Quantcast

Should religious symbols be allowed in public buildings?

Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru 2012/05/06 13:26:18
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Scream 2012/05/06 13:59:55
    No
    Scream
    +5
    If that building has no official religious affiliation, then no.
    Places of worship would be counted as public buildings, so for them obviously religious symbols are fine. But for anything else, no.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • cassidysf 2012/05/10 21:52:48
    Yes
    cassidysf
    If it is a church, temple, etc. then yes.
    Or a religious themed store.
    Anything that is affiliated with religion.
    Even in a classroom the specifically deals with theology.
    Anywhere else, no.
  • Hsmagst 2012/05/08 14:46:19
  • Mandy 2012/05/08 14:43:15
    No
    Mandy
    Not permanently. If they are part of seasonal displays that are allowed for all religions or non-religion, then fine. But not permanently. That is a state-endorsed validation of religion and as such is unconstitutional.
  • cynsity 2012/05/07 19:02:06
    Yes
    cynsity
    yes if there is an approprate reason to have them there. Such as teh building is a court house which displays several icons.

    There is no freedom FROM religion and religion should not be shamed into staying behind the church doors.
    Why people think its just fine to display sex and sexuality everywhere but it not okay to display faith and morality is beyond me and I am NOT religious.
  • Rebecca 2012/05/07 14:37:46
    Yes
    Rebecca
    Might as well, they're everywhere already. Moot point.
  • kudabux 2012/05/07 14:20:52 (edited)
    No
    kudabux
    If you allow one, you must allow them all. (If you mean government buildings, such as court houses, schools, etc.) I don't believe a church is a public building. It is not supported by tax payer funds.
  • cowboy 2012/05/07 14:08:15
    Yes
    cowboy
    If something offends you, look away.
  • none 2012/05/07 13:46:27
    Yes
    none
    Why not, they don't affect me one way or an other.
  • Bronar 2012/05/07 12:36:57
    No
    Bronar
    When you say public I assume you mean government. If your talking about a church, of course they should be allowed.
  • Jacob 2012/05/07 11:37:20 (edited)
    Yes
    Jacob
    Saying they shoudln't is like saying there should be no Crescent Moon outside of a Mosque or a Cross outside of a Church. When you take God ouf o the public, freedom of worship might come as the next sacrifice wei'll have to make just not to "offend" anyone.
  • DuncanONeil 2012/05/07 11:28:13
    Yes
    DuncanONeil
    Prohibition is unconstitutional.
  • Steve King 2012/05/07 11:05:18
    Yes
    Steve King
    If Muslims can wear their head coverings, then Jews should be able to wear their yashmaks, then Christians should be able to display their crosses.

    If you apply it to one, apply it to all. Make an exception for one, make an exception for all.
  • sjalan 2012/05/07 09:16:21
    No
    sjalan
    +1
    The separation of Church and State must be an absolute. No exceptions.
  • gvc sjalan 2012/05/07 13:14:43 (edited)
    gvc
    Exactly where do you see the words "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution?
  • sjalan gvc 2012/05/07 15:54:47
    sjalan
    +1
    In the SCOTUS interpertation of the 1st Amendment and the pricple set down by President Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Church when they asked for special treatment to have advantage over another denomination as the state religion.

    "Mr. President

    To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

    Gentlemen

    The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Chu...&

    &&&

























    In the SCOTUS interpertation of the 1st Amendment and the pricple set down by President Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Church when they asked for special treatment to have advantage over another denomination as the state religion.

    "Mr. President

    To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

    Gentlemen

    The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

    I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

    (signed) Thomas Jefferson
    Jan.1.1802."

    ADDITIONALLY, The case law below should give you enough to chew on for a while.


    In McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 SCOTUS ruled that the use of public school facilities which were tax funded violated the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause
    http://www.oyez.org/cases/194...

    In Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962) SCOTUS rulled that Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.
    http://www.oyez.org/cases/196...

