An Interview with Syed B. Soharwardy by Peter J. Sanford

Freedom_For_Sum, do you often take quotes out of context or use ones that you do not understand offline? I have now seen you twice, misquote the Qu’Ran to falsely put across your point, either that or you do not spend time to research the lines you are speaking about.

"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.” (5:51)

Now, in the Qu’Ran the term friendship has several possible meanings when translated over to English [Traditional], Awliyaa the word itself translates into; friends, allies and guardians. In this line, Muslims are being told not to make alliances with Jews and Christians or take them as your protectors [tatawallu]. The term, tatawallu, means to take as your protector as parents.

What the Qu’Ran is saying here is, not to make alliances with Non-Muslims against Muslims and not to have Muslim children raised by Non-Muslims. You can see this again in 5:57, 5:5, 3:199 and many other lines. I do hope you are not openly breaking the Terms and Conditions of the site?

This again, is with the article you linked too. He is saying they don’t want Non-Muslims to raise Muslim children and I do believe many of the parents would have agreed with this, I also believe that Christians and Jews would hold the same feelings about a Muslim raising Jewish or Christian child.

LazarusTheLong, the points it made out he never said are exclusive to Christianity and Western Society and he has written many articles heavily critical of Islam and when his new books are published, I suggest you read it because it’ll be well worth it for you.

As for it trying to change everything to and Islamic way of life, do you not think Christianity still does the same in Africa? Do not many religions do this? This isn’t something exclusive to Islam, but something that needs to be removed from many religions. Have you never had these groups attempt to convert you at your doorstep?

As for them just shrugging it off? Christianity only did within the last 200 years. You have to remember Christianity has been around for nearly 600 years longer than Islam did, that is a lot of time to grow and change and we can see all of the problems that Islam has throughout Christian history - honour killings, witch burnings and so on and so fourth. Just remember this is still on going in Christianity and has yet to be fully removed from Western Society.

You also raise a good point about rape, in fact, you are wrong about Islamic law and rape. If you research the topic, you would find that a woman forced zinaa [unlawful sexual activity], she is fully allowed to kill the man [waajib ]. In fact, Allah himself said; “Whoever is killed defending his property is a shaheed (martyr), whoever is killed defending himself is a shaheed, whoever is killed defending his religion is a shaheed, and whoever is killed defending his family is a shaheed.”

What this is saying is, the woman is a martyr for defending herself - her property and this is something Syed Soharwardy hit upon in the interview on what a martyr is. So in reality, rape is punishable by death in Islam. The problem is, just like with the United Kingdom, many victims of rape do not wish to be stigmatised as such a victim even though the rapists can be punished. However in many Islamic Nation’s the stigma attached to being raped is just a lot worse resulting in honour killings.

As for why? Why do people follow any religion? Why did women follow Christianity when it was used to abuse them? The reason is the abuse is minor, it is not as widespread as it could be when you think of the 1billion+ Muslims that exist. However, the problems are large and need to be removed just like they do in Africa in relation to Christianity.

Duzey, you actually make a mistake on what the group was wanting to do. “"We are required by our own law to follow the laws of the country and to follow our own laws. We have a double obligation. You don't have to be the wisest man to see there will be conflicts." is actually what Syed B. Soharwardy said. He didn’t just want them to be punished under Canadian law, but also Islamic law. However, his argument is based around the idea that the reason Sharia is abused by undemocratic Governments. Remember, the Sharia court would be a lower level and those punished would be able to appeal to a Canadian Court.

Oh yes and shockingly I am, Peter J. Sanford. The one and only.

Online Articles:
63.175.194.25...

Originally posted by Odium
Freedom_For_Sum, do you often take quotes out of context or use ones that you do not understand offline? I have now seen you twice, misquote the Qu’Ran to falsely put across your point, either that or you do not spend time to research the lines you are speaking about.

Odium; I’m not taking anything out of context. The translation I’m quoting from is Pickthal. The translation you’re quoting from is Yusufali. Two different translations essentially saying the same thing. I downloaded the Pickthal translation from an Islamic website; so at the very least, I am quoting from the same translation that English speaking Muslims are reading.

