CNN reported, Mallory Simon, reports on the disagreements of freedom of religious expression in the state of Washington in her article, Missing Atheist Sign Found in Washington State. A sign stating, “At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven and hell. There is only the natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds” was placed next to a nativity scene at the Legislative Building in Olympia. This sign was recently stolen, only an hour after being put up, causing an outrage by those in the Freedom From Religious Foundations. The sign was found and returned and plans have been made to put up a sign stating, “Thou shall not steal.”
Many were outraged by the statements that Freedom From Religious Foundations have made, including an ad campaign on public buses that read “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake.” The Christian Coalition is calling on people to ask for these posters to be taken down, stating “Although a number of humanists and atheists continue to attempt to rid God and Christmas from the public square, the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to such efforts.” Freedom From Religious Foundations argues that they have every right to place their statements in publics, like those who have done so with the nativity scene. A member of this group stated, "People have been celebrating the winter solstice long before Christmas. We see Christianity as the intruder, trying to steal the holiday from all of us humans."
The issue that arises in this example is what authority the state has over the outcome of this debate. It is the right of these people to display their beliefs, even if they are opposed to the majority faith in the United States. I agree with Governor Christine Gregoire of Washington who replied to these statements, saying, “I happen to be a Christian, and I don't agree with the display that is up there. But that doesn't mean that as governor, I have the right to deny their ability to express their free speech." While the statements may be unsettling to many people, the right to make these statements in public is a right that all US citizens have. If we are to restrict one group from freedom of speech, many more people maybe subjected to this violation of rights. I do believe the group could be kinder in displaying things that do target the Christian religion, such as the Santa Claus add telling people not to be good just because they believe god exist. If religious tolerance was brought into the picture, this would not be such an issue.
Today Is National Day of Prayer
1 hour ago
Posts
3 comments:
I completely agree with this poster. I feel that all these organizations should be able to post their beliefs or oppositions because they have freedom of speech. However, I would like to point out that I see it being completely pointless if they are full of hate. If someone is posting a sign to attack a specific audience, yet they claim to represent something better than their opposition, it doesn’t make sense to me. In America we have people with varying degrees of faith and religiosity, therefore, if a certain organization is trying to get people to think like them, they are going to have to take a different approach because their current one is unproductive.
I think the Atheist group's sign is in bad taste but there is absolutely no reason to suggest that it should not be allowed in the Capital building. What is a clear violation is the display of a Christian display on public grounds and in public facilities. I think that this country is so settled in the idea of Christianity as the de facto or unofficial religious tradition that it doesn't offend most people when Christian displays are posted in public areas but it doesn't make it any less constitutional. I wonder though, if it would just be better to disallow any sort of religious display on public grounds rather than trying to achieve representation of all...because until every religious tradition is represented, one could suggest that it violated the First Amendment.
I think this is a really interesting situation. I don’t think religious signs of any kind should be placed in public buildings. I would argue that any anti-religious or atheists signs are also unacceptable on the property because they are meant for anti-religious purpose. Nonetheless, I may not agree with what the sign says, but I believe the group has every right to say it somewhere else than government property.
Post a Comment