Eighty-five percent of Americans claim some form of religious affiliation. The public display of religious symbols, though, is always controversial, whether we’re talking about the Ten Commandments in a courthouse or nativity scenes in a park. In the ongoing debate about religious imagery’s proper place, where do we draw the line between private faith and public religious expression?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Should Religious Symbols be Displayed on Public Property?
Yes, if ...
If those charged with guardianship over publicly-owned properties not only welcome but encourage the symbols of all religions represented in the United States, giving them equal presentation and allowing no one religion to dominate any other, then yes, religious symbols ought to be displayed on public properties as representative of key influences in American culture.
Unfortunately, it's unlikely such equal representation on publicly-owned properties by those charged with their guardianship will be welcome or encouraged. As it happens, we do not live in a culture which equally respects all philosophical beliefs and practices. In that view, NO religious symbols ought to be allowed on publicly-owned properties in order to prevent domination by the symbols of Christianity.
We must encourage equal respect, or we must discourage any representation at all.
- Naumadd
October 10, 2008 7:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Symbols
Most things humans do are symbolic of something or other. In the U.S. we have ''freedom of religion'', not ''freedom from religion''.
- CharlieBravo
October 13, 2008 11:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A Non-Issue ...
I used to think that one does indeed have freedom from religion until I realized that we each have a highly individualized religion assembled one piece at a time over the span of our lives. Religion, after all, is simply the practical expression of what one believes and loves and there is an incredible diversity of beliefs and loves at any one time among the collected individuals of the United States and of the world.
It is now my belief that "freedom from religion" is a non-issue because one certainly has a religion, whether or not one calls it that. The name of one's practice need not be called a religion, certainly not in the same sense the word "religion" is popularly used. Suffice to call it one's personal "way of life". No, "freedom from religion" is rather nonsensical out of context. In truth, it neither exists nor is desirable to anyone who loves their life and wishes for it to continue. What one has, wants, needs and must rightly demand in the United States, and I dare say everywhere there are individual human beings, is freedom from the forced involuntary intrusion of the religion of another to replace your own. I, you and every human being must be free to adopt whatever religion or "way of life according to my beliefs" we like. What neither of us has the right to do is to force our respective religions onto the religion freely chosen by each other or another. This is freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom to believe and practice what one wishes provided we respect that freedom in others. This is precisely why these two - freedom of speech and freedom of religion - are grouped together in the way they are. They are equal to free will with respect to the free will of others.
What we have and must have is freedom to live respectfully according to our own choices. Religion, in its broader meaning, is simply the manner in which one lives what life one has until one no longer has it.
There is only one way to be "free of religion" and that is to no longer have life. Nevertheless, the way to be free of the religion of another is for them to be respectful of your private choices, and you of theirs.
- Naumadd
October 16, 2008 7:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You always contradict yourself.
Okay, not always. But I see you do it a lot.
You say, well of course - in an ideal world, of course!
And then you continue on and say that it's not an ideal world so NO, of course not! Reality trumps the idealist in us all!
And then you vote the way of the do-do... the ideal world that doesn't exist... to the complete contradiction of what you've just stated.
..............................................i don't get it. You're voting "Yes, if" knowing full well the "if" part doesn't exist.
But while we're on this subject of equal state-sanctioned representation of religion, let's just see how far we get if campaign for all religious holidays to be national holidays... not just Christian holiday. What do you think?
- SocialistBetty
January 1, 2009 11:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No Straight "Yes" or "No"
Which is why I said, "Yes, if ..." One's "yes" or "no" is necessarily contextual. "Yes" if certain conditions, "no" if certain other conditions. I take issue with the fact most the questions on the site are looking for a "yes" or a "no" when very seldom can either be arrived at out of context. I believe I was quite clear on the conditions where I would answer "yes" and the conditions under which I would answer "no".
For the most part, governments in the United States chose to be rather one-sided in their treatment of religious expression, however, there have been notable exceptions where fairness has been exhibited. I believe generally the answer to the original question is "no", however, context sometimes warrants a "yes" answer.
You want a single "yes" or "no". I'm telling you there can be none as the question is put forward here. It is a glaring fault in the way debate is conducted here.
- Naumadd
January 2, 2009 5:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
But the "if" doesn't exist...
...the "if" is the ideal situation that isn't happening now. The question deals with the current situations as they are, not as you would like them to be.
You've checked the side of "yes" based on a balance that isn't occurring. You said "NO" in your response because of the current situation, but still voted 'yes'. You're skewing the results.
- SocialistBetty
January 2, 2009 12:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
On National Holidays ...
If you have to ask, I believe it more appropriate to restrict religion-themed holidays to a single "National Day of Spirituality" or "National Religion Day" or some such. I would abandon jewish and christian holidays altogether as national holidays. To make them "national" is a slap in the face to those outside the big three - Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The celebrations of these religions are not "national", they are special interest, even if those special interests make up a large percentage of U.S. population. "National" is a larger category than even the combined category of Jew/Christian/Muslim. If these holidays were truly "national", one would see displays of paganism, buddhism, hinduism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc. As it happens, pagans do celebrate many of the same days or near to them, but only because christianity appropriated those celebrations in order to marginalize the pagan traditions that predate that religion.
In any case, the national holidays we have based primarily in the religious traditions of only one or several religions, in my opinion, are a misuse of governmental authority and power and, to be more blunt, stinks of a majority dictatorship.
- Naumadd
January 2, 2009 5:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.