Originally posted by Odium
And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.” (5:51)

And what’s so bad about being “one of them?” I’ll tell you: They are a “people unjust.” They are “idolators”.This is intolerant language; and one of many throughout the Qur’an

What other ‘loving’ things does the Qur’an say about Christians and/or Jews? Here’s a few:

4:160. Because of the wrongdoing of the Jews We forbade them good things which were (before) made lawful unto them, and because of their much hindering from Allah's way,

5:64. The Jews say: Allah's hand is fettered. Their hands are fettered and they are accursed for saying so. Nay, but both His hands are spread out wide in bounty. He bestoweth as He will. That which bath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord is certain to increase the contumacy and disbelief of many of them, and We have cast among them enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection. As often as they light a fire for war, Allah extinguisheth it. Their effort is for corruption in the land, and Allah loveth not corrupters.

5:82. Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who , believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters. And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not proud.

9: 30. And the Jews say:. Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

Throughout the entire text Christians and Jews are equated with idolators. The Qur’an, taken in its entirety, is intolerant of Jews and Christians. In Islam, there are believers (Muslims) and non-believers (idolators, non-Muslims). And the Qur’an is clear about the destiny of non-Muslims: They are losers who’s abode is hell wherein they’ll burn for eternity.

Originally posted by Odium
This again, is with the article you linked too. He is saying they don’t want Non-Muslims to raise Muslim children and I do believe many of the parents would have agreed with this, I also believe that Christians and Jews would hold the same feelings about a Muslim raising Jewish or Christian child.

In my view, this is no different than Black people objecting to a white family adopting a black child. It’s bigotry—plain and simple. You may find that acceptable in your world Odium; It’s not in mine. And let’s not forget the word he used to describe Christianity: VILE!!

Freedom_for_sum, why use only one translation?

I have pointed out to you on another thread the problems with the translations into British, so would it not have been wise to look at them from more than one translation?

4:160; is talking about the laws placed upon the Jews by God [Allah] and the fact they are now removed from them. Primarily it is talking about food and goods. [Reference Yusuf Ali.]

5:64; is talking about the Jews saying Gods hands were tied, the Muslim's and the Qu'ran is saying that Gods hands were not tied and he didn't want them to win. That by claiming God was busy, they are taking part in blasphemy because he didn't want them to win.

5:82; this is talking about Jews, Pagans and Christians. It is talking about how Christians, then Jews and then Pagans are nearest to Muslims. It is pointing out that although they spread false truths, it is those who force their views upon you [vehement] that you are hostile towards.

9:30; This is talking about the resemblence to the Pagans that the Christians and Jews now are. It is talking about how the Pagans used to say that Judaism and then Christianity was a false religion and this is what they now say about Islam, and that those who hold this double standard will be punished by God.

And Freedom_for_sum, it is far from bigotry. If a child has spent 10 years being taught about one culture, the norms and values of that society it would cause a massive amount of problems for them to be moved to a different culture. Especailly after such an event that they went through. [Reference; Children of the U.S.S.R. by ITV [3].]

Originally posted by Odium
Freedom_for_sum, why use only one translation?

I have pointed out to you on another thread the problems with the translations into British, so would it not have been wise to look at them from more than one translation?

Odium; It is not I you need to convince--it's the millions of misunderstanders of Islam---those so called "extremists" who are acting upon their extreme interpretation. I'm not the one killing indiscriminately; removing heads from shoulders. Your attempts to "educate" me are in vain. I'm simply watching what's going on and then reading the Qur'an to see how they justify their actions. It's all there. I think before you interview another "moderate" Muslim that you should first check your sources. At least make sure that they aren't spewing out a bunch of incorrect statements such as this Syed sumthingorother did. His statements made about the children only shows that a tiger can't change his stripes. Beneath it all, and irrespective of your Q&A interview with him, he is an intolerant bigot. I'm not religious; but I can tell you that it is intolerant and insulting to anyone whose beliefs are described as "vile."

Originally posted by Odium
And Freedom_for_sum, it is far from bigotry. If a child has spent 10 years being taught about one culture, the norms and values of that society it would cause a massive amount of problems for them to be moved to a different culture. Especailly after such an event that they went through. [Reference; Children of the U.S.S.R. by ITV [3].]

A child who no longer has a home and parents because of a destructive act of nature; and who is being denied a loving home based on religious grounds is appalling--absolutely disgusting!! It's an idea based on one thing: IGNORANCE If you have children then you will know that all they want/need is to know they are loved. Everything else is secondary. They are resilient and can easily addapt to a new environment as long as they're needs are being met.

