Posted by deirdrehbrt on March 28, 2006, at 14:32:02
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679 » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 11:22:17
I'm in sort of the same position too... following a path dramatically different from that of my family. I suppose that many do follow the beliefs of their parents, but I don't have a problem with that either. Still, I think that people should at some point in their lives, make an active decidion regarding their spiritual paths.
I think I mentioned it somewhere here before, that I was once working on a musical entitled "The Inheritance", in which a young man learned that simply adopting the faith of his parents availed him nothing if he didn't make an active choice or commitment. It came down to the difference between "thinking" one believes, and truly believing. (Hope that makes sense).
Anyway, the real point of my first post is to point out the danger in this potential law. I believe in the establishment clause of the first ammendment' that the government shouldn't be in the position of establishing a religion. I also believe in the second clause which prohibits the government from interfering with the free expression of religion.
Let's look at a possible example: A court room has the ten commandments posted. Is this wrong? I say that if they have symbols of other religions, and symbols of pure reason, etc. posted, then they are showing that they respect all beliefs. If they exclude other symbols, refusing to change, then they are saying that it's a Judeo-Christian court-room. If I, as a Pagan, were to be tried in that court-room, I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable, or that I would receive a fair trial.
It would be the same thing if a Christian were to enter a court room and the only decoration being an inverted pentacle representative of Satanism.
This act is aimed at reducing the number of attempts at removing or limiting Christian - Only displays in such cases by removing financial compensation if they win.
Again, I'm not against the display of religious symbolism, but I do think that it should be done judiciously and with respect to the diversity of religious faiths in our country. We have religions, such as Trinitarian Christianity which believe in a single God in three persons. We have other religions that allow for more than one God, including Mormons, Native Americans and other Pagans, we have Unitarians, Scientologists, the church of Humanism, we're all over the place. To limit symbolism to that of a single sect harms the rest of us.
In the end, I'm just saying that if we are going to have religious symbolism allowed in our government facilities, that it should represent all of the faiths that people hold dear, or it should be excluded.
One possible solution might be to commission an artist to develop a symbol representative of the diversity of religious beliefs. Perhaps it could incorporate the symbols of the many faiths. I don't know. I just don't think it's fair for a Pagan to be tried beneath a symbol of the faith which tormented and killed her ancestors. A witch being tried for a crime in Salem, MA, under the banner of Christianity probably wouldn't be expecting a great deal of interest in her side of the story.
Just my own thoughts.
--Dee
poster:deirdrehbrt
thread:624709
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060322/msgs/625543.html