Next summer when I go on vacation I want to visit the United States (if I can find it)

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

if i owned a bank and i wanted display such things on my walls its my right. if bible verses and crosses offend you then dont come to my bank. thats your right.

Not any more with our current political situation.  We must be "politically correct".  I don't think I'm all that old, but people used to be sent to the gulag's in Siberia for being "politically incorrect".  I frankly don't see much difference in the direction we are headed.

Jerry

I think them's the rules when you're backed by the full trust and faith of the US goobermint (FDIC).

And, now, the rest of the story

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

I found that later.  the update hadn't been posted at the time I originally found it.  The matter is still under review, and can be reinstated by the fed if they decide to.

Jerry

To think that a cross, a symbol of Christian faith, and, although it varies in form, a symbol of other faiths, could be considered something that is offensive....

Yet this country, Canada, the UK, and others, allow for even just the CONSIDERATION of Sharia law?!?! 

IMO something is seriously wrong with this picture....

You know why. As much as the mainstream media likes to tear into their version of "crazy ass Christians" no one runs around screaming, lock up the babies, it's Christmas (or Easter) and the Christians are comin'!  When was the last time you were afraid of a bunch of Amish horse drawn carriage riders? But there is good reason to be concerned about how other religions interpret religious tolerance. Often reinforced with violence, as in N Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, China, Malaysia, Philippines...I could go on and on.

I may be misunderstanding it, but it seems to me that because the bank is insured (FDIC) by the Federal Goobermint, the same rules apply like a "public" place such as a court house etc.
  I understand it to mean that since it is dictated guidelines by the FDIC Govt. entity, it has to abide by Gooberment rules pertaining to no religious or political signs allowed on the property.

   If I am reading this right and the Govt. has domain, it would be proper for them to demand the bank remove the religious signs.

  In places that are definitely Govt. owned/operated (like a post office or  Police Station) there absolutely should not be religious signs posted.

  In a private place like a privately owned business, it should be entirely up to the owner(s) if they want to post political or religious signs.

It sounds like a debatable issue in a bank. I suspect the Govt. would have to demand they remove them since the bank agreed to the rules of the FDIC before they opened the  bank.
  I suppose the bank would have the same rights a privately-owned business would have if they found another way to insure the depositor's money.
  Not sure if that is possible though.

Personally, I never posted political or religious signs at my business because we were there to fix your motorcycle, not make some kinda statement....it turns people off.
But again, a privately-owned business should be able to post whatever they want. If  you didn't like it, you could find a new motorcycle shop.

  It would be interesting to see exactly what rules are set-up by the FDIC and what the bank signed on to. I suspect the answer would be found there.
Cheers, Dave

In 234 years of this country this is the first time such an argument has been made by the Fed.  I think precedent should clearly give indication of the intent of the founders of this country.  BTW, if you go to Washington DC you will find religious material chiseled in the walls of nearly all of our government buildings, including Congress, The Supreme Court, the Washington Monument, the Jefferson Monument, the Lincoln Monument, the Treasury Building, and I could go on.  The fact is this country was not based on a pluralistic foundation as many would try to make us believe now days.  It was based strongly on a Christian/Judaic foundation.  The "Freedom of Religion" as spoken of in early writings if you will do some study of early dictionaries was between Christian denominations, and the States themselves had the right to set their own "State Churches" as all but Rhode Island and Pennsylvania did.

That does not mean that I think America should be only Christian and Jewish.  I DO believe we should have religious freedom that extends beyond the limits of the founders vision.  However, just because we wish to be inclusive of other religious viewpoints does not mean we should curtail our own, nor the freedom to FREELY express them.  I'm sure the owners of the bank in question recognize that not all possible customers are Christian, nor that they wish to be.  If a potential customer is put off by the owners expression of their faith they in turn have the freedom to do business elsewhere.  The owners obviously are willing to risk that loss of business.  The bank's expression of the owners faith is in no way coercive, but the restriction of their right to express that faith is.

Jerry

Callico wrote on Dec 25^th, 2010 at 2:04am:

the States themselves had the right to set their own "State Churches" as all but Rhode Island and Pennsylvania did.

The First Amendment restricted the Federal Government, not the states.  The Bill of Rights didn't guarantee separation of church and state, I think it was the 14th Amendment though, in 1867 that incorporated the freedoms and made them applicable to the states. 