Freedom_for_sum, you do not seem to understand.

If I take a system, I then abuse it and still use the name it is no longer the system that I started with. This is the same with Islam, you get people in every religion and culture who abuse things - rapists, murderers, people who abuse many things and cause much harm. These people hide behind the veil of Islam, Christianity, Communism, Corporate profits and many other excuses and these are not what they were initially intended to do. We here the stories and attach stigma to them, we cause a label to be attached to these people - the criminal element, however unfortunately it also gets attached to other people.

This has happened to Islam and Christianity in the passed - I doubt that Jesus [if he did exist], intended for millions of people to be conquered and slaughtered, forced to believe in his teachings or die and these people. The sociopathic members of the group were able to grasp control and to use this control at the expense of innocent people. This has happened in some Islamic Nation’s, some members agree with these extreme ideologies but the majority do not. Some Islamic Nation’s, such as Iran have members in the Government who wish to cause harm to Israelis, just like members of the Israeli Cabinet want to do the same harm.

You have to move away from the idea that the whole group is to blame for some members of the society - be smart and think of it outside of religion for a moment. In the United Kingdom, we have roughly [nearly] 1000 people killed per-year, are the whole society to blame for the actions of the few? No. This is the same for Islam and the guilty members will be punished, by many people and in reality, it is only the lunatic fringe of society who we see, who make the headlines.

”Good news is no news.” is the age old saying that springs to mind, Freedom_For_Sum and I do hope you know this.

Muslim organizations and families are ready to adopt the orphans of Tsunami

TORONTO, January 23, 2005 — The Islamic Supreme Council of Canada (ISCC) and Islamic Association of Canadian Women (IACW) thank the Canadian government for allowing orphan children of Tsunami disaster to be brought and raised in Canada. However, Canadian Muslims will not allow that the custody of Muslim orphan children to be given to Christian families or any non Muslim families or organizations. ISCC, IACW and many other Muslim organizations are willing to make arrangements for these children.

ISCC and IACW strongly condemn the exploitation of Tsunami victims by the Christian missionaries. There have been several reports that the Christian missionaries are forcefully removing Muslim children in Indonesia and bringing them to their locations. It has been proven that the Christian missionaries do not help people only on humanitarian grounds; the motive is to convert them to Christianity.

ISCC and IACW urge the federal and provincial governments to consult with Muslim organizations about the custodianship of Muslim orphans. ISCC and IAWC are willing to help the federal and provincial governments to find families who can adopt these children in Canada.

ISCC and IACW have asked Canadian Muslims families to register their names with ISCC or IACW for taking the custodianship (adoption) of an orphan.

Syed Soharwardy, president ISCC, has asked all Muslim governments to bring the orphan children in Muslim countries and help them to be raised as Muslims. This is a time of test and if Muslim governments do not take care of these orphans, Allah will punish them in this world and in the Hereafter.

Nadia Ahmed, director IACW, has asked the Saudi government to take the lead. Saudi Arabia has the resources and land to accommodate more than 50,000 Muslim orphan children. If Saudi and other rich Muslim governments do not come forward and take care of these kids, Allah will never forgive them for this sin.

This is the actual article that was published and it is different to what a lot of the media tried to point out. Let alone would major problems be caused for the orphans to move to a different culture, but he was pointing out how the richer members of the Islamic Society should be adopting these children.

Islam does have problems.
Christianity has problems.
The United States has problems.

However, nobody should punish the majority of any culture, race, creed or religion on the basis that other members of it use it for wrong and harmful deeds. This is what all of us should be fighting - the injustices everyone causes and while you focus wholly on the Islamic problems, you over-look the other problems that society has and this is what the media attempts to do. It causes an external problem, Communism, blacks, Islam, et al instead of focusing internally and curing the problems of gang-violence, culture of crime and so on and so fourth…

Until we stop being sensationalised by these incidents, the thousands of innocent people killed in our own societies go unheard and they go unpunished. Just remember, more people every year get killed in the United State’s due to gang violence than they do to terrorism - yet terrorism is where most of the money is going.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Presently the concept of separation of church and state is being abused and misused by the secular and atheist individuals, organizations and governments. They want to takeaway the religious freedom of an individual or community. Some of them are fundamentalist and extremist in their secular and atheistic beliefs. They are now doing the same thing that the Christian clergy did four centuries ago. They are imposing themselves and their atheistic / secular beliefs on everyone.

