Same Sex Marriage and SCOTUS

[unstoppable_II]

…
Keep in mind that the Vatican has a large and extensive collection of pagan and pre-Christian iconography.
…

What does this have to do with religion and government in the US?

 

[ThatsNoBueno]

What does this have to do with religion and government in the US?

If you read the post in its entirety, you wouldn’t be asking this question. We were discussing the whole idea of “religious” and “pagan” iconography throughout the United States government such as Lady Liberty or in the U.S. Capitol.

 

[unstoppable_II]

If you read the post in its entirety, you wouldn’t be asking this question. We were discussing the whole idea of “religious” and “pagan” iconography throughout the United States government such as Lady Liberty or in the U.S. Capitol.

And what does that have to do with SS"M"?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Fair enough. However, I would argue that much of the religious iconography is pagan in nature and comes from ancient religions that are no longer practiced by much of the human population and / or no longer practiced or believed in as they were many centuries ago.

One could argue that these iconography are not held by many people to have a religious meaning any longer. Yes, we may know and understand that they once had a religious meaning at one point in time, but today, they are seen as pieces of artwork.

Keep in mind that the Vatican has a large and extensive collection of pagan and pre-Christian iconography.

So, I think one could say, that yes, these symbols or iconography have a religious history, but don’t have any religious meaning today.

But, interesting take. Reminds me of the whole news story several years ago of having crucifixes in Italian courtrooms. I could be wrong, but from what I remembered, it was argued that it was merely a historical / cultural image, and not a religious one, therefore it should be placed there.

So, your claim would be that it is okay to include images and icons of things that are provably false, no longer believed or shown to be non-existent in government buildings but stuff that might be true, accepted or endorsed by large numbers of people and controversial for that reason should be ignored and, even, rejected by governments as inconsequential?

On other words, inconsequential stuff ought to be treated as if it were consequential and consequential stuff should be treated as inconsequentail by the ruling elites of our land. Do I have a proper grasp of your meaning?

Is this what is meant by politically correct? Politics should strictly involve itself with what is innocuous so as not to offend anyone at any place at any time on any belief spectrum? Makes politics kind of irrelevant and useless as far as anything of substance is concerned, doesn’t it?

 

[ialsop]

So, your claim would be that it is okay to include images and icons of things that are provably false, no longer believed or shown to be non-existent in government buildings but stuff that might be true, accepted or endorsed by large numbers of people and controversial for that reason should be ignored and, even, rejected by governments as inconsequential?

On other words, inconsequential stuff ought to be treated as if it were consequential and consequential stuff should be treated as inconsequentail by the ruling elites of our land. Do I have a proper grasp of your meaning?

Is this what is meant by politically correct? Politics should strictly involve itself with what is innocuous so as not to offend anyone at any place at any time on any belief spectrum? Makes politics kind of irrelevant and useless as far as anything of substance is concerned, doesn’t it?

This was put perfectly.

 

[exnihilo]

One could argue that these iconography are not held by many people to have a religious meaning any longer. Yes, we may know and understand that they once had a religious meaning at one point in time, but today, they are seen as pieces of artwork…

So, I think one could say, that yes, these symbols or iconography have a religious history, but don’t have any religious meaning today.

There are definitely pagans around. They may be small in number but they exist. But even more of an issue is there are many images that are Masonic. Masonry is very much alive today, it is popular, and it has a religious element.

How can the standard be it is OK to have religious symbols if no one believes in them if the claim is that there mere usage forces in some way that religion on people? According to the assertion used to do away with Christian symbols the mere usage of symbols causes belief to occur or at the very least encourages it. We’d have to assume the US government is forcing paganism on people even if it is not causing huge numbers of converts, though that might be disputed given the lifestyle of so many Americans.