What is it that offends people so much about God and Jesus?

Well, that’s a loaded question, since it assumes that God and Jesus exist, but my problem with Christianity was summed up nicely by Greta Christina quite nicely back in 2007 in her article on atheists and anger.

um… I read the First Amendment several times, but I still don’t understand where the specific violation is. I honestly don’t get it. Can you point it out to me? In this particular case, what exactly did the government agency in question do to violate the rights as stated in the First Amendment? And who are the people they violated?

It’s a law. Laws aren’t always about harm.

What are they about then? Are they about just following rules for rules sake? Are they about right and wrong? According to whom? I was under the impression that the only purpose for laws in our country was to protect people’s rights, i.e. freedom. The way I see it, if the laws are applied for reasons other than to protect people from harm, they start imposing on people’s rights. That sounds too much like religion to me.

The government office is advertising a daily Christian church service, being held in its building, in its own newsletter.

How do you know that the government is advertising it? The newsletter could very well be something that is put out by an employee-run organization within the agency. I don’t have enough information to draw the conclusion that the government itself has anything to do with the information printed in the newsletter.

Again, if no one else expresses a desire to use the room for other purposes, then what is the harm? What rights are violated?

The first amendment to the constitution is violated. It doesn’t matter if someone is “harmed.” It’s a law. Laws aren’t always about harm. The only problem is that, especially under the last president, establishment clause issues have become about harm, as if someone has to be harmed for our constitution to actually have been violated.

Let me repeat something that I quoted before, because I’m absolutely sure that you did miss it:

In this room there is a daily church service being held. It is even advertised in our news letter.

The government office is advertising a daily Christian church service, being held in its building, in its own newsletter.

What is it that offends people so much about God and Jesus? … Or is that when you read the Bible , and it discusses behaviors that are sinful , and can send one to hell, that it offends people who are in fact committing say, theft, lying, cheating, adultery, etc…

This is what offends us, not concepts like “Jesus” or “God.” You (and many other Christians) assume that the only possible reason we could have for not following your religion is because we want to get away with doing horrible things.

We don’t, though. We’re perfectly normal people. We don’t steal, lie, or cheat (at least, not any more than the rest of the population does, statistically). You even go on to extrapolate that because we don’t worship your “God”, we’re causing moral decay and will destroy America. Do you not understand how we might find that offensive?

By the way, there are lots of stable, wealthy, first-world countries out there that are not predominantly Christian. Why do you think Japan hasn’t crumbled in on itself yet…?

I’m pretty surprised by the responses that the second situation is OK, or even borderline. It looks to me to be an extraordinarily clear violation of the Establishment Clause. The state is directly supporing a Christian church and advertising Christian services.

Not necessarily. If the only people using this meditation room are Christians and they have therefore decorated it according to their own traditions then there is absolutely no problem whatsoever. If, however, non-christians attempted to make use of the space and were denied access or given a hard time for doing so then you would have an issue. But nothing in the article thus far has suggested that this is the case.

Richards advice was wise: Find out where it came from, who funded it, who used it and how flexible people are to its use for non-sectarian purpose.

What I constantly see on this website, is the continued attack at Christians. What is it that offends people so much about God and Jesus? Why are not you all protesting the Mosques openly, and verbally trashing the Islamic Clerics like you do Christians?
Could it be you might get shot or blown up?

Oh dear. Anti-islamic scare mongering is most uncivilized. In making this absurd statement you are revealing your rather ugly character. Let’s see what you are trying to say:

1. Atheists are cowards going after an easy target
2. Christians are victims of a sort of witch-hunt
3. We should be happy that christians are civilized, unlike those barbaric muslims with their strange cultures and suicide bombers

That is three unsupportable positions in one easy statement. At least you are economical with the language.

Or is that when you read the Bible , and it discusses behaviors that are sinful , and can send one to hell, that it offends people who are in fact committing say, theft, lying, cheating, adultery, etc…

I do not steal, cheat or commit adultery and my lying is probably on a level analogous to anybody else within my society whether they have religious beliefs or not. I simply so not believe that a politically expedient collection of ancient myths and sayings should have any more claim to absolute truth than anything else and I certainly do not like to be preached to by the likes of you.

In short, check your head. That’s street slang for “Do not judge lest ye be judged”.

I deleted which Federal department has the chapel to protect the writer. His large division of that department performs mundane work. It is necessary work, but there’s nothing about it that would warrant a chapel or a paid chaplain, the way one would expect at a hospital or an armed service base.

I have no idea how prominently or out-of-the-way the chapel is located in the building. From the writer’s phrase, “I went to see this room for the first time the other day” I got the impression that it’s not near the front lobby, but I really don’t know.

Did you really miss this bit?

No. I did not miss it.

Louis states in his letter:

I went to see this room for the first time the other day and was shocked to see it is filled with rows of pews, bibles, and a 5 foot wooden cross.

How long has the room been in existence? How long has he worked there? Where was he when they were putting the pews and the cross in? “For the first time the other day…” he said. This indicates to me that he had no prior interest in the room until he saw that the Christian employees were using it.

Whether this is based on reality, or merely personal trepidation, or whatever, they should not be made to feel so.

People put up with a lot of crap that makes them “feel” uncomfortable on a daily basis. It’s called compromise. If you feel something is unfair and if you feel strong enough about change, then speak up! People cannot read each other’s minds and should not be expected to do so.

Again, if no one else expresses a desire to use the room for other purposes, then what is the harm? What rights are violated?

I like Jeff’s idea, but that’s provided that there are others who voice their desire to use the room for other types of meditation.

All of that said, perhaps this group should have asked for other employees’ opinions and/or any objections before they made the space into a chapel.

Jews, Muslims, and non-religious people (at very least, the writer) clearly feel that their position would be made uncomfortable (at least) by objecting, or by requesting removal of these ojects

But from the original post:

I went to see this room for the first time the other day…

Really suggests that it isn’t affecting the writer in any particular way. It is possible that the room has become more xtian than is reasonable. But pews are not unique to xtianity and can be used for other purposes. The establishment clause hinges on whether a preference is being given, not on who chooses to use the room.

I’d imagine it would depends in part on what the department’s day to day business involves. A hospital could well make use of a chapel. I wouldn’t complain about that, unless the general public were bared. And the military at least has a president about that sort of thing, and are increasingly moving towards being inclusive of other religious groups. So those cases are understandable to a certain extent. But what other federal departments would need a chapel? And what the heck for? I can’t imagine the IRS needs a chapel… unless they feel really guilty about something.