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?
Featured Image:
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
so why did all these weird religions COME to the USA? they were ESCAPING the evils of communist anti-GOD, human sacrifice of the cannibals,
the hellish restrictions of islam , beheadings etc, hangings the slowest way possible,
so they come screeching over the PEACEFUL borders into the CHRISTIAN country of the USA.
maybe i suggest they pack up their weird religions and GO BACK HOME. atheists, who escaped STALIN etc.
can move to CUBA. or North Korea,
moslems GO BACK TO THE MIDDLE EAST! and STAY THERE. we SEE what your so called "religion" does. beat women with a stick because their ANKLES show under an ugly burka,lock women up in PRISON because they don't want to wear "the scarf". ding ding. anyone hear the coocoo bird?
copy and paste this link to make it work: young woman got 3 years PRISON, raped 5 times by islam interrogators who BEAT her, and mangled her leg. the MAGGOTS were better to her than the islamist. the MAGGOTS probably saved her leg from gangrene. you will NOT defend islam when you see the evils of islam. she said she didn't want to wear "the scarf".
http://www.youtube.com/watch #!v=ggQXpeSQ-rg
as for no CHRISTIAN SYMBOLS, do you suggest, STUPIDLY, that someone bulldoze the capitol and congress? duh, double ding dong. the ESTABLISHMENT of a CHRISTIAN COUNTRY is what ATTRACTED all these people to AMERICA. so WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO RUIN it?
Christian Symbols in a CHRISTIAN COUNTRY. yes.
don't polute the nation with
with all the other stuff that people are escaping.
that a difference between federal, state, county, and city property should be made. On city property, the city should be allowed to decide what is proper, and the feds should not be allowed to interfere, unless someone can show conclusively that they recieved harm from such a display.
First of all, putting up religious symbols in a public place isn't going to cause a whole group of widely diverse people to suddenly decide that we need to be governed by one religion 's standards. Its a symbol to remind religious people to be good according to their own religions, and has no negative effect but to be an eyesore to those people of a different religion or agnostics. Why not let all of the religious groups put up whatever religious documents/symbols they want? It would offend everyone equally and it's not like it would sway the proceedings. Besides, in case you haven't noticed, certain of our politicians could use a helping hand in remembering that cheating on their wife is bad.
Secondly, the constitution says that Congress cannot keep me from excercizing my religion freely. What if my religion tells me to put up religious documents/symbols? As long as I'm not taking down other religions' symbols or putting said symbols on private property, my putting up my own symbols is protected by law .
Thirdly, some churces are public places. Can you tell me not to put religious symbols there? Could you tell wiccans they couldn't practice their religion in public forestries? What if a government employee wants to put a pentagram over his desk in the state capitol building? Could my friends and I be forbidden from getting together for bible study in the park? What if we put up a cross while we pray?
Fourth, public property is bought by the taxpayers and belongs to the taxpayers. I pay taxes ; my money bought the land. Unless there is some sort of national security threat from my being there, I have as much right to use the property as anyone else involved.
Fifth, though an established national religion is prohibited, state and local religions are allowed. Even disregarding all of the arguments about public property seen above, the government could only legally keep religion out of properties involved in NATIONAL law making. State capitals and local government buildings don't fall within this rule.
Sixth, assuming the government ignores number four, displaying religious symbols has been forbidden on property that you, as a taxpayer, own a part of. This could be used as precedent to extend religious muzzling to any property you own, including your private residences, given the all-too-likely occurance of a reckless disregard by lawmakers for the spirit of the law .
This debate about religious symbols on public buildings would never happen in Canada, because we know the difference between separation of church and state and freedom of expression. You could block Toronto and Ottawa with 10 Commandments statues, and never get an argument, except for who is going to pay for the maintenance on the things. Up here, you have Christians , Jews, Wiccans, Hindus, etc., etc., and WE ALL GET ALONG!! Grow up, America, be more tolerant and learn to get along!!
They'd get an argument from me!
