12 Reasons Displaying the Cross Is Not a 'Violation of Freedom'
Excellent article to read. The first sentence sums it up perfectly: "The meaning of 'freedom of religion' has nothing to do with creating a society that is 'free from religion' ".
Amen to that!
Another part that had me screaming "heck yes!" was this:
"Forcibly removing the symbol of the cross is a violation on the same level as it would be to force atheists to mount this symbol."
In our home, we have a crucifix hanging in nearly every room.
We fully know and understand that even if we didn't, God would still be with us in every single room.
Of course.
That's not the point.
We believe, and in expressing our belief, we will honor HIM by having that crucifix hanging.
If a visitor to our home doesn't like that, I'd be happy to talk about it, but it will remain.
My thoughts go more deeply than this, but I can't express myself as well as the article. It's a worthy read.
1 comment:
The way that I interpret freedom of religion isn't creation of a society free of religion at all. The government just can't endorse a particular religion. The government cannot be a religious government. like the one that they have in Iran. To me, that means that the government can't display a crucifix, the star of David or any other religious symbol. The government must be secular and neutral when it comes to religion, but that doesn't mean that religion should be banned completely. You should be free to practice your own religion, even if that means you must take time out from school or whatever to pray to Mecca or must fast with the holy days or must pray before you eat your meals.
One of the best parts of this country is that people are free to practice whatever religion they want or to not practice any religion at all without the fear of retribution at the hands of their government.
Post a Comment