I think the people who "took offense" ought not prevail over one who quoted a Bible verse or Koran verse. Whatever happened to tolerance?
What do you think?
I'd be the first to stand with whoever posted the verse in the first place. I wonder if there would have been such a "problem" had a verse from the Koran been posted initially, or a "quote of the day".
I thought the rule was no religion in state organisations?
But its all silly if you ask me.
The rules about church and state are set such that the state cannot enforce a particular creed upon the constituents. This is, of course, very
difficult in practice as by not promoting one religious creed, i.e. belief in a higher entity, you are, in fact, promoting another creed, i.e.
The rules should not be there to force one member to observe another creed against his will, unless, of course, the conditions of "employment" (or membership) state that you must be a member of a particular creed. In this case, the publication of a scripture on a personal notice board does not contravene the conditions of employment and those who have objected have the choice to ignore it or read it. If the poster (person) had removed a legitimate message (e.g. duty roster) to post his message then disciplinary action could and should be taken. If he removed another member's post without their authority, even if it was a notice to post no notices, then he should also be disciplined. Each person is given a personal "space" to post what they like. Of course, if it was pornographic (which, I'd suggest, would not raise an eyebrow, there) or, illegal, then it has no right to be made "public".
How would not quoting a religious text be "promoting" atheism?
I did not say that, Mary. I was talking about promoting a creed. If he had posted "Have a nice day" on his personal notice board, no-one would have said anything. If, however, that same phrase was encapsulated with a statement like "the Bible says:....", somebody would have got their knickers in a twist. If it was "the government says that you must have a nice day", and that is known to be a verse from the Koran, then that is promoting a creed. Shades of grey, I know, but if it is just; "the sky is blue", then all it is, is just a statement of fact. In this case the statement of "fact" happened to be a verse from the bible. i.e The statement " For God so loved the world...." by itself is not a fact in itself, the fact is: that it is found in "John 3:16". If you happen to believe in the Bible, then you may well accept that statement as fact on its own without the qualifier, i.e. the reference. If you don't believe the Bible, then the only fact that you must accept is that the statement is found in John chapter 3 verse 16.
I suspect that if the creed being promoted was not your own, you would be much more circumspect about accepting that the cadet had the right to post
something at odds with the separation of religion and State.
I don't care one way or another as long as there is equality in the understanding of those involved.
I understand from whence you are coming, Mary, but, in this case, you have read me incorrectly. I tend to accept people as I find them, I am not afraid to share my faith, but am not so insecure as to be worried by another's belief set. If a person is sincere in their belief set and that is in competition with my own, I am willing to listen to them and present my own argument. If we cannot find common ground, we can agree to differ and still remain friendly. In this case, if he were Muslim, if he was displaying his faith and he were not insisting on all observing his rites, then he is free to do so.
As I understood it - these whiteboards are outside the cadets rooms and are intended for Official/Squad information or for personal notes such as
"Cadet A N Other has gone to the Gym" or whatever.
As usual someone has jumped on the molehill to mountain band wagon.