NO not in my opinion only because in this country there are many different religions andinstead of agreeing to disagree that want to fight and kill or you know something idiotic if it wasn't for that I'd say yes but people are crazy in the name of religion can't just say well that not my kind but it ur's that is ok with me the thing is when it is all said and done u'll found out if ur right or wrong
If a Jesus (Angel etc) statue can be on public property, so can a statue of Satan. Let's be fair. Treat ALL equallly. No religion ? That's fine too. Express it.
Naturally, the main problem with this issue is offending individuals. Nearly all comments focus on this. However, what if there was a symbol of evolution on public property?
Many choose to look solely at the atheist or other groups that may be offended by any religious symbol of any sort, but what about the other views. Would it be okay to show a symbol of evolution because it is a widely believed theory that has large amounts of credible evidence? Most would answer yes to this, though it may offend some religious groups.
I see NO PROBLEM with allowing religious symbols on public property. I HOPE that it offends people. I want them to question their current beliefs, I want them to have to defend it from what the symbol might proclaim.
If I was jewish, I would want somebody to question my faith. I would want somebody to attack my philosophy. I would feel the same if I was islamic, christian, hindu, etc.
Philosophies need to be attacked, faiths questioned. This is what progresses our thoughts and our ideas. Symbols in public do that very thing.
If people can put up crosses and other Christian symbols in public spaces, let's not form a mob if a Muslim puts up a picture of Muhammad or an atheist puts up a sign stating that there is no god. Freedom of expression is a Constitutional right, so we should be able to express ourselves but also let everyone else do the same. Religion should only be displayed in public places if all aspects of religion are also represented - not just God and Jesus, but Muhammad and Buddha and Brahman and no one at all.
Actually, muslims would form a mob if a picture of Muhammad was put up, not the other way around.
My input in this is in accordance with some other posters here:
1) if the state puts any religious symbol up for any holiday than it has to put all of them up.
2) by not putting up any religious symbols state and other government bodies save tax payers a needless expense.
The government doesn't say a person can't put his particular faith symbols up on private property so that undercuts the "freedom from religion" argument. Do want you for your holiday on your property with your money. Seems pretty fair to me.
One basic flaw I see with this argument is that the reality of our founding fathers and why they wrote the constitution and the bill of rights the way they did, is either because some of them were atheists or because they were from people who came from minority religions in their mother country. either way they understood the dangers of having a religious majority try to wield fair secular policies.
Everyone is more than free to practice their religion according to their beliefs, you're just not allowed to impose those beliefs on anyone else, even if you are part of the majority. They, intelligently, designed the two documents so that might wouldn't make right.
If atheists are offended by religious symbols, there is something terribly wrong with them.
People have the right to believe and profess their beliefs just as the atheist has a right to openly profess his disbelief. Richard Dawkins and Kent Hovind, two totally opposite ends, but both have the right to profess their beliefs, but they don't have a right to try to completely remove one belief system or the other from the public domain (note I'm accusing both Dawkins and Hovind of said behavior)
What offends "atheists" - a term used by theists, but not a necessary term for non-theists - is the forced imposition of the symbols of the religions of others onto property belonging to all. Namely, non-theists do not "Trust in God" as U.S. money suggests, nor do we hold to the narrow, patriarchal and superstitious views of the Christian "Ten Commandments". We are also not "one nation under God" when there are so many who worship and live differently to the Jewish, Christian and Muslim philosophies and practices. Government is wrong to represent these views on properties belonging also to many who do not value them without recognition of the values they DO hold. My beliefs, my practices, my values and symbols are not represented in the very christian views submitted so frequently by the very government that is supposed to represent me equally to those who are christian. I and many others have beliefs, values, practices and symbols that are not represented respectfully by the U.S. government and public properties. Until government changes its views and practices, it is in violation of the thinking and spirit of the American revolution, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and its important amendments.
Government must represent all ... or it must be replaced by one that does.
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.
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?
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.
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.
...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.
Most things humans do are symbolic of something or other. In the U.S. we have ''freedom of religion'', not ''freedom from religion''.
That was a really awesome way to put it. I really love how you stated that statement. I am in a debate class and I will use that in my debate. THANKS!
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.