The limit on religious symbols on government property is not about perpetuating an extreme secularist view of the 1st Amendment. I believe that the establishment clause was created to ensure that government be secular; that, as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor eloquently explained, it is to ensure that the government can be perceived by all as their government. If the government endorses religion or a particular religion, then those of another or no faith may feel like outsiders.
Religious symbols on government property are an endorsement of religion, which is prohibited. The establishment clause is a constitutional limit on government and a constitutional right of individuals, not a matter of protecting sensibilities. Ensuring that the government be secular is not hostility to religion. The place for religion is on private property, private homes and places of worship. A robust free exercise clause protects this. At the very least, the government must be neutral among and toward religion. Such neutrality is not and never has been about hostility to religion.
Florida Principal, Athletic Director Could Go to Jail for Prayer Before Lunch at School
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539741,00.html
Christian photographers fined for refusing same-sex ceremony
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=61342
Same-Sex Marriage Shuts Down Methodist Camp Ground
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/06/same-sex-marriage-shuts-down-methodist-camp-ground/
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=61342
The demand for Muslim schools comes from parents who want their children a safe environment with an Islamic ethos.Parents see Muslim schools where children can develop their Islamic Identity where they won’t feel stigmatised for being Muslims and they can feel confident about their faith. Muslim schools are working to try to create a bridge between communities.
There is a belief among ethnic minority parens that the British schooling does not adequatly address their cultural needs. Failing to meet this need could result in feeling resentment among a group who already feel excluded. Setting up Muslim school is a defensive response.
State schools with monolingual teachers are not capable to teach English to bilingual Muslim children. Bilingual teachers are needed to teach English to such children along with their mother tongue. According to a number of studies, a child will not learn a second language if his first language is ignored.
Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. Muslims
have the right to educate their children in an environment that suits their culture. This notion of “integration”, actually means “assimilation”, by which people generally really mean “be more like me”. That is not multiculturalism. In Sydney, Muslims were refused to build a Muslim school, because of a protest by the residents. Yet a year later, permission was given for the building of a Catholic school and no protests from the residents. This clrearly shows the blatant hypocrisy, double standards and racism. Christians oppose Muslim schools in western countries yet build their own religious schools.
British schooling and the British society is the home of institutional racism. The result is that Muslim children are unable to develop self-confidence and self-esteem, therefore, majority of them leave schools with low grades. Racism is deeply rooted in British society. Every native child is born with a gene or virus of racism, therefore, no law could change the attitudes of racism towards those who are different. It is not only the common man, even member of the royal family is involved in racism. The father of a Pakistani officer cadet who was called a “Paki” by Prince Harry has profoundly condemned his actions. He had felt proud when he met the Queen and the Prince of Wales at his son’s passing out parade at Sandhurst in 2006 but now felt upset after learning about the Prince’s comments. Queen Victoria invited an Imam from India to teach her Urdu language. He was highly respected by the Queen but other members of the royal family had no respect for him. He was forced to go back to India. His portrait is still in one of the royal place.
There are hundreds of state schools where Muslim pupils are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools may be designated as Muslim community schools with bilingual Muslim teachers. There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school.
Iftikhar Ahmad
http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk
Why should atheism become the established religion of the US? That certainly seems to be the direction we are headed. Granted, atheism is not an organized religion, with meeting places and ceremonies (except perhaps for meetings of the American Humanist Association), but that does not mean that it is not a religion.
[Paragraph deleted by Elf]
[Ifti – we thank you for your contribution and explaining your viewpoint to us. Welcome to Titus One Nine.
May we encourage commenters to remain on topic on this thread and to treat each other with courtesy and kindness]
3, if you think of religion and secularism/atheism as worldviews, then secularism most certainly is a worldview. And to rephrase your excellent question, “Why should a secular worldview be privileged?”
How can atheism be a religion, and how can it become an “established religion” No. 3. The issue is not “establishing” atheism, the issue is protecting Christianity (and, I suppose, other religions) from government interference.
If I recollect my history from nearly 5 decades ago, early settlers in various parts of the country established local governments based on their particular sect’s religious beliefs, i.e. Quakers, Lutherans, Puritans, Anglicans, Catholics and so on, each enacted laws that promulgated their beliefs. For example, the Puritans (I think it was) required every person to attend church 14 times a week or be punished. The framers of the Constitution recognized that fact and sought to protect the citizenry from the compulsion to conform to any sect’s ideology, theology and legislation. Therefore freedom OF religion was imperative to allow different religious viewpoints to co-exist peacefully . Secularists and atheists have redefined that clause to mean that we have a right to freedom FROM religion.
As to the arguments in the article, I believe that religious symbols are no more offensive in the public square that those symbols of the secular world. As a devout Orthodox christian, should I sue because I see sexually suggestive images everywhere? How about other things I or another religious person might consider offensive, let’s say for example alcohol, drugs, or birth control products. I have witnessed over the years a growing intolerance for religious values by secularists and humanists. My gut feeling is that many folks resent any reminder that they are not doing those things that they know in their heart of hearts to be the right thing to do. In essence, sinners don’t want to be confronted about their sin by anyone or anything. Religious symbols are that reminder to many.
NO.7 – I don’t think the basis of the legal challenges is that some people find religious symbols offensive. The issue is the degree to which government should sponsor or host religious expression. It strikes me that the general answer has to be “very little” or we all will find ourselves having a terribly deracinated, feeble religion shoved down our throats at every turn. Religion is so far beyond government competence that none of us should want the government anywhere near it. It is notable that the only circumstances in which the Supreme Court seems to tolerate any governmentally backed or endorsed imposition of religious references are in situations where the religious content is banal and vague. What one of the Justices called “civic deism”, if memory serves (and it very well may not at this point).
Interesting. Protecting religion means banning it from the public sector. And free exercise means practicing religion only in the privacy of your Church and home. Well that’s clear at least.
And what it means is that people live in two separate worlds in which their religious lives and public lives don’t intersect. You can offer incense to Caesar in public, but not at home. However 1st Century Christians didn’t live like this and that’s what got them killed by the Roman state.
Br. Michael – is there a geographic reference for the situation you’re discussing? I was thinking Saudi Arabia (at least for non-Muslims). I do not recognize the situation you describe as having any relationship to the United States. I can go down to the public square any time I want and pray up a storm. I prayed my way through public school. No problems. The one thing that wasn’t happening, and I’m glad of it, was that no government functionaries could make me say a prayer that they had devised. I think this still more or less describes reality in America today.