About Religious Symbols and 'Separation of Church and state'

[Edwardo Piet]

I was in secularchat discussing symbols and separation of church and state in america...and about how religious symbols should be kept out but not anything secular....

And I wonder....which religions would this include...and presumably it wouldn't include symbols of Zeus, mythology? What about pastafarianism?

I assume Atheist 'Scarlet A' symbols (like my avatar here) would be allowed cos they're secular....

And where do you draw the line here and what actual harm does it do and what motives....

And I was thinking:

In what context would a Cross or other religious symbol be an unacceptable symbol but graffiti would be perfectly acceptable? In which a cross is harmful somehow...(??) But graffiti or a secular symbol or a scarlet 'A' (for example) isn't?

And isn't suppressing people''s expression of their beliefs a good way to piss them off more??

Sure you don't want religious symbols throughout the government and on the money....but I don't think you'd necessarily want graffiti or atheist symbols there either (well, the public...I'd want atheist symbols lol).

Of course, objectively speaking people have no reason to be offended by symbols. For there are no evil symbols there are only symbols of evil.

For example: The Swastika is (now) a symbol of evil. It itself isn't evil - it's objectively just a symbol. And it's a symbol of evil now -but it didn't use to be. Before Hitler corrupted it it was a positive symbol, of peace I think -for more than one culture too, hundreds (and more) years before I think. I believe it was Indian, Hindu I think - and originally I I read it may have even been Ancient Egyptian or something?


So in what context would a religious symbol be unacceptable but a symbol that's secular would be perfectly acceptable? In which a religious symbol would be harmful and a secular one would be harmless?

Any thoughts? I myself think that either both the religious and atheistic sides can express their views or neither can (that's the fair way)...

And I don't think expressing atheism should be supressed! ANd I think the freedom of speech is very important! People should be able to express their beliefs and their views.

And besides...on a final note: There's nothing wrong with Satantic images so what's wrong with Crosses?
And I think it perhaps annoys me a bit the idea of removing symbols if there's no actual reason to - it seems like those who believe that having no religion should equate to burning all the bibles, iow - small minded.

EvF

[Demonaura]

I think it has nothing to do with the symbol itself but, the usage of. If I'm using a symbol that represents my faith on a shirt, anyone with a problem with that can go cry more but, if I'm posting it on a window in my store that's inappropriate. That's a business that I should not use to peddle my personal beleifs.

In all honesty scarlet A included, if you have fair right to use the symbol there (wearing a shirt with a symbol, on your house, a book you wrote) then go ahead. But if you use your head and think that you are not 100% sure it is appropriate, assume it isn't (store fronts, public properly, other people's property).

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes. So what I wonder is in that case, places where they are inappropriate - is there really any place where they would be inappropriate but other unlrelated symbols wouldn't, or graffiti wouldn't?

Should the fact it's to do with religion or absence of religion really matter? Shouldn't it just be treated like any other symbol? If people have problems with 'religion' or lack there of then shouldn't that be their own problem?

Because as you say - of course, the symbols themselves are not the problem. It's the reaction that matters.

As I said, even with the Swastika...objectively speaking there are no 'evil symbols' there are only symbols of evil. Because there is objectively no 'evil force' in the world. No evidence for that.

EvF

[Demonaura]

You pretty much gotta decide on a case by case basis, even using my example of t-shirts:

I've seen a short that reads "I'm awake and I'm wearing pants, what the fuck else do ya want?"

This is appropriate to wear at home or any gathering of friends, even in public but, expect some people to be somewhat turned off by your display as that's the grey area. This shirt however might get you turned down from entering, say a kids birthday party where the main attendance is children, or a school.

Even a shirt with a big cross on it, theres no foul language, nobody is going to get converted by the shirt or anything. Even if a guy with that shirt walked into a secular student club. He could be a smartass atheist, a theist who is losing faith or a theist there for other reasons (simply to watch, stir up trouble, accuse).

I think the easiest way to generalise, and this rule should be bent to fit the circumstance, is to say 'Religious symbols, including symbols of non-faith are acceptable, as is discussion of religion and theology in any location where it would be appropriate to post your other personal beleifs, such as political alignment, sexual orientation or whether you support the Horde or the Alliance.

[g-mark]

Should the fact it's to do with religion or absence of religion really matter? Shouldn't it just be treated like any other symbol? If people have problems with 'religion' or lack there of then shouldn't that be their own problem?

True. It's called the real world.

How could you solve the problem if you didn't remove it completely.

i.e Remove all symbols, graffitti, marks that define belief. Or have one symbol that defines everthing.

But...........

[Edwardo Piet]

I think the easiest way to generalise, and this rule should be bent to fit the circumstance, is to say 'Religious symbols, including symbols of non-faith are acceptable, as is discussion of religion and theology in any location where it would be appropriate to post your other personal beleifs, such as political alignment, sexual orientation or whether you support the Horde or the Alliance.

I completely agree with this. I don't see why religious belief or lack of religious belief should be considered a special case. The nonsense or religious symbols don't do harm in themselves....nor does an atheist scarlet 'A' or an FSM picture or satantic pictures.... - if they are unacceptable it would only be when other types of personal beliefs would be unacceptable to express there as you say...

I don't see why religion or lack thereof should be a special case. Religion is a load of nonsense.

I am against religion being taught as true, because it's not - and for it do be taught that way can at least potentially be harmful...or very harmful. But not against it being taught as fiction because it is fictional, so that's not a falsehood. And as fiction it's completely harmless!

The symbols in themselves do no harm!

Just as symbols of hell are not remotely scary or harmful to any extent whatsoever unless you actually believe in hell to any extent whatsoever.

EvF