Ten Commandments sign at the town's airport taken down.

[Pah]

[size=+1]'Religious symbol' removed from airport[/size]

Complete article
Social Issues: Pilot complains about Ten Commandments display
By Mike Butts

Idaho Press-Tribune

CALDWELL -- After complaints registered by an Eagle pilot, the city of Caldwell has asked that a Ten Commandments sign at the town's airport be taken down.

Caldwell Airport manager Curt Hawkins put the sign up outside the airport offices some time last year. Pilot Bob Synoground brought it to the attention of Caldwell Mayor Garret Nancolas and complained that it was a religious symbol on public property.

"It has either already been removed or it is in the process of being removed," Nancolas said Tuesday. "It was nothing that was approved by the city."

"I'm not anti-Christian. I'm not anti anything," Synoground said. "(But) I consider this to be wrong. You don't have religious symbols on public property. That's tax-supported public property."

 

[fromthe heart]

Goodmorning pah...I see a lot of the religious symbols being done away with all over...I don't quite understand why it offends someone because even though I personally wouldn't object to seeing a buddah statue sitting at an airport, or any symbol of religion sitting anywhere...it just shows that someone believes in something...and I wouldn't feel it was being 'thrust' on me by that. I think some people don't like seeing religious symbols because they just don't want reminded of religion...and that's ok...but what about the rest of us that do enjoy seeing statements of belief no matter what that belief may be? Do our feelings not count like those who pitch a fit about everything? I won't object about these things being taken away from the view of the public because it won't take anything away from me at all...but there doesn't seem to be a fairness in it all somehow.


Just my personal opinion

 

[Pah]

Goodmorning pah...I see a lot of the religious symbols being done away with all over...I don't quite understand why it offends someone because even though I personally wouldn't object to seeing a buddah statue sitting at an airport, or any symbol of religion sitting anywhere...it just shows that someone believes in something...and I wouldn't feel it was being 'thrust' on me by that. I think some people don't like seeing religious symbols because they just don't want reminded of religion...and that's ok...but what about the rest of us that do enjoy seeing statements of belief no matter what that belief may be? Do our feelings not count like those who pitch a fit about everything? I won't object about these things being taken away from the view of the public because it won't take anything away from me at all...but there doesn't seem to be a fairness in it all somehow.


Just my personal opinion

I'm not offended by the symbol per se. I'm offended that the power and resources of the government are being used by individuals and private groups to foster and proclaim a government position contrary to my rights in religious matters.

In defending others rights of free religious expression, I expect reciposity. There needs to be a greater distinction and adherence to private religious expression.

Bob

 

[fromthe heart]

I understand that point and agree...but if a religious group would want to fund placing a symbol of their faith somewhere I don't understand the harm it would cause.

 

[Pah]

I understand that point and agree...but if a religious group would want to fund placing a symbol of their faith somewhere I don't understand the harm it would cause.

Funds are only one element of what constitutes government endorsement. I had mentioned resources (land and buildings, transportation) but it could include official government speech (proclamations, for example sponsership, for another), school curriculm, denail of rights based on religious tenets, et cetera, et cetera.

There is no problem if the placement is made on private property and that property is not acquired from the government for religious purposes at a discriminatory price.

Bob

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I understand that point and agree...but if a religious group would want to fund placing a symbol of their faith somewhere I don't understand the harm it would cause.

Whether it causes harm or not is irrelevant. Advertise on private property.

 

[Master Vigil]

I remember going to visit a college and the catholics were complaining that they could no longer have mass in the chapel. I asked them if they would be willing to let pagans, hindus, buddhists, wiccans, shamans, taoists, etc... perform rites and services there as well. They all said in unison. NO!!! I said, well than you have no right in performing a service there either. If it is a public place, they should not only have one religious symbol there. For if they do, then they should have ALL religious symbols there. And that would be too much money, so instead, I think its best they take it down.

 

[retrorich]

I have no problem with religious symbols being displayed in "public" places such as airports.

I have a serious problem with such symbols being displayed in government facilities, including post offices, city halls, courts, etc. Religious symbols in those places imply governmental endorsement of religion, as do the words "In God We Trust" on US money and "under God" in the US Pledge of Allegiance.

I also object to religious symbols being displayed in public, tax-supported schools.

 

[Sunstone]

The United States is too religiously diverse for the government to be endorsing any one religion.

 

[retrorich]

The United States is too religiously diverse for the government to be endorsing any one religion.

Government shouldn't endorse a religion, a group of religions or religion in general. It should also not endorse lack of religion (e.g., atheism).

 

[Feathers in Hair]

The United States is too religiously diverse for the government to be endorsing any one religion.

(Just noticed your new title, Sunstone! Hehee!)

To risk being trite, I think part of what makes the United States... well, itself, is its religious diversity. There's few things more wonderful, in my opinion, than going down the street and seeing twenty different places of worship for fifteen different religions, and meeting places for those that don't want or have a religion. I wish there was some sort of symbol celebrating religious diversity. (And, of course, the freedom not to have a religion.)

 

[huajiro]

I would have no problem with religious symbols being displayed anywhere if it was equal....the problem is that most Americans (for example) are Christians......there would be practically no opportunity for other groups to display their religious symbols....and if they did, it may cause problems....it is better to avoid it all together.

 

[Pah]

I have no problem with religious symbols being displayed in "public" places such as airports. ...

Airports are governmental enties and are usually under the control of a Port Authority.

Bob

 

[retrorich]

Airports are governmental enties and are usually under the control of a Port Authority.

Bob

Still I don't feel airports are as overtly governmental as other types of government facilities. At least, I don't think most people perceive them as government facilities. I know I don't.

 

[Pah]

Still I don't feel airports are as overtly governmental as other types of government facilities. At least, I don't think most people perceive them as government facilities. I know I don't.

I daresay you are right. The perception is different from the facts and it runs into fine points of law.

Bob

 

[GodofCats]

I remember going to visit a college and the catholics were complaining that they could no longer have mass in the chapel. I asked them if they would be willing to let pagans, hindus, buddhists, wiccans, shamans, taoists, etc... perform rites and services there as well. They all said in unison. NO!!! I said, well than you have no right in performing a service there either. If it is a public place, they should not only have one religious symbol there. For if they do, then they should have ALL religious symbols there. And that would be too much money, so instead, I think its best they take it down.

:biglaugh: That's so funny that they all answered in unison. Did any of them reply to your rebuttal? Ah, the narrow-mindedness of people.

 

[Lintu]

Christianity is already endorsed in so many ways. It's practically assumed in most parts of the country that if you're not Asian or Middle Eastern, you're Christian. Even though the Ten Commandments are in the Torah, I still feel that it does too much to endorse Christianity. I'm not offended by it in the least, but I think that placing those things in public places creates and enhances assumptions people already have about members of their community. Then again, Happy Hannukah banners and "Glorious Kwanzaa" banners just look tacky, because it seems pretty obvious no one (in most parts of the country) really cares whether people have a good Hannukah and Kwanzaa...it just makes them look tolerant of diversity.

 

[Master Vigil]

:biglaugh: That's so funny that they all answered in unison. Did any of them reply to your rebuttal? Ah, the narrow-mindedness of people.

Nah, I didn't give them time to. While thier faces were white with shock and fear, I smiled real big, turned, and walked away. I don't think they liked me too much after that. Oh well, they thought I was going to hell anyway so it made no difference for me.