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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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


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.

Good for them!  Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

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

Well said Mike.  Thanks for your input.

Jerry

"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

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.

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


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?