Home > Celebrations & Holidays > Celebrations & Holidays (Other)
Should governments permit decorations for religious holidays in public squares?
Results so far:
| Yes | 83% | 848 votes | Total: 1018 votes | |
| No | 17% | 170 votes |
Yes
by Francis Harris
Created on: July 12, 2010 Last Updated: July 13, 2010
Public squares are just that - public. This roughly means "of or pertaining to the people". There might be 100 different people and 100 different religions and 100 different cultures but unless that space is designated "private" all those people, religions and cultures need access to that which is "public".
There is absolutely no way that a government can prevent access to a public space or uses it is put to - or decorations made of it - and not be violating the very definition of what that space is: "of or pertaining to the people". It belongs to the people - each and everyone of those 100 (or whatever) individuals - not the government.
When it comes to decoration of that space we clearly we need some "regulation" of that "public" space - of what we can erect and when and why and how and where and by whom. Just as it would be chaos if we permitted road traffic to do what they wanted in a public square, so it would be chaos if we permitted individuals to decorate as they what they want without regulation. We most certainly need regulation, but not prohibition.
Be very clear - regulation is not prohibition. We regulate children in a playground and make sure that they stay within safe boundaries, do appropriate things, and so on. We do not prohibit children from using the playground. Regulation and prohibition are different things. The government needs to regulate use of public space, not prohibit.
If we are to suggest that a government should prohibit the public from decorating a public space then we are not only making a mockery of what it is to be a public space, but we transform the "government" into a most horrific entity. It takes on a draconian life of its own - a life that does not just "administer" and serve each and everyone of us as a useful "organizational" tool - but it takes on a life of its own which starts to serve its own purposes.
A government that has taken on a life of its own - that is "prohibiting" rather than "regulating" that which is "public" - has ceased to be an administrative body serving the people. It has become something else; operating by principles beyond "administering" which slowly but surely transform what it is to be "government".
The more normalized that individuals become to the idea that government "prohibits" rather than "regulates" in public realms, the easier it will be for that government to be a tool of suppression and control by those who do not have the principles of "freedom", "democracy" or anything else "American". Or - if government is not blatantly hi-jacked - the beast that emerges will most certainly have long since stopped serving anyone's interests but its own.
Learn more about this author, Francis Harris.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
by Jennifer Hancock
Created on: October 18, 2007
Be Careful What You Wish For.
While many people of faith think that governments should allow religious displays on public property during the holidays, they often are unaware of just how diverse their communities religious views really are. And in the few communities where these experiments have been tried, the very people who advocated for the displays were the first ones to demand that they stop.
As a Humanist living in Florida, I actually know the principal players involved in the City of Bartow's experiment with holiday free speech zones. The lesson to be careful what you wish for was something that the citizens of Bartow had to learn the hard way.
It all started when a Baptist church illegally put up a Christmas crche over night on public property. Instead of being charged with defacing public property, the city council decided to retroactively create a "Free Speech Zone" right where this crche was. My friend Stella decided to take advantage of this zone and put up a sign promoting Zoroastrianism. She is actually a Humanist, she just wanted to get people thinking. Her sign was removed, so, she sued for having her free speech rights violated. The city then agreed to allow her to have her sign, but she was the only sign allowed in addition to the originally illegal Baptist crche. You may remember this incident as it garnered national news.
Over the next year, the city codified procedures by which citizens could use the holiday free speech zone. Unfortunately, because of their unreasonably high insurance requirements, the free speech zone wasn't really free and only well-funded organizations and individuals would be able to avail themselves of the opportunity to share their religious messages on public property. The Humanists of West Central Florida joined Stella as petitioners in a new lawsuit to eliminate the onerous requirements. They won and once again, any citizen of Bartow that wanted to put up a religious display could do so on public property.
Once again the Baptist church put up a crche, Stella put up her Zoroastrian display and the Humanists put up a rather nice secular holiday message.
It is at this point that things changed dramatically. An atheist friend of mine named Jim, who is nice despite being a militant atheist, put up an anti-Christian display. While this was not what the free speech zone advocates had in mind, Jim was well within his rights to put up the display. It came as no surprise that the Christian community of Bartow was offended by the message. The outcome was that the city council unanimously decided to end their experiment in allowing religious displays on public property.
What people who advocate for religious displays on public land fail to realize is that when you open up public spaces to religious displays, you must allow everyone to participate in the forum created regardless of their message. Because of the vast diversity of religious opinion in even the most conservative and homogeneous communities such as Bartow, that means allowing anti-religious messages in addition to the pro-religious messages.
Because anti-religious messages are considered offensive by people of faith, if they don't want to be exposed to them, then they need to be careful of what they wish for.
Learn more about this author, Jennifer Hancock.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley