If displaying religious symbols implies the nation is of that religion, then displaying no religious symbols implies that the nation is atheistic.  So you see, the removal of the symbols/statues/etcetera does not make it any more or less religiously neutral.

Rather, by allow religious symbols to be placed regardless of the religion they are for, you allow representation from multiple religions and in so doing allow the nation to appear as the melting pot of religions that it is.

jasonkelli :
It really dosent.
Displaying a republican poster suggests im a republican.
Takin down the poster dosent suggest im a democrat.
Likewise, if i dont use my vote and democrats win, that dosent mean the oppoition can state those who didnt vote, support them.
Not showing something dosent mean you believe or support the opposite.

If however, an individual wants to put up something religious, so long as anyone of another faith or no faith has the same access rights to said area, that is fine.

There is nothing wrong with allowing individuals to put up religious symbols, but it should be equal between
religions and those who dont believe in religion, that means for instance if a christian put up a cross on state property, an atheist should be able to put up this


The state itself should not be putting up these things, there job is merely to govern.
I dont think that should be a major issue.

No, but dictating the removal of republican posters by law does dictate that you are anti-Republican which is then a non-neutral stance which returns us to:

If religious symbols implies the nation of that religion than banishing religious symbols implies the nation to be in opposition to all religions (hence, pro atheist).

One a stance is officially taken one way or another, neutrality ends.  Only as long as all religions are free to have symbols on government property can a neutral stance be achieved.

jasonkelli :
I meant if i took the poster down, if someone took it down there would be 3 scenarios.
1 They took it off there property. Fair enough
2 It was on government property without permission Fair enough
3 It was just randomly taken by someone, that is the only one that is wrong.

Either way, it was only an analogy, the point being that removing something dosent mean you jump the opposite way.

I think you are really missing my point. Im not stating that symbols arent allowed, simply that it should be left to individuals, not government. By all means, put a cross up (with permission), so long as a muslim, a jew, an atheist etc get turns with the space too.#

When you join the government, it is meant to be to run the country, not tell people what faith you think is correct.

I dont think anyone is suggesting removing religious things by law, simpy that the law isnt putting them up themselves.

At the end of the day, all that changes is everyone actually gets there voice heard in turn, as opposed to it always being catholics, protestants and mormons. And the people who put up the symbols.

I really cant see a down side other than people attempting to abuse the system, but that happens everyday with every law or government act.

Our Constitution mentions God many times in it.  Religious symbols are meant to remind us of the values of the Constitution that our Founding Fathers stated were founded on their belief in God - not as an endorsement of our religion.  These values include:

All men are created equal
All men have the right to life
All men have the right to liberty
All men have the right to pursue their own happiness

There are many other rights we are granted in the Constitution, all of which are founded upon those principles.  The symbols are a declaration and reminder of those rights by representing the belief system which our Founding Fathers based on them.  They didn't base these freedoms on the Quran or any other "holy" book and therefore no other religious symbol can properly symbolize that.  In a time and age where our government is ignoring our rights, it is more important than ever to remind them of those rights through this means.

I have to live with the fact that America has become a nation of God-haters, morality-bashers, and hate-mongers.  The least everyone can do is admit that this nation was established as a Christian nation (evidenced by our Constitution), with a high sensitivity toward morality (evidenced by its original laws), and established with the ideology of love for and toward all (evidenced by the rights the Constitution originally gave us which no other nation in the world at that time gave its citizens).  It's ironic how atheistic nations (like communist russia and china) all went the route of killing individuals of specific religions (China still does), Catholic nations did the same, as did pagan nations, Islamic nations, etcetera.  However, non-Catholic Christians form the United States of America and in its entire existence it has never Federally orchestrated, endorsed, or performed killings of people due to their religion and still yet...we are treated like a religion of hate.

Remove Catholicism from the equation when studying history and you'll find that post-Christ no Christian nation has ever started a war (even the war for independence began with the first shot fired by the British in a non-combat situation).  True Christianity teaches love, turning your cheek, giving to the needy (hence why no nation gives more to international charity than the United States and within the U.S. no religious group gives more to Charity or comes close to a fraction toward charity than Christianity does).

People can hate on Christianity all they want (Christians gave them that right in the Constitution), but it produced nearly every technology around you, resulted in the only nation in the world that wasn't killing people for their religious/political views, and produced the most charitable nation the world has ever seen.

jasonkelli :

[Christianity] produced nearly every technology around you

Source needed.

I will list a couple, but this is not "wikipedia" and the list is way too extensive to list here in full.