    In Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) SCOTUS ruled Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional: In Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.
    http://www.oyez.org/cases/196...

    In Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968) SOCTUS ruled a State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.
    http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/...

    In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971) Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
    1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
    2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
    3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.
    http://www.oyez.org/cases/197...

    Now unless you want to change the US Constitution and turn the United States of America into the United Theocratic Nation of America then you will have to settle for our current governmental processes.
    (more)
  • gvc sjalan 2012/05/07 18:10:58
    gvc
    You took a long time to say....it does not exist.
  • sjalan gvc 2012/05/07 19:00:28
    sjalan
    +1
    No that is not what I said.

    What the US Constitution is, is a contract between its citizens and themselves. During the development of almost ever major contract there are almost always sideletters of agreement as to what specific phrases and sentences mean, imply and enforce.

    In the case of the enumerated powers of the US Constitution and its Amendments is the 1st Amendment which starts off with two separate phrases involving religion.

    The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It reads as follows:

    "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."

    There are two clauses built into this first Amendment. The Establishment Clause is "the First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal a...













    No that is not what I said.

    What the US Constitution is, is a contract between its citizens and themselves. During the development of almost ever major contract there are almost always sideletters of agreement as to what specific phrases and sentences mean, imply and enforce.

    In the case of the enumerated powers of the US Constitution and its Amendments is the 1st Amendment which starts off with two separate phrases involving religion.

    The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It reads as follows:

    "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."

    There are two clauses built into this first Amendment. The Establishment Clause is "the First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another."

    The second clause is the Freedom to Exercise Clause. In essense this phrase allows a person or group (freedom of association) to to worship as they see fit to worship and protects such individuals and groups from local, state and federal laws which would impose restrictions upon their form of worship. There are exceptions to this and these are covered under two tests derived from "strict scrutiny" evaluation of the "compelling interests" of the governmental agency. Example: as part of a religious rite a person or group can sacrifice a chicken but the person or group cannot do a human sacrifice. The "compelling interest" being human beings are senatint beings and are exempt from killing for religious purposes.

    Further explaination would require far more time than we have here to go into details, but it all boils down to the "strict scrutiny" evaluation of the event or process involved will determine if the state has a "compelling interest" in demanding the removal of a religious article or the teaching of or supporting of any relgion is a public school setting.

    Currently, there are 5 or 6 cases where the "strict scrutiny" application of the teaching of religion is a private school that accepts public funds, ie: school vouchers, is constitutional. The point being that although the schools themselves are owned by private companies the funds to opperate the school derived from public funds demands that religion not be taught in those schools. This position I agree with since it is my tax money teaching children in a restricted school setting about religion. The only way I would consider that this would be acceptable is that EVERY single day a representative of a different religous group would give a lecture on their religion and have open discussion concerning the lecture. Give EACH STUDENT an opportunity to ask a specific question of the lecturer.

    Example a Baptist Minister presents a lecture to the class of thirty students OBVIOUSLY the minister is going to expound on the benefits of the doctrines, dogma, and beliefs of his religion. Each student would then have the opportunity to ask a question and the mininster would have 5 minutes to answer. A sample quesiton would be how does the Baptist Congregation differ from the Roman Catholic Religion? The minister would answer to the best of his ability.

    Next up would be a Roman Catholic Priest who would do his presentation and then the students would ask their questions. Of courst the same student could reasonably ask, How does the Roman Catholic Religion differ from the Baptist religion? And the priest would answer to the best of his ability.

    Next Up could be a Buddist, or Mormon, or Confusionist. or a Jehovah's Witness or a Wiccan, or an Atheist.

    The point is that the students would not be subject to the "brainwashing" techniques of a single religious group when being schooled by taxpayer monies.
    (more)
  • psiEnergos 2012/05/07 07:08:55
    No
    psiEnergos
    +1
    It depends on the building. But for the most part, public building serve all the public and should be agnostic.
  • TheTruth1313 2012/05/07 06:35:23
    Yes
    TheTruth1313
    Sure, why not. Freedom of expression is fine with me.
  • "SennaKoshiba" 2012/05/07 05:57:26
    Yes
    "SennaKoshiba"
    Depends on how outstanding and imposing it is.

