Crucifixes in public and governmental buildings

[Estro Felino]

In Bavaria , the most Catholic Bundesland in Germany, a new law states that crucifixes are compulsory in all the places of the Public Administration, including schools and courthouses.
http://www.euronews.com/2018/04/27/compulsory-crucifixes-in-bavaria-spark-controversy


I find this law anti-secular and intolerable...since, in my country, the UAAR, an atheist association of relevant prestige, is doing anything to propose a law that forbids any religious symbol in the places of the Public Administration.



Crucifix in a Court Room

 

[Sanzbir]

Eh, it's just like vaccination laws. When ya got a vampire infestation ya need everyone to pull their weight and inoculate themselves.

At least, I assume that's why they made this law.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Eh, it's just like vaccination laws. When ya got a vampire infestation ya need everyone to pull their weight and inoculate themselves.

At least, I assume that's why they made this law.

It is Bavaria. I assume there is a box of stakes nearby where you break glass in case of vampire.

 

[Phantasman]

The cross began as a catholic symbol of church. Christ use of the term was persecution and death (fear).

Seeing a cross does nothing for me, since it is misused by the followers of such.

 

[David1967]

It is Bavaria. I assume there is a box of stakes nearby where you break glass in case of vampire.

Don't forget the garlic.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

In a sense it's objectionable: it can be taken as telling non-Christians that they don't quite belong. But it's not a big deal and no worse than the intolerant atheists who want such things outlawed. And the complaints are often very one-sided: the same "liberals" who denounce the crucifixes also objected to the Swiss ban on minarets.

 

[HonestJoe]

In a sense it's objectionable: it can be taken as telling non-Christians that they don't quite belong. But it's not a big deal and no worse than the intolerant atheists who want such things outlawed. And the complaints are often very one-sided: the same "liberals" who denounce the crucifixes also objected to the Swiss ban on minarets.

I suspect few atheists want crucifixes outlawed and I doubt they’d be able to make a rational argument in favour of that proposal anyway. Many secularists (who may or may not be religious) are opposed to religious symbols mandated and promoted by state authorities as is the case here and they (we!) would object regardless of the religions or symbols involved.

Things like the ban on minarets isn’t about preventing the state from building them (indeed, I suspect state organisations could get an exception) but banning private citizens from doing so. That’d be the equivalent of banning crucifies on churches, which would be ridiculous and strongly opposed across the board (even by many secularists and atheists).

 

[Estro Felino]

In a sense it's objectionable: it can be taken as telling non-Christians that they don't quite belong. But it's not a big deal and no worse than the intolerant atheists who want such things outlawed. And the complaints are often very one-sided: the same "liberals" who denounce the crucifixes also objected to the Swiss ban on minarets.

I just think that a visible , ostensible religious symbol is not compatible with the secularism of the state and of a governmental institution.

You can see a great contradiction in that picture I posted.

I didn't say I approved — on the contrary. But there are far more important problems in society, even in Bavaria, to deal with!

Btw the UAAR here (Unione Atei Agnostici Razionalisti) fights for the burqa ban too...so it can't be accused of double standards.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I didn't say I approved — on the contrary. But there are far more important problems in society, even in Bavaria, to deal with!

 

[Samantha Rinne]

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/supreme-court-series-ii-ten-commandments-on-government-property

Read this. In two states, they reached opposite conclusions on the presence of the Ten Commandments within court buildings. Texas claimed it has historical significance, citing Moses and his status as lawgiver, Kentucky lost because they made it about religion.

I rule with Texas. Unless you understand our history, backwards as it may seem to some, we have no future.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In a sense it's objectionable: it can be taken as telling non-Christians that they don't quite belong. But it's not a big deal and no worse than the intolerant atheists who want such things outlawed. And the complaints are often very one-sided: the same "liberals" who denounce the crucifixes also objected to the Swiss ban on minarets.

Banning minarets on mosques isn't quite the same as banning crucifixes from courtrooms. Nobody in Switzerland was suggesting minarets on government buildings.

 

[Estro Felino]

Italy, Journalist literally "crucified" (forgive the pun) for wearing a rosary-necklace with a cross.
Atheist associations say a journalist giving the news, cannot wear a cross on national TV, supposed to represent the secular state

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In a sense it's objectionable: it can be taken as telling non-Christians that they don't quite belong. But it's not a big deal and no worse than the intolerant atheists who want such things outlawed.

So they’re objectionable, but doing something about it is also objectionable? You seem confused.

And the complaints are often very one-sided: the same "liberals" who denounce the crucifixes also objected to the Swiss ban on minarets.

You seem extra confused: the ban on minarets was about minarets on mosques. Nobody is calling for a ban on crucifixes in churches, and if anyone did ever propose minarets on government buildings, you can bet those liberals you misunderstand would oppose them, too.

Church-state separation and freedom of expression are separate issues.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

So they’re objectionable, but doing something about it is also objectionable? You seem confused.

I said that I'm no fan of either side in the argument. What part of that don't you understand? But I'm probably confused in bothering to answer some-one I tried to put on ignore, until I discovered that staff have the unavoidability of death and taxes.

 

[Estro Felino]

Church-state separation and freedom of expression are separate issues.

If a journalist cannot wear a cross any more, I guess our secularism has gone a little too far