I'm not sure of "the States themselves had the right to set their own "State Churches", the Revolution separated church and state in those areas where the Church of England had been established in colonial times.  I'm aware only of New England states (VE, CT, NH, and MA) where the Congregationalist establishments remained in place, being on the winning side of the Revolution.

There was a presumption in these states that all citizens belonged to the Congregationalist Church and could be taxed for its support unless filing a statement otherwise.  This violated Jeffersonian Republicanism, a western world experiment.

Disestablishment was first forced in VT, 1807; then NH, 1817; CT, 1818; and finally MA, 1833.

This became a Second Great Awakening and religion flourished as never before.  Churches cut away from dependence on state support and wholly onto their own resources 1810 to 1850, with Catholicism a bit later.

Thing is Jerry, it is a question of what rules the FDIC has set down and how it regulates individual issues. Actually the FDIC has not been in operation for 234 years. It has been around for 75 years. But it really doesn’t matter when an issue comes into question, nor does the timing have any bearing on the validity of the issue either way. If it ever got to the Supreme Court, it should be given consideration in the same way any other issue gets decided upon. Court Justices are expected not to get emotionally invested in their decisions and be able to separate their beliefs from proper decision-making processes. It is a very difficult job…and a very big deal.
There is very good reason we should not have religious signs posted in public buildings. Those who do not have that faith or perhaps a faith at all are owners of said public buildings just like anyone else. Just because religious symbols are chiseled into public  buildings dos not make it Constitutional. If we get into posting religious signs in public-owned places, we would have to post a sign for everything from Scientology to Islam. At one time many people thought slavery was ok and Constitutionality wasn't questioned. George Washington himself was regretful later in life for having been a slave owner.  Our history has unfortunate occurrences of un-Constitutionality in it. Fortunately The Supreme Court is our outlet for determination.  It doesn't matter what the majority of the Founders were as it relates to religion. It doesn't make us a Christian nation. If that were true, we would declare ourselves a “White Nation” We are a Nation for all people. It doesn't matter that Christian values or morals happen to be shared with X amount of people or if an agnostic contends that morals are simply a man-made concept like mathematics. What does matter is that the Justices determine Constitutionality without bias. The issue of the 10th amendment is always dicey. However it in no way should be used to draw a conclusion in this case or to say that there should be no reason for it to go to The Supreme Court. A State could declare slavery a-ok, but it would not make it Constitutional.
None of that really matters in regards to this issue. It is simply a question of how the FDIC rules apply and if the bank has a legal responsibility to follow a particular rule. Again,  I am assuming that I am reading the article correctly and the legal issue is what I think it is.
The bank in question could express whatever they want, being privately owned. That normally wouldn't be in question.
The big question is: What rules does the FDIC have made for the participants and what exactly did this bank sign-on for? If the FDIC and Feds weren't involved, no one would be asking the question.
Cheers, Dave

Kevin,

I misspoke about the State Churches to one degree.  That was allowed under the Articles of Confederation and all but two States had State Churches.  Virginia allowed for "Religious Equality" in 1787, but not "Religious Liberty" which was argued in particular by the Baptist Church of VA (otherwise known as "dissenters").  Some Baptist preachers were even jailed (on a local basis) for preaching without a licence until several years after the adoption of the Constitution.  The licences to preach and to have a church were granted by the State, and the ability to perform marriages was often curtailed.

Dave,

The FDIC as an insurance agency of the federal government (supposedly funded, although governmentally guaranteed, by the banks themselves) that has no Constitutional basis for making ANY regulation, let along law, concerning the free practice of religion in a privately held bank.  The Federal Government does not own ANY banks, including the Federal Reserve Bank.  I know the government has been trying to federalize a great deal of this country, but it has no Constitutional authority to do so.  The bank in OK is a privately held bank that was not in violation of any of the federal regulations as to lending or discrimination toward its customers.  Its offense deemed by federal regulators was of a religious nature NOT of its business practices within the community.  Had they been withholding loans or business from customers who did not hold their religious beliefs they would have been wrong and should be held accountable.  They were instead targeted for their public affirmation of their faith. 

If you were to hold me to the same limitation they were being held to I could not share my faith publicly on this platform.  If DJ says I cannot he is in the right to do so because HE owns this site.  The Federal Government has NO input on the matter.