Absolutely false!! Secularists want religion out of government—period. They are not trying to take religious people’s rights away as they still have the right to celebrate their religion in their church, homes, mosques, temples, parochial schools etc. In fact, some could argue that having “In God we trust” as the national motto and “Under God” in the pledge shows that religious people are foisting their beliefs on others.

First he says:

Therefore, it was the right thing to separate the clergy from the affairs of the government.

Then he says:

A Muslim student in the USA must be allowed to pray the required five prayers in day. In addition, the government should also provide prayer facilities in public schools. Similarly, students of other faiths should be allowed to practice their daily religious rites and the government should provide facilities for them to do so.

In other words: MY TAX DOLLARS should pay for these facilities!! Tell me how this isn’t a violation of separation of church/state? Why should I, as an agnostic, pay for his religious facilities?? Where exactly is this clown coming from?

From the start, the unity of American society was established on xenophobia or an irrational fear of foreigners or strangers.. They had to have a fear of something in order to unite against that fear. If the fear is gone, the reason of unity would be gone too.

Wrong!! We are united by freedom and liberty—not fear. And we fight in the name of freedom and liberty; for ourselves, and others.

When these settlers found their identity as Americans they feared the British monarchy and fought against it.

We didn’t “FEAR” them; we fought them because we didn’t want to be oppressed by them. AND WE WON!!

They fought against France, Mexico and other nations on land claims.

The Franco-American war was based on trade issues—not land. As far as Mexico is concerned: REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!

They hated blacks and kept them in slavery for centuries.

And, of course, slavery never existed in Islam!!

The Americans feared from the increasing power of Germany and fought against it.

And if it weren’t for us, all of Europe today might be speaking German and wearing swastikas.

World War II added the Italians and Japanese to the ‘feared peoples' for the Americans.

The Japanese attacked US!! Just like Muslims did on 9/11 2001—in a cowardly murderous way.

As far as the Italians: What the hell is he talking about?? I wonder how Italians feel about the invading German army in WWII?

This was followed by the Red Scare and subsequent wars in Korea and Vietnam. In the coming years the Communists served as convenient targets through the end of the Cold War. The Gulf war provided the Middle Easterners, and so the legacy of American xenophobia continued.

Yep—we don’t like oppressive regimes; and we therefore don’t like Islamofascism. Maybe this guy ought to go to Saudi Arabia and preach his peaceful, loving, tolerant, and accepting of other reigions; form of Islam and see what happens.

As far as the Gulf war is concerned: We went to war initially to defend a middle east nation (Kuwait) from murdering rapists operating under the authority of a brutal dictator. The current war in Iraq is a legal continuation of that war.

Today, Jews and Muslims live side by side in Canada, USA, Europe, etc. Why can’t they live in peace in the holy land?

Qur’an asks Muslims to establish dialogue with Christians and Jews on common ground; the monotheistic belief in one common God (Allah).

Islam will never treat Jews and Christians as equals because of this and others like this (From the Quran): 5:51 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

The proof? Israel returned the Gaza to the Palestinians as a measure of good faith. What did they get in return? More attacks!! The Palestinians don’t want any kind of Israeli state because Islam doesn’t recognize Jews as anything but filthy pigs. Islam is an intolerant ideology that can never resolve itself to co-exist with Christians and Jews in religious harmony.

The reason they live "side by side" in Canada and America is because our legal systems are based on Constitutional law--not Islamic law (Sharia). If Sharia was the law of the land, Christians and Jews would be forced to live in the happless existence of Dhimitude; just as they do in Islamic nations. Sharia law will never be recognised in the US.

You guys want to roll over and believe the “feel good” crap this guy is preaching—go ahead!! Instead of trying to convince me and others, what he should be doing is trying to convince those so called “extremists” in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Syria, Iran (and other areas/groups) that THEIR practice/interpretation of Islam is wrong.

Odium; posting crap like this is a waste of time and only serves as subterfuge to the following fact: Most of the problems in the world today have one common thread: ISLAM!!


