Religion vs. State

[Jennifer]

Ok so I have encountered an interesting problem here. I know my position on it but I can't really explain why I have the position.

I think some background is necessary.

Recently at my university there has been some debate about our central building the Memorial Union. Now this is is a state school and they have a small room/library (it has like 3 tables in it etc. it is not very big) and it has religious symbols in it, predominantly christian, as it has a cross in there and christian oriented stained glass windows but there are some jewish symbols also. Now there has been debate, especially due to our school, since it's state funded and therefore dealing with money issues, that this area called the MU chapel should be removed and replaced with something else like a food place that can get money for the school. It isn't used all that much. A petitioner from our Athiest and Agnostic club (the petition has some 90 signatures now from students and faculty) suggests that it either be handled 1 of 2 ways: that the symbols be removed and that it is used either as a reflection room or replaced by something profitable, or that other symbols from any other religion be allowed so that it is Constitutional. Now this is the main problem, the MU chapel was originally for the purpose of ISU students that had gone to war as soldiers and were KIA etc.

Now my religious friend extended this point to "Ok I can see where you are coming from that we should equalize the MU chapel but you say that state represented religion is either against the law or not and there can be no exceptions via the constitution. What do we do with for instance, a soldier that died and he is christian and he wants his views etc. represented on his tombstone or whatever, what if the graveyard is government owned? Should he have the right to portray his religion/beliefs etc. or is that not allowed in that case also?" This is what I essentially don't know how to answer properly other than maybe the idea that the government shouldn't own any graveyards to begin with but since that kind of government restriction isn't a reality right now it's hard to argue for the same implementation with the Memorial Union at the same time rather than making it another exception.

Also just as a side note theres at least 20 churches for various abrahamic faiths (minus islam) within the 2-3 block outside radius from the school.

So could someone clarify for me how overall this should be handled properly and especially how to justify the action when its contrasted to that graveyard issue? I really appreciate it. Thanks

[SD26]

What do we do with for instance, a soldier that died and he is christian and he wants his views etc. represented on his tombstone or whatever, what if the graveyard is government owned? Should he have the right to portray his religion/beliefs etc. or is that not allowed in that case also?

Why wouldn't a "dead soldier" have the right to speech free of government intervention in a government cemetery?

[Jennifer]

Why wouldn't a "dead soldier" have the right to speech free of government intervention in a government cemetery?

I know but I don't know how to argue that exactly. Because my friend see's it as the same as the religion vs. state issue in regards to the MU chapel etc.

See here:

"The purpose of the *Memorial Union* is to remember soldiers KIA. The truth is that in order to best commemorate them, a chapel, as well as some stained glass depictions, are the best way to do this. Just because the MU has a food court, a hotel, and an underground game room, doesn't take away from that ideal. So if you honestly think that those soldiers don't deserve to be commemorated in the way our country, and/or their families traditionally commemorate them, feel free to have the chapel and the gold star room removed/altered. It is the same with government owned cemeteries with crosses and/or prayer area's in them.

As far as the gay marriage issue goes, marriage shouldn't be a government institution at all in my opinion, it should be separate, and if people need some way to join themselves in the eyes of the law, civil unions should be introduced. And if someone wants to have a civil union with three people, they should do so.

That, however, was not the actual point of this article. The point was that progressives screaming for tolerance, are no more tolerant than the very people they scream are perpetrating them. I personally think this is true in many cases, however the gay rights issue is a poor example in my opinion."

Edited November 5, 2009 by Jennifer

[Alexandros]

Don't forget the fact that the existence of the state (public) university is itself unconstitutional. When we keep that in my mind, we can approach this with the "private vs. public school" angle. Amongst other things, the idea that public schools should not exist is the result of the fact that, in order to finance the school, the property rights of many people must be violated via taxation. Since dismantling the university is a wholly impractical goal at this point in time and, therefore, lots of taxpayer dollars are going to be spent no matter what, all attention should be paid to figuring out how to get the most out of every dollar spent. It is my idea that, since we are dealing with taxpayer dollars, one should only concern themselves with the physical side of things. That means monetary profit. The idea here is that if the citizens are going to have their money stolen, they will be justified in expecting the absolute best of what it will be spent on. In this case, they should expect the best school that their money can buy. And if we think about what a school is (a learning establishment), we can determine what fundamental things are used to gauge the quality of a school: 1) The level of education offered and 2) how high its profits are. To me, this means determining what is more profitable: the chapel or an extra restaurant/reflection room/etc.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Alexandros

[Q.E.D.]