Jerry

Callico wrote on Dec 25^th, 2010 at 11:08pm:

That was allowed under the Articles of Confederation and all but two States had State Churches.  Virginia allowed for "Religious Equality" in 1787, but not "Religious Liberty" which was argued in particular by the Baptist Church of VA (otherwise known as "dissenters").

I see, Jerry, you were originally speaking of a pre-Bill of Rights era.  :)

VA disestablished 1776, John Leland then backed Madison for the amendment.

Callico wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 6:06pm:

Next summer when I go on vacation I want to visit the United States (if I can find it) http://www.koco.com/r/26162860/detail.html

I agree with you, Jerry.  The US isn't what it used to be.  What a sad, sad loss.  Our country was founded on religious tolerance to all faiths, or no faith at all.  It was not founded as a Christian nation.  Don't start flaming me, for I am a Christian, but I firmly believe in the Constitution that give each one of us the liberty of believing or not believing as we choose. 

Get and read the book "Movers: Report from Philadelphia, The Constitutional Convention of 1787", written by Bill Moyers.  Through handwritten notes and records of this convention, it is abundantly clear that those drafting our constitution struggled mightily with the religion aspect, but finally agreed to how it was written.

We have a very little town in NC called King.  The town of King erected a veteran's memorial to the fallen soldiers in all wars.  On this monument they flew the US flag, the NC state flag and the Christian flag. 

One person in King objected to the Christian flag being flown over the monument.  The ACLU got involved, and that flag was  removed, to huge outcry from the rest of the citizens of King.  The city  removed the flag because as a small village, they didn't have the money to go to court against the mighty ACLU.

What did King do?  They formed a lottery that would pick a slip of paper of all entries that would determine which of 41 flags, approved by the Veteran's administration, could be flown.  All citizens could submit their choice of what flag to be flown, along with the US and state flags.

They just had their first lottery.  There were 110 submissions, 106 for the Christian flag, 3 for no flag at all, and 1 for the atheist flag.  One slip of paper was pulled from the lottery.

The Christian flag is flying again in King for 51 weeks.  No flag will fly at all the week of June 6.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE ;  

Sandy

Good for them!  START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

The Christian flag my actually be flown above the US flag aboard a Naval vessel during services according to the US Flag Code (section C)  That is the only time it can be in a superior position to the US Flag.

Understand, although I am a Christian and strongly believe in my faith, I do not suggest in any way diminishing any other person's right to worship as he sees fit.  He must live according to his conscience as I do mine.  My only objection has been the evaporation of the rights and privileges of the majority in order to placate the minority.

Jerry

This isn't just happening in the US. The link below is to a newspaper article in the UK where a bishop is questioning the current laws around disproportionate protection for minorities.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

There is similar debate here in New Zealand too which started around the case of Achmed Zaoui (START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE) who is a convicted terrorist from Algeria but he was able to become a refugee despite severe concerns from the security services.


I've been following this discussion with interest with the multiple postings in this thread. Personally I do not follow any religion but people should be free to follow (or not to follow) their own religions as long as what they do is within the law, people being free to join and leave the religion, etc.

However I would not like to see any religion resulting in law changes, from mandating that shops must not close on Christmas day or Easter Sunday (happens here in NZ) to ritual practices around slaughtering of animals, what I might wear, when I can work, what I can eat, etc.

Equally the government should not be spending tax dollars on religious causes, be it to fund religious schools or visits by religious leaders. But if people wish to fund them themselves then they are totally free to do so (again with provisions around the activity being legal, so no funding of terrorism).

There was a post around a bank having to remove religious material on display. Surely that should be totally up to the owners of the bank concerned. If their customers don't like it then they are totally free to change banks as there are other banks and people do have a choice they can freely make.

A freedom that is closely related to freedom of religion is freedom of speech. Part of freedom of speech is the freedom to say (or write) things that may offend someone. However legislation seems to be so heavily focussed on protecting minorities from being offended that the freedom of the majority is comprised. This really means that the minority is seen as being more important than that of the majority, however I thought we lived in a democracy.

I thought quite a bit as I wrote this post knowing how sensitive a topic religion is so hopefully I've not mortally offended anyone but equally I didn't want to not say things. Even by saying that people should be free to follow any religion this will potentially offend some who follow a religion that says they are the one true religion.

Well said Mike.  Thanks for your input.

Jerry

"The FDIC as an insurance agency of the federal government (supposedly funded, although governmentally guaranteed, by the banks themselves) that has no Constitutional basis for making ANY regulation, let along law, concerning the free practice of religion in a privately held bank."