[edit on 8-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

The only thing I disagree with here is the separation of church and state thing, which is nowhere in the Bill of Rights. It was merely an opinion by a past Supreme Court justice. As for "foisting their beliefs on others", 85% of America is Christion to one extent or another. America was founded on Christian principles and law.
If any country allows Sharia law to try to co-exist with their own laws, then there will be, and already is, trouble.
There are no "Palestinian" people; they are (were) nomadic Arabs, and peace will never exist between Isreal and "Palestine".

Actually the phrase "Wall Of Separation" comes from Thomas Jefferson, primary author of the First Amendment. Ironically, in reference to a case where Baptists felt they were recieving unfair treatment in favor of the State Church of Connecticut.

Interesting that that you seem to promote the Christian basis of law in "Christian" countries and oppose the use of Sharia law in Islamic countries. Pure unadulterated religious partisanship.

Originally posted by zappafan1
The only thing I disagree with here is the separation of church and state thing, which is nowhere in the Bill of Rights. It was merely an opinion by a past Supreme Court justice.

zappafan;

The First Amendment states, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." To call America a "Christian Nation" or one "founded on Christian principles" flies in the face of the Constitution. We are a nation founded on principles of Liberty and Freedom. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson knew this well as both founding fathers realized the danger (to both Gov't AND religion) of mixing the two. To be sure, refering to America as a "Christian nation" is no different than refering to Saudi Arabia as an Islamic nation (which it is). If you want to live under religious oppression, then keep perpetuating the Christian Right's myth of "America: The Christian Nation." Certainly, if this myth were fact, I as an agnostic would be forced to live under some Christian's ideas of a moral way of life. I can tell you that my ideas of moral guidelines are very different from most devout Christians. That, to me, would be oppressive.

Actually, Freedom_for_sum, you are mistaken.

The United Kingdom is a Christian Nation, we have a State based Religion however I am not forced to do anything such as prayer, go to Church and accept their norms and values - I am just treated as a deviant if I do not.

In the United State's it is very similar - what days do people have off of School? Christmas, Easter, etc this is not the action of a State without a Religion. This is the action of a State with a Religion.

If you look at things like School Holidays, traditional christian values and compare them with the laws of this Nation - they are primarily Christian. Take for example the gay marriage debate.

Like it or not, it is a Nation that grants Christians privilages over those who are not and this is not inline with what the Nation was setup on but was hijacked just like Islam has been, Christianity has been and many other things.

Originally posted by Odium
The United Kingdom is a Christian Nation, we have a State based Religion however I am not forced to do anything such as prayer, go to Church and accept their norms and values - I am just treated as a deviant if I do not.

OK Odium; here it is. Are you ready....?!? You're right!!! This is how America got started--the immigration of religiously oppressed people from.....England!

Originally posted by Odium
In the United State's it is very similar - what days do people have off of School? Christmas, Easter, etc this is not the action of a State without a Religion. This is the action of a State with a Religion.

Yes; and this is the slippery slope of mixing gov't and religion. In its pure form Amrerica is supposed to be a secular nation; allowing for the private celebration of individuals in all religions. Unfortunately, we've had religious zealots in government leadership in our past who have done things such as recognizing Christmas as a federal holiday; Establishing "In God WE Trust" as the national motto; which happened at the same time (1950's) when Congress foisted religion onto the Pledge by adding the words "under God". These were well-intended, misdirected leaders who had disavowed themselves from the real character of America's founding principles.

And now, today, people are starting to realize these mistakes of the past as religious devisiveness is stifling the much needed nationalistic pride and patriotic unity we so desperatley need to be a strong nation. I, as an agnostic, would be proud to recite our Pledge of Allegiance as a patriotic expression if it weren't for the religious intonation contrived by the words "Under God". It seems, however, that the religious in America, specifically Christians, would prefer to foist their beliefs of God onto others than to have a nation unified under the banner of patriotism.

Getting back to topic; your Q&A boy, Syed, couldn't be further from the truth when he describes secularists/atheists as the ones imposing themselves and their beliefs on others. Quite the opposite is true from my perspective.

To see what happens when a nation declares itself a specific religion, one only need to look toward Islamic nations to see the disasterous results.

Freedom_for_sum, instead of looking at Islamic Nation's also look at Europe many Nation's in Europe have a National Religion the Old World Order still lives strong.

