And you just know theres loose change under the rocks.
Did I wrote the word “Christian”? I intentionally did not. But on afterthought… Since it seem to be Christians who find it necessary to push their religion uninvited onto visitors of one of the most impressive wonders of Nature, it is much more logical to write “Christian Bible”.
By the way: How do you think the reaction would be on placing similar items quoting Al Qur’an? It would be even more amusing if they were placed in a way they covered up the Christian ones.
Salaam. A
Well that would be rude, perhaps childish.
If the quotes were inspirational I don’t see why anyone would mind.
There would be no reaction whatsoever probably. The type of people that get all up in arms about any reference to any higher deity in a public place do not come from the “religious right” that media loves to demonize. Its leftist anti-religious types that like to target Christianity because it happens to be the majority (and most outspoken) religion in this country. If this was a book that quoted Muslim scriptures there would probably be hardly any outcry whatsoever…and there shouldn’t be. Like I said before, we all need to lighten up and quit being so thin skinned. Having a book that quotes the Bible is hardly equal to the federal government cramming one religion down our throats. Let the book be in the name of free speech…and let those who disagree with exercise their free speech by leaving the book on the shelf and offering whatever opinion they want. To remove the book would be more un-American than leaving it on the shelf. Doesn’t anyone use common sense anymore? If you see this book on the shelf as being equal with the federal government forcing anyone to practice any religious belief or action against their will then there is some extremely skewed “logic” at work here.
I read about this a few days ago. I think it’s a travesty that people are able to get such bull-pucky published.
Might as well say that it was Nut who made the Grand Canyon and be done with it.
Try spending your life being required to pretend you believe in something in order to retain access to all of your legal rights and escape harassment, and we’ll see how thin-skinned you get.
Psalms plaques? This atheist has no problem with that: as long as they’re there for their poetic value, that’s perfectly fine by me. I’m assuming that other poems could equally go up.
I live near Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest, a beautiful park dedicated to the poet. His famous poem is on a plaque inside the forest, with the coda, “Poems are made by fools like me/but only God can make a tree.” That’s not offensive; it’s beautiful. I don’t have to believe in God to be able to appreciate the sentiment.
Selling Hopi tales inside the bookstore is fine. I’ve no problem with that.
But having an Inspirational section in the bookstore, in which theologians put forward arguments that pretend to be on a par with scientific theories…ick. I don’t think my tax dollars should go toward Inspirational sections, and I don’t think that a theological argument book is on the same level as a book of mythology.
I’m not sure my stand is consistent. But it squicks me out.
Daniel
Toby-T: There would be no reaction whatsoever probably. The type of people that get all up in arms about any reference to any higher deity in a public place do not come from the “religious right” that media loves to demonize.
Well, that’s optimistic of you but not perhaps very realistic. Remember the Christian conservatives that sued the University of North Carolina for assigning incoming freshmen to read a book about the Qur’an? And the Christian essayists at the Family Research Council objecting to a Hindu priest giving an invocation in the House of Representatives, on the grounds that “Our founders expected that Christianity – and no other religion – would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate people’s consciences and their right to worship”?
I think your view of the “religious right” as being a tolerant bunch who are open-minded about all public religious expression, not just Christian forms of it, is a bit on the rosy side.
I would think that in a country that claims to be secular in government and in all what can be connected to public service and public property, protesting against the advertizing of any religion on such property is entirely valid. In my view it is even very necessary to be able to state that the USA is nation governed on secular principles.
My question was not about that book. I said what I think of that.
Salaam. A
Inspiration is not Explanation. And I would assume that the bookstore is making money, not drawing from the public fund, wouldn’t it?
And let’s keep in mind that the consitution says “Congress shall make no law…”, not “National Park bookstores shall sell no books…”
While we’re at it, can anyone tell me who killed the Dead Sea?
Oh, woefully uninformed on Egyptian theology! It was Ptah who created.
Although personally I like Nut a lot better myself. Ptah was sort of a jerkoff, if you know what I mean.
Like I said, it squicks me out; I’m not sure if I can explain the squickiness.
Daniel
Hey god. You missed a spot.
This lame argument really deserves a rollseyes, but I’ll refrain.
If a government agency–funded by tax dollars–sells books on a contentious religious topic and installs monuments with religious phrasing from a specific religious text, it most certainly is treading frightening close to violating the clause “Congress shall make no law…”
Law provides for the selling of books by that government agency, and governs the installation of monuments. Extending this law to promote a religion…
Well. Only a person sold on forcing a Christian government upon us would be offended by concerns raised by such actions.
I, personally, wouldn’t have any problem with it. And nor, I imagine, would the rest of the populace, if you took a moment to explain that it was for purposes of “equal time”.
The Christian plates do not make such an announcement, so why should Islamic plates need to make such an anouncement?
Salaam. A
Are you aware that the SCotUS has ruled, over and over again, that the first amendment does not require the elimination of religion from civic/public life? Selling a relgious book in the inspirational section of a public park bookstore does not fall under the first amendment, unless that bookstore explicitly disallowed certain relgious texts in favor of others. Did that happen in this case? Roll your eyes all you want, but unless it did you are simply wrong.
On the issue of plaques with Bible verses, yes, I’d agree that was inappriopriate, although there are plenty of instances where religious quotes are placed in public buildings. I’m not completely certain that the SCotUS would even take a case like this, much less what their opinion would be if they did.
People voicing concerns is no problem with me. Its the exercise of free speech in this way that keeps government in check. I am against knee-jerk ridiculous actions taken because something may offend a few people. Maybe it will…so suck it up and deal with it and tell us all how you feel. Until the government takes action that actually violates the Constitution and doesn’t just hurt someone’s feelings I say express your feelings but leave it at that.
As stated earlier, the first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” The book that mentions the flood, and the plaques that quote Psalms do not even approach the government establishing any religion as being official, correct, or better than any other. This amendment was made to limit the federal government power and to preserve our freedom, not to make the word “God” or any reference to him a dirty word. If I read a plaque in a public park that quotes the scriptures of another religion does this affect my free choice to worship who and how I choose? Of course not. It has as much affect on my free choice as if the plaque quoted a Dr. Seuss book.
For goodness sakes, the Declaration of Independence itself uses the term “Creator” (with a capital C even) [sarcasm] Uh oh! We better put a stop to displaying this document. It just may offend someone. Not every religion believes in a creator so this is clearly the federal government favoring those religions who do. What an outrage! The nerve of the founding fathers to refer to God in a public place. [/sarcasm]
talk about an argument that deserves an eye-roll…the “No mention of God in a public place” takes the cake.
Extremely slight nit-pick… it was the convention during those times to capitalize nouns in general. But even if it weren’t, I suspect that word would have been capitalized as a form or respect. Of course, we’ll never really know. 