Jerry:
I think that was the crux of my "big question"
So, you are saying that there is no justification under The Constitution for the FDIC to make such rules.  I don't honestly know, I must admit, but that's okay....I could do for some more research on so many topics. That's okay too, I am currently learning about different disciplines in science....thanks to Kevin_M & my Son who are both science guys.
Anyways, if you are correct and it lands in court...the only correct outcome is for the FDIC to relent.
However, I haven't yet heard from the FDIC on the matter...so I'll have to wait & see. Maybe there is an argument of some kinda attachment to FDIC insurance, what was signed on to or ????? I don't have any personal or emotional investment to any such subject. I am only concerned how it fits into The Constitution.  I know many people are really emotionally attached to these type of issues. I dunno, maybe I'm clinical, all I really care about is how it shakes-out from a Constitutional perspective.
If I get time, I'll try to look into it some more.
I normally don't give "opinions" on subjects I don't have all the information on...for obvious reasons. But I'm going to assume it will end up in either a state court or maybe even The Supreme Court.
Hey Jerry, I just noticed you live in Aurora...I live in the armpit of Illinois...Decatur. Do Wayne & Garth really live there..LOL ;D
Cheers, Dave

"A freedom that is closely related to freedom of religion is freedom of speech. Part of freedom of speech is the freedom to say (or write) things that may offend someone. However legislation seems to be so heavily focused on protecting minorities from being offended that the freedom of the majority is comprised. This really means that the minority is seen as being more important than that of the majority, however I thought we lived in a democracy.

I thought quite a bit as I wrote this post knowing how sensitive a topic religion is so hopefully I've not mortally offended anyone but equally I didn't want to not say things. Even by saying that people should be free to follow any religion this will potentially offend some who follow a religion that says they are the one true religion."

Hey Mike, how's it going?
  I'd like to think in our democratic republic, there is no worry about who speech offends. To me, there should be no group or belief that is special or deserves more consideration than any other issue as it relates to The Constitution. No special consideration for either a minority nor a majority....equal is my thing !! I'm a good-neighbor and don't intentionally harass people about their beliefs, but also don't care if they want to be offended. You have no reason to walk on eggshells. I'm gonna guess that New Zealand has much the same attitude as do we. That is, everyone's ideas, beliefs or non-beliefs deserve exactly the same consideration. If anyone thinks they are special, then they are the one with the problem and can go be offended all they want.
Sometimes other people's free speech get's my nose out of shape, but I don't want them silenced. There is always debates here as to how far free speech goes, it's usually honest debate. People can have different ideas about how far. I'm pretty liberal with free speech. I don't like racists spewing hate, but have to accept it and not want them silenced.  There is a group here that goes around to gay peoples & soldiers funerals and jeer the relatives and say very hateful things to them.  There is definitely a debate going on this one. I'm not sure if it has hit a court for determination yet. I think it needs looked at. The things they say at a persons funeral are so hateful and so damaging to the families, you end up asking yourself how can someone be so mean to others.  Free speech here in The USA can be a very complicated issue for The Supreme Court to rule on, I don't envy them because it is a very difficult job.....sorry I have to keep revising due to spelling errors.
Cheers, Dave

Groov,
That church is Westboro Church and it's before the Supreme Court right now.

Thanks for an interesting post Groov that had me thinking (as I keep an eye on the spit roast pork I'm doing for new year's lunch).


I'm not quite walking on eggshells, but I'm concious that this is a forum for people with CHs, from all over the world and many of them hold their own religion as being very important. Religion is something that many find to be central to their very being. So for this reason I write a bit more carefully than I might if I was posting elsewhere.

New Zealand has quite a different attitude to religion compared to the US. There is no official religion, although there is a curious situation with our head of state being Queen Elizabeth who is the head of the Church of England, however she is head of state as being the Queen of NZ which does not have any religious links (doesn't make sense to me, but that is the official situation).

This means that there is nothing like "In God We Trust" on coins or official mottos, etc, however there is a prayer said in parliment at the start of each session although it is not specific to any religion.

About half of people are christian (only a small proportion regularly attend church), a third atheist with about half of the rest either objecting to the census question. Other religions account for about 5% of the population, mainly equally divided between muslim, buddhist and hindu.

NZ is pretty strong on equality, being the first country to give women the vote (1893).

