Celebrations & Holidays >
Celebrations & Holidays (Other)
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould governments permit decorations for religious holidays in public squares?
Results so far:
| Yes | 84% | 577 votes | Total: 683 votes | |
| No | 16% | 106 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesIt's an annual argument in America, between Halloween and Thanksgiving the question inevitably arises; does the seasonal display of religious decorations violate the First Amendment to the Constitution? The Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It usually starts one of two ways, either a religion that is has been left out of the display wants one also or anti-religious zealots insists that it's unconstitutional to have any display at all. Then the wrangling starts, what is a religious symbol and what is a seasonal one? Since decorating trees as a winter practice in some countries and predates the introduction of Christianity can we let these 'seasonal trees' slide? Can we call a Star of David an ethnic symbol and not a religious one? Should these decorations be allowed? I believe the question hinges upon whether the display is paid for or put up by the government and if the manner of choosing which symbols are displayed is fair. The purpose of that portion of the First Amendment which relates to religion is to insure freedom of religion by not having a state endorsed religion. So long as the decorations are paid for by private funds and not public ones and all religions have an equal opportunity to display their symbols on the public square at times appropriate to their respective holidays, I see no conflict with our Constitution. I personally find it hard to understand why one religion cares if another wants to display its symbols. If Muslims in my community want to go to the expense and trouble to put up a display for Ramadan it won't bother me nor would a Menorah to commemorate Hanukkah. I wouldn't even care if atheists put up a display, although what they would want to display or when they would display it!
The public square belongs to the people and majority should rule on its use as long as no public money is used. To be fair to all, any and all religions represented by the constituency should have use of the public square to mount a display. The only requirements should be that their members are eligible to vote in that municipality, have turned in a request to use the square within a prescribed time limit, and that their religion has a tradition tied to that time of year. If the square gets too crowded then allot space according to the percent that a group represents of the total population or draw lots.
Learn more about this author, Isismaxx.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Governments should permit religious decorations in public locations only if we intend to destroy the American concept of freedom of religion, and here's why. Let's start with the assumption that the "governments" referred to in the title are all local, state and federal here in the U.S. Next, we need to ask some questions:
Who decides which decorations will be used?
Who pays for the decorations?
Who pays for the government's time and resources to defend against any Constitutional challenge to one religion's decorations over another?
For example: According to a survey done by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (http://religions.pe wforum.org/affiliati ons) Evangelical Protestants and traditional Catholics make up the two largest blocks of the 14 major religions in the U.S. Let's say you're an Evangelical Protestant who recently transferred to Utah for a more secure job. Although nation-wide you're in the majority, 58% of Utah's residents are Mormon. Are you expecting the decorations to be consistent with your traditions?
If you're comfortable having decorations that don't exactly reflect the traditions you've practiced and believed in, are you willing to have your tax dollars pay for them anyway?
If a group of people unaffiliated with any formal religious organization (who represent about 16% of this country's population) challenged having or paying for the decorations, and that lawsuit cost the taxpayers millions of dollars over several years to defend, do you mind sharing that cost as well?
And if the U.S. Supreme court found in favor of protecting the rights of the minority (based on the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution holding certain theories of "inalienable rights" and a "bill of rights" specifically to protect minority rights against "the tyranny of the majority") would you consider the lawsuit unjustified or the decision unfair?
Let's take these suppositions a step further. Last September Islamic law (via sharia courts) was officially adopted in Britain. Although Muslims had sharia courts prior to that time, adherence to their decisions regarding issues ranging from divorce to disputes with neighbors was voluntary. Now the full force of the British government stands behind these "arbitration tribunals." Is it possible the same could happen in the U.S.? Michigan's southwestern region has the single largest Muslim population outside of the middle east. If you were living there, would you be willing to support your local government's permit of public decorations if they were Islamic? Would you consider your support benign or the first step to broader power for one religion over another?
Finally, for those who would argue our founding fathers were all Christian I would ask them to review their history. Thomas Jefferson as well as others negate that supposition. In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson's appeal was to the God of the Deist, "Nature's God," not specifically to the God of Christianity (in his letter dated Sept. 14, 1813, to Jefferson from John Adams equating "Nature's God" with "the revelation from nature".) One can interpret from these and other exchanges that there was no intention of applying freedom of religion exclusively within the Christian community.
By now perhaps you've reached the same conclusion I have. Freedom of religion means exactly what it says. If you don't want anyone imposing on yours, then you must be willing to fore-go opposing yours on anyone else. As President Andrew Shephard acknowledged in the movie The American President:
"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours".
Learn more about this author, J Robbins.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