As for the abuse of secularists/atheists, it does happen but it happens on both sides. One side you have the Religious Groups saying you need God to be moral and on the other side you have atheists saying they want God removed completly even from private businesses. Logically, this is probably not what the majority of people want but look at the uproar on threads on this site when the idea of removing Christmas came up or removing "God we Trust" from the U.S. currency. It is clear both groups can not win and one group will end up forcing their views onto another however it is hard to judge which group is the majority in this issue and if it is alright for the majority to punish the minority.

Maybe, Religion needs a level of protection across all of them as do non-religious people. Maybe it is about time we begin to work towards a set of norms and values based on morals rather than religion and stop being guided by faith. If the Religious people wish to have their lives how they desire, live by those books as long as none of them cause direct harm to someone [mental removed] than this has to be accepted. However, it is unfair to punish one group over another.

However, I do think the point he raises is a good one. Why do some religious groups and organizations in the U.S. get special treatment over others? While this goes on equality can not happen and it will lead to hatred and more unneeded crime.

What I don't see in any of the postings here is the immigration of 'fundamentalist' to less extreme Islamists countries. Extremists are being polarized and concentrated in whole countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan. While the 'good' Muslims are escaping from the extremism into countries like Britain, Australia, India, etc......

The U.s. extremists are also trying to get control of our govt. and polarizing the religious idea of 'us' against 'them' (and succeeding)

I guess it is a matter of framing the question, but the idea of religions being used for betterment of society seems to point to religions being used for unifying mob mentality for warfare- whether it be over land, resources, or ideas. Tolerance of other tribes belief systems used to be alot easier when all they had to do was trade or barter their goods with other tribes.

Another thought I had of how the U.s. is framing darwinism against intelligent design is how can they be against each other when Evolution is how we got here, and intelligent design is why we are the way we are- human 'f''ing beings who are just too crowded to get along with each other.... LIke a Robert Heinlein book about too many rats in the cage....I don't think religions are going to be more tolerant - if only individuals in religions could practice their religion without infringing on others to believe or practice religion as they do- in other words preach to the choir- and start tolerating others the world would be a much better place.

Women's basic rights (some call it equality or equal to men's rights) are infringed upon whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Hindu because of SOCIAL reasons, not necessarily RELIGION ones. Societies make laws, religions dictate morals. (and all patriarchal religions are 'male' ruled)

Originally posted by Odium
and on the other side you have atheists saying they want God removed completly even from private businesses.

Odium;

Please provide ANY reference showing the atheists desire to remove God from private anything: business, home, churches, etc.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by Odium
and on the other side you have atheists saying they want God removed completly even from private businesses.

Odium;

Please provide ANY reference showing the atheists desire to remove God from private anything: business, home, churches, etc.

You had a case in Utah, that a roadside memorial to fallen Police men should be removed, because the Police badge was on it and it was a cross symbol. Although 5 of them were not on Public Property and were on Private Land, 9 were on Public Property and all of the crosses were placed their with permission of the family as a mark to where the Officer was killed while on duty.

So, you can see they are trying to force people on private property to remove objects they have placed on their land and although they have not won [yet] it is a direct attempt to infringe on someones rights.

Originally posted by Odium
So, you can see they are trying to force people on private property to remove objects they have placed on their land and although they have not won [yet] it is a direct attempt to infringe on someones rights.

Here is an article describing the issue.

"About nine of the crosses are on public land and all of them are placed near the spot where the troopers lost their lives. "

"Rivers said the purpose of the suit is to eliminate religious symbols used by government agencies and placed on government land."

These memorials are HUGE crosses (religious symbols) that have badges on them. Clearly, the issue here is that the UHP is endorsing placing badges on the crosses and placing the crosses on PUBLIC land. Atheists correctly perceive this as an endorsement of religion by the government.

Next reference please.....

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
These memorials are HUGE crosses (religious symbols) that have badges on them. Clearly, the issue here is that the UHP is endorsing placing badges on the crosses and placing the crosses on PUBLIC land. Atheists correctly perceive this as an endorsement of religion by the government.

Next reference please.....

The crux ordinaria is not meant to be taken as a Religious Symbol.

This is the same as Arlington National Cemetery, such as the Cross of Sacrifice or Argonne Cross. They are not a symbol of Religion, in fact the crux ordinaria predates Christian Religion.

