.gif)
(MS Clip Art Gallery)
Last year, the Washington state capitol building became the site of a heated controversy over what kind of religious symbols should be on display. According to the Olympian newspaper, state officials hope to avoid that same fate this year.
In 2007, a lawsuit by an Olympia man resulted in the state allowing religious symbols to be displayed in the state capitol, so long as all religious symbols were allowed. That year, a Christian Nativity created by a local man was displayed.
In 2008, atheists got permission to display a sign alongside the Nativity scene. The sign, which said "At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds," came to the attention to Fox News personality, Bill O'Reilly. He attacked Governor Christine Gregoire on his show, claiming she "decided to add [the atheist sign] to the display" as a way of mocking Christianity.
Soon, more displays were added, including a Jewish menorah and several signs opposing atheism. Olympia officials were inundated by requests to display other symbols, including a "Festivus" pole, based on the faux-holiday created by Jerry Seinfeld; a display claiming the world was created by a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" from an anti-creationism group; and a poster from the Westboro church that said "Santa will take you to hell." Officials denied those requests.
The whole affair became a huge national controversy, with many family groups on all sides of the issue becoming upset. Some felt that children would be confused by the multiple displays, others feared they couldn't bring their children to the capitol because their religions were being insulted, still others thought the displays didn't belong there at all . In the end, Gov. Gregoire's office received 13,000 complaints.
This year, the State Department of General Administration wants to avoid the chaos of last year. They are asking for comments on what should be allowed at the state capitol. Linda Villegas Bremer, director of the General Administration, announced they will be creating draft rules that will be available for inspection and comment in mid-August, and a public hearing will be held in the fall.
If you would like to comment on the issues, visit www.ga.wa.gov/rules.htm .
Source: The Olympian
Other articles you may be interested in:
Point: Atheist sign in Olympia full of anger and irony
Counterpoint: Take down the atheist sign, and the nativity scene, too
More and more people getting 'de-baptized'
Comments
Constitutionally, there should be no religious signs on government property since it violates the Establishment Clause. The chaos resulting from the compromise the state offered was predictable given how many varied and often opposing religious views there are out there.
That being said, I thought the atheist display should have quit after the first sentence. What followed was obnoxiously challenging and, to my mind, hardly an invitation to a productive dialogue. Of course, maybe that group's goal was sensational publicity rather than provoking thought.
"Some felt that children would be confused by the multiple displays, others feared they couldn't bring their children to the capitol because their religions were being insulted."
Though christians don't like to think about it, christianity endorses the believe that non christians deserve to eternal torment. How offensive is that?
I would prefer no displays, but the only acceptable alternative is that they accept them all. Allowing some display but not others is no good. My freedom of religion is not open to negotiation.
It is all American's fundamental right to insult Christian American retards, should they choose.
If any non-Christian signs go up, then we Christians should steal them and burn them (along with any books we can find that don't agree with us). We must keep our focus, and that of our children and society, on one ancient Holy story, even if it does sound like a crazy fantasy made up by bronze-age desert people who offered animal sacrifices.
No, there should be no religious symbols. If I was a governer, I wouldn't & shouldn't put a big sign in my office that says "ATHEISM FTW" or whatever. My house, sure. But not my government office. That would not only alienate & polorize my office & from the people I serve, as well as being unconstitutional.
I"d recommend the First Amendment ('the establishment clause'). No preference to one or no religion over another.
They learned the hard way what the price of trying to please everyone is. It can't be done, so the best choice is to just stick to the letter of the law and not allow any displays. Religion is always going to be a contentious issue, so why would provide a new battleground in of all places, a government building? Government should just stay out of it. It's really just that simple.
Philadelphia Critical Thinking Examiner
its either all or nothing. Separation of C and S
I am an atheist and feel no religions or religious opinions should be displayed. It was a great gesture allowing everyone to display their beliefs, but live and learn...you won't be able to please everyone..It's better for the government to stay neutral.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!