Some Christians believe that, not all.
Wicca and other pagan variations are large religions with all the other qualifications but is one that is as structured to be practiced solitary as well as with a group. For that matter many religions are. Additionally, with many pagan religions, there is no one place of worship. You are running off the stereotype of worship that comprises the majority of the big 3.
I agree, for the purposes of legal recognition, that there should be some kind of criteria. Much in the way that a couple can be married yet not legally recognized if they don't obtain the paperwork, so can a religion exist without legal recognition by the government. In both cases, they participants should not expect to receive any associated rights for not having such legal status. Likewise, it is not unreasonable for there to be guidelines on what is or isn't for legal purposes, as long as those guidelines are reasonable and do not isolate out any group in particular.
Some grove or whatever in the woods that is frequented but not officially documented would be sufficient in my mind. Plus Wicca has probably over 100k adherents.
My main aim isn't really to judge validity or not so much as recognize there is limited space in the capital building so some minimum discrimination would be needed. As far as I am concerned, a religion held by one person is valid (or should be in the eyes of the law), but the state capital just isn't big enough for thousands of displays.
I'm with you insofar as there should never be anything that legally prevents the religious/spiritual practice of anyone save where such interferes with the rights/safety of others who have not consented to such. I'm looking more at legal recognition for, yes, the ability of making the display, as well as taxation purposes if a central location is establishes and other such issues. In making that determination, having such an established location should not be a criteria. What if we have one that is all about solo worship? Your other criteria make sense though and do not have any unreasonable limitations towards any religion/ belief system
I picked other.Yes if the people actually wanting the statue up are actual practicing satanists. Meaning they regularly attend a satanic church,pray to Satan,celebrate satanic holidays, engage in satanic religious customs and etc. No if the people wanting the statue up are not real satanist. I suspect that the individuals wanting the satanic statue up are merely extremist whack job atheists trying to stick it to Christians to try to coerce Christians to take down what ever religious displays they have on tax payer funded property.
Until then, have some respect. Christmas is only once a year.
I would just choose some minimum standards such as:
100+ adherents
has existed for more than five years
established worship site (even if its bob's shed in the back yard)
is not based on a work of popular fiction
Thats probably all thats needed.
Some grove or whatever in the woods that is frequented but not officially documented would be sufficient in my mind. Plus Wicca has probably over 100k adherents.
My main aim isn't really to judge validity or not so much as recognize there is limited space in the capital building so some minimum discrimination would be needed. As far as I am concerned, a religion held by one person is valid (or should be in the eyes of the law), but the state capital just isn't big enough for thousands of displays.
I'm actually fine with that, I think that churches should only get a tax exemption for their actual charitable work, not for money that goes to building upkeep or paying for staff or the like. They have to prove, like every other charity out there, that their money is going to charitable work, not preaching, not indoctrination, but charity. That means they have to have their books open like everyone else. Of course, the religious would never tolerate that, we might find out how much money they're actually stashing away.
Have some respect. Celebrate your beliefs on private property, don't make everyone else look at them on public property. It's only once a year, it's going to kill you to have it on your private property?
I voted no.
There should be no Satanic displays, no Christian displays, no Jewish displays, no Hindu displays, no religious displays of any kind.
We're talking about the houses of government here, not an elementary school classroom.
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" - Obi Wan
No one is bowing down to or worshiping these displays.
I don't know Paddy, Christmas is a federal and not a private holiday. Don't get me wrong, all the fuzz about secular displays and the commercial aspect of what should be a matter of personal faith seems silly to me. I gladly settle for houses of worship and private properties displaying manger scenes. Christmas trees and Santas are secular and at everyone's discretion.
What I don't understand is why matters of faith is such a hot issue. Christmas is observed T/O the world for a short period of time. If you are not a Christian, just enjoy the lights and the cookies and say "no thank you" to the rest.
You must be a sith then. There is a big difference between allowing various religions to display on government property and government basing their decisions on religious tenants.
You must be a sith then. There is a big difference between allowing various religions to display on government property and government basing their decisions on religious tenants.
Just slight correction - that's "religious tenets" of course, not "religious tenants".
I try not to correct typos normally but for some reason that one bugs me....
But to your point - there is a difference; but what most of us (and maybe even you - sorry, I've lost track) have said that if govt is going to allow religions to display on govt property, they have to allow all religions.
Actually I would say that all Christians do believe in the 7 days part. What is not in agreement is the scale of those seven days. Even looking at our physical universe, the length of a day varies with the different planets and satellites. IIRC, Mercury's day and year are the same length of time.since the establishment of the sun was not until the third "day" and the sun is the standard by which we use to determine our days, it is not unreasonable to assume that the 7 days were of the scale that the Creator uses.
It doesn't matter. The Second Commandment clearly says that you can't even create graven images.
I'm certain those that did were attacked as "liberals" at the time.That's true. It has been suggested that each day was likely a 1000+ years.
In my opinion their should be no religious displays on state property. But if Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc can put up their displays then Satanists as well.
Therein was the very problem encountered. They tried to put in a law for their fundie buddies, and found that they then had to give the same rights to the Satanists.
Actually I would say that all Christians do believe in the 7 days part. What is not in agreement is the scale of those seven days. Even looking at our physical universe, the length of a day varies with the different planets and satellites. IIRC, Mercury's day and year are the same length of time.since the establishment of the sun was not until the third "day" and the sun is the standard by which we use to determine our days, it is not unreasonable to assume that the 7 days were of the scale that the Creator uses.
Woman arrested after damaging Satanic display at Florida Capitol | Fox News
Branching off the discussion from this article, should the state of florida have even put up the display in the first place?
Why or why not?
I must have missed that part of the Constitution. Care to cite it? The part that I read said government should stay out of religious questions. Wouldn't the government saying a religion is invalid be like backdoor establishment?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?