Also the law suit is about; "The presence of the UHP logo on a poignant religious symbol is an unconstitutional violation of the United States Constitution. It is government endorsement of religion," said Rivers, Utah director for American Atheists.

Yet, some of the memorials are for Non-Christian and why can't a Christian who worked for the Police Force, have the Forces badge on his memorial? It does not mean the State is endorsing his Religion at all.

Originally posted by Odium
The crux ordinaria is not meant to be taken as a Religious Symbol.

This is the same as Arlington National Cemetery, such as the Cross of Sacrifice or Argonne Cross. They are not a symbol of Religion, in fact the crux ordinaria predates Christian Religion.

Odium;

You're quibbling. The cross is a widely accepted symbol of Christianity.

As far as the Arlington National Cemetary is concerned: While it is public (funded by taxpayers) it is hollowed ground. It is public land that recognizes those of all religions who have died serving our country. I believe the crosses have individual religious symbols embroidered to recognize an individual's religious sentiments.

To argue against those crosses specifically would be like argiung against the military offering religious services on military bases. Soldiers often don't have the option to leave the base to, among other things, go to church. Since bases are very much like little cities, relgious service must be provided to accomodate soldiers' needs.

Those crosses in Utah are not sitting on hollowed ground. There are other (and I would argue better) ways to recognize the officers' service in a public way.

Originally posted by Odium
Also the law suit is about; "The presence of the UHP logo on a poignant religious symbol is an unconstitutional violation of the United States Constitution. It is government endorsement of religion," said Rivers, Utah director for American Atheists.

If your argument is that the cross isn't a religious symbol; why do you suppose they use the cross? Why don't they use the symbol for infinity? Or an "O"? Or any other number of symbols? What's so unique about the cross?

Originally posted by Odium
Yet, some of the memorials are for Non-Christian and why can't a Christian who worked for the Police Force, have the Forces badge on his memorial?

He can---on his PRIVATE gravesite!! NOT on land that I partially own as a taxpayer. It's not just about a "badge on his memorial". It's about using a cross as his memorial on public land.

Again I will quote the article itself.

Source: Utah director for American Atheists
The presence of the UHP logo on a poignant religious symbol is an unconstitutional violation of the United States Constitution. It is government endorsement of religion.

They are clearly doing two law suits.

One is to remove the crosses from public ground and the other is to remove the UHP Logo from crosses on private land.

And the cross [crux ordinaria] only has as much power as you allow it to. I do not see it as a symbol of Christianity and many Christians do not either because a symbol only has as much power as you give it.

Then you have, Freedom From Religion Foundation, who sued over a religious group being given money to help children. However, it was fine for a Non-Religious Group [Atheists] to be awarded money to help these children. Surely if the State can't donate to any group because they follow a religion, they should not donate to anyone all together?

And this is the same for the Town, Las Cruces - it translates as "The Crosses" and has three on its Town Logo...that is not a support of religion but rather the name of the town.

Originally posted by Odium
One is to remove the crosses from public ground and the other is to remove the UHP Logo from crosses on private land.

From the perspective of non-religious people, the UHP placing a recognizeable government symbol (badge) on a cross is a government endorsement of religion. The fact some of those crosses are on private land is not the issue. If the owner of that land placed the badge on the cross without the UHP sanctioning it; it would not be a problem.

I'm interested to see your response to my questions regarding why the cross must to be used in lieu of other symbols.

As far as the other situation you mention (Las Cruces, Freedom from Religion Foundation etc) please provide links so that I may see for myself what is going on.

[edit on 15-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

Las Cruces

But why is it a problem?

If these people, who could be religious desire to place a symbol of Government, which they worked for why can’t they?

It is just the UHP recognising the service of these people and it is unfair for them to not have this symbol on their memorial, no matter what the memorial is. A symbol has no meaning, it has no basis except that of what we wish to give it and taking the logo from those who worked for this arm of the State is unfair.

The atheists should be happy that these people are displaying the fact that they work for the Police and they are happy about that - in fact, anyone who works for the Government should have the right to place these logos on their memorials/graves, no matter if it is a cross a pentagram or a Star of David because it is by no means the Government saying “Christians are best” but rather recognising the sacrifice of these people and the risks that they take.