrong with that. However, if someone is handing our chick comics, which could distrupt those at work, then maybe you have a point.
----------
M*W: Yes, we have freedom OF religious CHOICE--but we also need freedom FROM religion if that is our CHOICE.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by okinrus
Flores, you have freedom of religion not freedom from religion. If someone wants to peacefully say prayers during lunch time or before meals, then I don't see anything wrong with that. However, if someone is handing our chick comics, which could distrupt those at work, then maybe you have a point.

OKinrus, I'm not speaking of a peacefull silent lunch prayer. I'm speaking of flyers and advertisements to join churches. I'm speaking of large groups of people who occupy lunch rooms to preach religion. I'm speaking about the public environment. I wonder what christains would do if their building got filled with flyers about muslim testimonies, pastors pictures, and revivals dates. I'm speaking about our federal, state, county, city, and municipal governments, not about a Jehova wittness kingdom hall or a baptist congressasion.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by James R
Flores:

Essentially, you are saying that because you personally don't like something, it should be banned.

No I'm not. Either you can't read me well, or you are intentionally putting me down due to god knows what. I like religion a lot. I'm a muslim for god sake, and I would like to have my Quran at work, I would like to use the conference rooms to pray, and I would love to post all type of Quranic verses on my cube, along with dates for fasting and breaking fast for Ramadan, numbers of various mosques, ect.....But IT'S WRONG TO DO SO. By doing so, I'm consciouslly offending others who don't believe similarly to me. I work for a government office and my customers could be Atheists, Buhdists, Christains, whatever....Not everyone have a stomach for a cube decorated with Quranic verses and pictures of Imams or Saints.....I'm a state representative and I have to SEPARATE THE TWO ISSUES, even though I PERSONAllY LIKE not to separate myself from my work.

Originally posted by James R
This has nothing to do with separation of church and state.

It has everything to do with the separation. It is indeed a dangerous infringement to the constitution that needs to be cut before it evolves further. It's an allowance for the certain aggressive religions to promote themselves and push themselves forward in our public place, while dettering the more reasonable quite religions that wouldn't normally abuse such a condition. It's a biased environment.

Originally posted by James R
That principle is in place to support the more basic right to freedom of religious expression. That, in turn, is related to the right to free speech, which is a founding feature of every democracy.

It's not more basic......Freedom of speech is not an option when fundemental constitution principals are not met. The separation of religion and state by default restricts the freedom of speech regarding religion to the private arena.

Originally posted by James R
Because you live in a democratic society, unfortunately that means that you will sometimes have to tolerate other people expressing opinions you do not agree with. Tough luck.

Tough luck to you James.....I have seen nothing but excellent luck so far......That doesn't mean that one should be herded or become lazy in the head.

 

[spidergoat]

Practicing religion in the white house is unconstitutional

Wrong!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The president is free, as are we all, to practice religion anywhere.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by spidergoat
The president is free, as are we all, to practice religion anywhere.

No he is not....The situation is only allowed to exist because of the tolerance of people. Here's a case history.

In another case, employee Wilson, a Roman Catholic, wore an anti-abortion button to work. The button bore a photograph of a fetus. Many employees reacted strongly. It disrupted work -- employees gathered to talk about the button; and some even threatened to walk off their jobs. The employer tried to accommodate Wilson, offering her three option. She could (1) only wear the button in her cubicle; 92) cover the button while at work; or (3) wear a button without a photograph. Wilson claimed that she could not cover or remove the button because she had promised to be a "living witness." She was fired when she continued to wear the button. Finding that the accommodation offered complied with her religious vow and reduced office turmoil, the Court held that even if Wilson's vow required her to be a "living witness," the employer could not reasonably accommodate that request. Wilson v U.S. West Communications, 58 F.3d 1337 (8th Cir. 1995).
http://www.workinfo.com/free/Downloads/74.htm

Just like the federal court held the decision to fire Ms. Wilson for wearing a little button, they could hold a decision to impeach Bush and fire millions of people based on carrying big fat bibles.

"Freedom of religion=freedom from religion" when will you guys understand what that means.

 

[Flores]

Another scenario

You have control over the conference rooms in your building. You routinely allow religious groups to use them at lunch time (a practice permitted under the guidelines). You've had Baptists, Buddhists, Catholics, and Muslims request rooms so far. There has been no problem; all of them have been quiet and all have left their rooms as clean as they received them. Today you receive a request for a room from a group of Satan worshipers who have announced they will be sacrificing a small animal as part of their religious ceremony. They assure you they will quiet and will leave the room as clean as they get it. You know that once word gets out about their ceremony there will be hell to pay. What do you do?

http://www.workinfo.com/free/Downloads/74.htm

 

[okinrus]

Flores, working environments have dress codes and can impose quite a few things on employee's.

<i><b>
I'm a muslim for god sake, and I would like to have my Quran at work, I would like to use the conference rooms to pray, and I would love to post all type of Quranic verses on my cube, along with dates for fasting and breaking fast for Ramadan, numbers of various mosques, ect.....But IT'S WRONG TO DO SO</b></i>
I could see something like all non-muslims going to hell could be the distruptive but if you put something like Allah is mercyful or something ilke that no ones going to care. On EWTN there was a news reporter who put a picture of the virgin Mary on her desk. None of the coments she recieved were negative.

<i><b>
In another case, employee Wilson, a Roman Catholic, wore an anti-abortion button to work. The button bore a photograph of a fetus. Many employees reacted strongly.</b></i>
Yes, because wearing an aborted fetus is no different than wearing the crimes of a serial murderer.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by okinrus
Flores, working environments have dress codes and can impose quite a few things on employee's.

<i><b>
I'm a muslim for god sake, and I would like to have my Quran at work, I would like to use the conference rooms to pray, and I would love to post all type of Quranic verses on my cube, along with dates for fasting and breaking fast for Ramadan, numbers of various mosques, ect.....But IT'S WRONG TO DO SO</b></i>
I could see something like all non-muslims going to hell could be the distruptive but if you put something like Allah is mercyful or something ilke that no ones going to care. On EWTN there was a news reporter who put a picture of the virgin Mary on her desk. None of the coments she recieved were negative.

<i><b>
In another case, employee Wilson, a Roman Catholic, wore an anti-abortion button to work. The button bore a photograph of a fetus. Many employees reacted strongly.</b></i>
Yes, because wearing an aborted fetus is no different than wearing the crimes of a serial murderer.
----------
M*W: Wearing an aborted fetus is just as offensive as wearing a cross.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by okinrus
Flores, working environments have dress codes and can impose quite a few things on employee's.

You never commented on the conference room use question in the work place?