Sir Francis Bacon  who said of atheism:
 "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity."
Johannes Kepler (Protestant)
Galileo Galilei
Rene Descartes (known as the father of modern philosophy)
Blaise Pascal
Robert Boyle
Michael Faraday (nearly everything we have today exists because of his discoveries)
Gregor Mendel (the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism")
William Thomson Kelvin
George Gabriel Stokes
James Clerk Maxwell (The Encyclopedia Britannica: "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions.")
Max Planck (revolutionized our view of the atomic and subatomic world)
Albert Einstein
Matthew Fontaine Maury (devoted his time to the study of naval meteorology, navigation, charting the winds and currents whilst searching for the "paths of the seas" after reading Psalm 8:8 "The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.")

A note on Albert Einstein.  There is debate on his being a true "Christian" or not.  The fact is that Albert Einstein vehemently denied atheism. As the Encyclopedia Britannica: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.".  He once stated: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.".  He was known for his statement: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."  The debate, however, exists in his view of God as a personal God as opposed to an impersonal God.  A God who directly relates to His Creation or one who sits back and simply observes.  The fact is, he was a man who believed in God, who believed that science and religion went hand in hand (or in his view, the Bible and science), and who lived by his convictions in the existence of the Christian God.

There are famous scientists who while not Christian believed the Bible and God to play a big role in science as well.  Though they rejected the notion of becoming Christians.  There are a lot of books on all this authored by both Christian and non-Christian historians and scientists of great renown.  The information and list of Christian scientists and non-Christian scientists who based their research off the Bible or Biblical knowledge is so extensive and astounding that no one has ever managed to put them all in a single book and I most certainly couldn't fit them all in this post.

jasonkelli :
I wont bother addressing all of that, because really you're veering off topic, but some things really need addressed.

What youre basically saying here, is because individuals were christians, christian symbols are more important that others. The reason you are saying this, is youre christian. Its not democratic.

"god haters."
I really have to read this multiple times to believe you are really suggesting christians are being persecuted in america, its an astounding claim.

"christianity never started wars"(protestant christians)
1.irelevant to topic at hand.
2.you wiped out native americans, believing them inferior.
War of independence. Bypassing the debate of who started it, britain was protestant. And we attacked many nations. Maybe you didnt hear, our empire was the worlds largest.
I guess the usa never invade iraq, afghanistan, vietnam, native america, mexico, canada,spanish/french america etc etc. Its all a lie. Never happened.

Other nations didnt persecute, poland had a thriving jewish community, otamans had christians, brits had hindus.

The founding fathers gave rights, not christianity. Before the mongols invaded, the muslims were the most technologically advanced. Now look at the japanese, or the uk. Japs aint christian. Most uk scholars arent. Both technological powerhouses.

So many past inventors were religious, they were male too, i guess thats a factor? I must have missed the part of the bible where god teaches nuclear fission to moses.
But again, irelevant to the discussion at hand.
Incidentaly. Einstein was quoted denying being religious too, you cant prove his faith.

The only thing there I'm going to bother addressing is your first portion since the rest isn't all that accurate and I'm beginning to feel like a human encyclopedia having to correct everything and post sources for the actual facts.

However, I will address your complaint about my most recent post.  I did not veer off topic.  My posts have all been on topic and my last post only exists because a mod requested a source for an on topic statement I made.  If not for that, then the post wouldn't exist.  So, if you feel that I shouldn't have posted it...you really need to complain that the mod made an off topic request.

I do believe there should definitely be a line separating Church from State.

For starters, there are tons of religions that we would have to consult, and even then, there are the non-religious and atheists who also have to be treated fairly, so just basing it 100% on one religion and one god won't work at all.

Besides that, there are also rules in which go against one of the main points of our constitution, which is the pursuit of happiness. For instance, if one religion were leading everything, it'd result in many different things that result in people not being able to live happily, and most times not being able to live at all.

Not sure if this is the perfect example, but being the Pope blessed the woman in charge of this, I'll throw in Uganda and their "Kill The Gays" program. Now, correct me if I'm wrong since I'm judging this on the fact, like I said, the Pope blessed her and the fact she said this act is a "Christmas Gift" to the Pope, but I do believe that this is a prime example of the disgusting acts we humans can do to each other when there's no boundary. If you're one that doesn't know, it states in Levictus (I believe it was) the whole anti-gay thing that many extremists seem to take seriously.

Besides that, I go back to my point of WHOSE religion will be in control. And once they're in control, who is to say things will get better? If stuff like what's going on in Uganda is any example... Besides that, I'd also imagine that there'd be countless wars and fights going on for control once one religion is seen getting more control than the others. Or worse off, said one religion could gain absolute control, and like the Crusades, persecute those of different religions or those who go against their religious rules.
(Yes, I know what the Crusades are, I know everything about it, I've researched it countless times, do not try to lecture me on the odd pair up)

To really wrap this up, State shouldn't force any religion upon its people. Your religious view is one of the most personal things about you, and as such should stay that way. If I could give an example to explain this better, I would. At the time, I'm overall lacking one due to lack of creativity.