|
Post by moonwind333 on Apr 5, 2006 18:51:29 GMT -5
In the land of Freedom of Religion, we still have problems. Everyone go check out this story and see what you think about it. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190322,00.html you will have to copy/paste the whole address as I cannot get the connection to show up past the first comma and clicking will only take you to a "can't find page" page.
|
|
|
Post by Senbecc on Apr 5, 2006 19:35:11 GMT -5
In the land of Freedom of Religion, we still have problems. Everyone go check out this story and see what you think about it. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190322,00.html you will have to copy/paste the whole address as I cannot get the connection to show up past the first comma and clicking will only take you to a "can't find page" page. I voted thumbs wayyyyyy down (said Siskle and Ebert). It seems to me that ALLOT of people died to ensure the separation of church and state...And to ensure freedom of religion... Why do they care what he puts on his grave stone...He died a hero and his beliefs as well as the wishes of his wife should be respected!
|
|
|
Post by wolfenscot on Apr 7, 2006 7:10:44 GMT -5
Here Here! I agree, let the man and his family have the remembrance they want.
|
|
Pel
Philosopher
Some are born to move the world
Posts: 216
|
Post by Pel on Apr 7, 2006 10:02:38 GMT -5
ok ok, I'll play the devil's advocate on this one ...
First of all, I don't know if every plaque on the memorial wall includes a symbol of that person's religion. If it's a special request, then it has to be seen as a special request and not in the light of an established rule.
Second, there is the separation of church and state that allows anyone to practice their religion. It doesn't say that everyone has to recognize or allow symbols of that religion displayed on governmental grounds. And since a democratic government technically owns the memorial, the majority rules. The country IS a democracy. If the majority of people don't want something, then it's the fundamental rule that it not be allowed to pass. Recognizing religions is mostly about tax-exempt status anyway.
Third, if it is a special request from a minority religion, it could be seen as a stunt to gain attention. It's sad to say that in this world, a soldier dying is just part of a statistic. It's easy for people to see someone taking advantage of his death and seizing the opportunity to bring about a conflict of opinion.
Fourth, if it's truly a person's wish to have their religion officially recognized, there are certain things they must do. There may be a lot of red tape, but that's how government works. And if you want to change the government's opinions, you have to play by their rules.
Fifth, a person should get the religion recognized before anything else. Placing a symbol of an officially unrecognized religion on democratically government owned property is jumping the gun. The other religions have been recognized and earned (greatly easier than other religions) the privilege to be displayed by the government. And it is a privilege because they don't have to put anything up there if they didn't want to (assuming they are backed by the people).
um ... after all that ... I voted thumbs down
|
|
|
Post by moonwind333 on Apr 7, 2006 10:38:06 GMT -5
ok ok, I'll play the devil's advocate on this one ... First of all, I don't know if every plaque on the memorial wall includes a symbol of that person's religion. If it's a special request, then it has to be seen as a special request and not in the light of an established rule. Second, there is the separation of church and state that allows anyone to practice their religion. It doesn't say that everyone has to recognize or allow symbols of that religion displayed on governmental grounds. And since a democratic government technically owns the memorial, the majority rules. The country IS a democracy. If the majority of people don't want something, then it's the fundamental rule that it not be allowed to pass. Recognizing religions is mostly about tax-exempt status anyway. Third, if it is a special request from a minority religion, it could be seen as a stunt to gain attention. It's sad to say that in this world, a soldier dying is just part of a statistic. It's easy for people to see someone taking advantage of his death and seizing the opportunity to bring about a conflict of opinion. Fourth, if it's truly a person's wish to have their religion officially recognized, there are certain things they must do. There may be a lot of red tape, but that's how government works. And if you want to change the government's opinions, you have to play by their rules. Fifth, a person should get the religion recognized before anything else. Placing a symbol of an officially unrecognized religion on democratically government owned property is jumping the gun. The other religions have been recognized and earned (greatly easier than other religions) the privilege to be displayed by the government. And it is a privilege because they don't have to put anything up there if they didn't want to (assuming they are backed by the people). um ... after all that ... I voted thumbs down Ony one problem, Pel - the Government even has a symbol for Athiests as well as many other off the mainstream religions. I figure if there is an athiest symbol, then the govenment recognized religion of Wicca/Paganism (which is recognized and is in the Army Chaplains handbook) should be allowed its symbol, too. (I would love to know what the Athiest symbol is.)
|
|