I don't think anyone argues with the principle that the public institution should attempt to maximize the amount of value gained from tax payer money. What people disagree on is the value of this room on your campus. While Christianity may be ridiculous nonsense, I'd be willing to guess that this room is of value to the mostly Christian population which inhabit this university. I think you should let the Christians have their room, and not waste your time worrying about it.

The Atheist Association at your campus sounds a lot like the bunch of subjectivists at my school. They're not trying to succeed, they want the Christians to fail. They don't want to establish a sanctum for reason, they want the Christian chapel to be desecrated. I've realized that its counter productive to try to work with irrational atheist/agnostics because they've no interest in building up a rational world view and instead concentrate on bashing extremist (known to be crazy) christians.

[Jennifer]

I don't think anyone argues with the principle that the public institution should attempt to maximize the amount of value gained from tax payer money. What people disagree on is the value of this room on your campus. While Christianity may be ridiculous nonsense, I'd be willing to guess that this room is of value to the mostly Christian population which inhabit this university. I think you should let the Christians have their room, and not waste your time worrying about it.

The Atheist Association at your campus sounds a lot like the bunch of subjectivists at my school. They're not trying to succeed, they want the Christians to fail. They don't want to establish a sanctum for reason, they want the Christian chapel to be desecrated. I've realized that its counter productive to try to work with irrational atheist/agnostics because they've no interest in building up a rational world view and instead concentrate on bashing extremist (known to be crazy) christians.

Actually they have an "Ask an Athiest" booth from time to time in the free speech area outside t he school library and other events, they are fairly proactive, and could someone help me in justifying the cemetary thing other than the argument that the school shouldn't be public in the first place in regards to comparison. That was the original problem here, not a critique of how this situation is boiling down at my school, this chapel issue comes up every few months and its usually not started by the AAS.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Jennifer

[Q.E.D.]

http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/psuaaa/Our_Pho...an_Atheist.html

The Atheist Club here also has an Ask an Atheist event. They also regularly protest / debate Christian speakers, but they do it from a subjectivist perspective and never actually make any headway.

[Grames]

... and could someone help me in justifying the cemetary thing other than the argument that the school shouldn't be public in the first place in regards to comparison.

Recognizing that religions exist is not the same thing as establishing them. Same principle applies to the chapel and a graveyard. Leave it alone.

I hope you are not seriously considering advocating digging up every white cross in Arlington?

[Jennifer]

I hope you are not seriously considering advocating digging up every white cross in Arlington?

I don't think you understand my position on this because I don't know where you would get this idea from.

[Grames]

I don't think you understand my position on this because I don't know where you would get this idea from.

I verify for you that I have no idea what your position is, hence the use of the interrogative. The Atheists club might advocate this, but you didn't specify an opinion (which is partly why you posted presumably).

[bluecherry]

I see this as similar to the issue of how a government employee may perhaps wear a crucifix while on the job, but you may not put up the ten commandments on a courthouse. Individuals may still do what they will with themselves personally on the subject though they may be receiving tax dollars (so no reason to bother with forbidding individual soldiers from having symbols of their religious beliefs on their graves), but once you get to where it isn't just about them doing/wanting things for themselves exclusively, it gets to stop being about personal freedom of religion/expression. On top of that, do they even know all those soldiers they are trying to commemorate were all Christian or Jewish anyway? If not, they may in fact be showing a rather insulting disregard in implying that they were anyway. More importantly though, there's no need for them to press an issue like this by having that room since people can easily go elsewhere to perform Christian or Jewish prayers, whether in the nearby areas you mentioned or even just in private by themselves any old place, and you know, creating chapels is FAR from the only way to commemorate dead soldiers - there are lots of statues built for purposes like that in many places, there's that wall with all the names of the dead soldiers from the Vietnam war in Washington D.C., stuff like that. It doesn't need to be religiously oriented and scream "I'm praying for you!" to show that you remember and honor dead soldiers. After all, it isn't like atheists have been somehow proven incapable of appreciating the lost lives of soldiers to show that it is necessary to incorporate a religious aspect to get the job done. Maybe if you guys did get it replaced with a restaurant, you could use proceeds from the restaurant to fund the creation of a new, non-religious memorial.

Edited November 6, 2009 by bluecherry

[Maximus]

Okay, let's examine what the Constitution actually says, rather than what we think it says. it states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The Constitution is a statement of negative rights - a limitation on the powers of the federal government. The Bill of Rights was added as a condition of passage by the representatives of the several states and does not mean that the rights enumerated are the only existing rights.

The states, under the Tenth Amendment, do have the right to establish public educational institutions and to set taxes for the support of same as authorized in their respective state constitutions.

The capel room is not hurting you, I, or anyone else - so I don't see why an issue is being made of it. Concentrate you r zeal on an area that will make a damn in the long run instead of wasting effort in such a trivial matter.