So in many ways NZ is similar to the US, but in some ways it is different.

Mike,
The US doesn't have an *official* religion (it may seem like it at times, but we really don't).

deltadarlin wrote on Dec 31^st, 2010 at 7:14pm:

The US doesn't have an *official* religion (it may seem like it at times, but we really don't).

Now I'm confused. "In God We Trust" is the official US motto (H.J. Resolution 396 passed by Congress in 1956), although it doesn't mention which God (but being singular I assume it rules out multiple (hindu, buddhist, shinto, wicca) or no gods).

So it's as if religion is official, even if it's no specific religion.

Can anyone explain this?

Mike NZ wrote on Dec 31^st, 2010 at 7:40pm:

"In God We Trust" is the official US motto (H.J. Resolution 396 passed by Congress in 1956), Can anyone explain this?

1956, television's getting popular.  If some guy (or gal, possibly named Tammy Faye) asks me to mail in $100 and trust God will deliver, maybe it's best to just trust God instead.

It's a good motto and reminder.

The founders of the United States were predominately "Christian" although of varying denominations.  The "establishment" clause had to do with establishing an official denomination, i.e. Anglican, Congregational, Presbyterian, Catholic, to name the predominant ones of the time.  (See Noah Webster's dictionary of the period.) They also recognized (for the most part) the need of freedom of religion for others than those of the Christian persuasion. 

In God We Trust as a motto came from the fourth stanza of "The Star Spangled Banner" written in 1814 and later adopted as the National Anthem.  As early as 1864 it appeared on some of our coinage and was required on all coins except for the penny and nickel in 1908.  Since 1938 it has appeared on all of our coinage.  In 1955 Congress enacted legislation requiring the motto to appear on all coins and currency.

In 1956 "In God We Trust" was adopted by Congress as the official motto of the United States.

There have been numerous lawsuits trying to remove the motto from our coinage and currency claiming it is an establishment of religion, but they have all been defeated.

Interestingly, Theodore Roosevelt objected to its usage on our coinage, not on Constitutional grounds, but because he thought it sacrilegious to use God's name on money.

In 2003 Gallup did an extensive poll on the use of the motto on our coins and currency.  a full 90% of the population supports using In God We Trust.

Various sources were used in the above, including Wikipedia.

Jerry

Thanks for the explanation Jerry.

Quote:

The Christian flag my actually be flown above the US flag aboard a Naval vessel during services according to the US Flag Code (section C)  That is the only time it can be in a superior position to the US Flag.

Interesting. I never knew that.

We are supposed to twist ourselves in knots and storm the parapets over this thing. Why? It makes great copy, is handy for politicians, provides incredible incomes for a few fire-breathers, and sells a shitload books. It's great for sloppy journalism. It looks much more important than it is. Seriously!

It's  nothing new. Years ago, before our blessed cable TV news system, this kind of thing wound up never on page one but probably below the fold in local news sections or Sunday supplements. It was one of those things that you read, shook your head about.

It's such a waste of energy. It's something to pay some attention to, I guess but don't go nuts.

Charlie; who has no real problem with religious display unless it gets in the way of good vacation photography.

Pretty much my thoughts too, Charlie, and reason for the Tammy Faye explanation, which I wouldn't think needed a   ;).


:)

catlind wrote on Dec 21^st, 2010 at 6:23pm:

To think that a cross, a symbol of Christian faith, and, although it varies in form, a symbol of other faiths, could be considered something that is offensive.... Yet this country, Canada, the UK, and others, allow for even just the CONSIDERATION of Sharia law?!?!  IMO something is seriously wrong with this picture....

The 'Sharia is being imposed on the US' idea is bullshit. It's that simple. If someone breaks a law, they go to the government court. Islamic religious law has no more or less standing than Jewish law, or religious law from any Christian group... any of these might be used (at the court's discretion) to recognize a marriage or a will or certain contracts. But the idea that multiple wives is ok or that it will soon be ok for a US mosque to cut off hands for stealing is nonsense.  US law trumps religious law when there is a conflict.  If Jews and Muslims want to tell their believers not to eat pork, or if Muslims and Baptists want to tell their believers not to drink alcohol, who cares??

Didn't this bizarro shit start from somewhere in Michigan? It's another one of those things that exists because it's easy copy and finds an audience with boring news junkies and wends its way into stupid political rhetoric.

Please: Cable TV and CSPAN give us a break.

Charie