Another example of Christians asserting their right to express their faith symbolically is discussed over at the Bad Astronomer's blog.
To summarise, a church has erected a brightly-lit cross on a hilltop not far from Mount Palomar observatory, breaking several local ordinances in the process. They defend their right to do this using the First Amendment to the US constitution.
Once again, I think that their determination to stand up for their faith on principle is overriding natural logic here: surely they can find a way to display their faith in a positive way, without contributing unecessarily to light pollution in a sensitive area?
As His Dagginess commented to me the other day, atheists are the only really tolerant people in the world, because there's no imperative for evangelism.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I'm in accord with His Dagginess Beche.
Hi Beche,
I last commented on your 'Religious Symbols' post in October.
I am a Christian and I would agree that the stance this church is taking is not worth the fight. Some things are worth the fight mind you, but in this instance if the church is breaking the law then it would seem that removing the lights would be the wisest thing to do.
The 1st Amendment as I understand it, restricts the government, not religion. But I would think that citing the first amendment as a defence is baseless in this particular case as the laws about light levels have nothing to do with religious freedom.
With regard to your last comment, try telling that to Richard Dawkins. He’s the most intolerant atheistic evangelist I have ever known.
See my post on this at the link provided below: http://home.people.net.au/~DuanesMind/wpblog/?p=40
Post a Comment