    I don't particularly like religion, but people have their right to believe in it, so I don't see how there being a few religious icons in public settings having any bearing on anything |:T
    Sure, it might give people the wrong idea, but that's going to happen to matter what you do. As for those that don't want their children picking up on religious influences; deal with it. The religiously inclined people deal (or at least SHOULD deal) with their kids being taught an alternative to what they already learned to be true. Where they were taught creationism, they are now taught about evolution.. . . . .

    I also think that religious influence in society is having a negative impact on the LGBT community, which I don't agree with, but I don't think all of them have the same ideals in regard to putting us down.
    Religion has taught children that being gay, (or just being different, in fact) is some heinous crime against god and humanity in general. Which has lead to more slaughtering and death than any single cause in human history (which is probably an overstatement, or should be more specific). I should say; it's caused more death and chaos than any other human cause (ideology or otherwise), or natural disaster.

    I'm not going any further, despite the fact I'd be talking about the benefits religion has had on humanity.
  • Pat 2012/05/07 05:38:21
    No
    Pat
    +2
    Religion should be kept out the public venue.
  • Nimara 2012/05/07 05:28:24 (edited)
    No
    Nimara
    I'd say no, but people have the right to display whatever they believe in, regardless if I like or dislike what it may be. I can always look the other way or mumble something about it under my breath.
  • Hula girl - Friends not Fol... 2012/05/07 05:20:22
    Yes
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    Since this is a Christian nation founded on Biblical principles then yes.
  • c.ruth93 Hula gi... 2012/05/07 19:23:06
    c.ruth93
    This nation was actually founded on more Protestant and Masonic principles. The nation was also founded on the fact that we are free from religious persecution. Shoving religion down other's throats is not very Christian.
  • Hula gi... c.ruth93 2012/05/07 20:02:54
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    Ah another clueless person.

    Please enlighten me with historical facts.
  • c.ruth93 Hula gi... 2012/05/07 20:08:32
    c.ruth93
    Clueless?? The English came over as Protestants, not Christians you nitwit. As for Masonic well lets see Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and George Washington all Masons and well they all were founding fathers. You were misinformed.
  • Hula gi... c.ruth93 2012/05/07 20:09:31
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    Ah, I see you only know revisionist history not facts.

    Sorry pal....dead wrong.
  • c.ruth93 Hula gi... 2012/05/07 20:14:46
    c.ruth93
    +1
    Ohhhhhhh Dead wrong....right I'm sorry what are you studying? I'm getting A degree in History with a concentration in American History. Revisionist History? No just good ol' American Education at work. Funny how Chirstianity brainwashed people to believe Christianity came over with the English. It was the Irish. The Irish came over with Christianity.
  • Hula gi... c.ruth93 2012/05/07 20:41:58
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    You may have a degree in revisionist history but you obviously don't have a degree in factual history.

    Protestants are christian by the way so it doesn't matter if they are English, Irish or any other if they still believed in Christ and accepted Him as their savior they are Christians.

    Our very government was founded on Christian Principles. Our very form of government came right out of the Bible.

    The reason we have separation of powers is from the Bible.

    The reason we have representatives in our cities and towns, our States and the Federal government is right out of the Bible.


    As for those men being Masons. The were nothing close to the masons of today not by a long shot. They only went to the Mason's clue as a meeting place for privacy and those very men are very clear on it. Washington was adamant not to be a mason nor would he claim it. He would never allow a painting or even be shown with any Masonic items on. The Mason's today like to boast and claim them but that is such a stretch. They performed no rituals nor were they even regulars to any events.
    They were Godly men through and knew who was at the head of this nation.
  • c.ruth93 Hula gi... 2012/05/07 20:50:23
    c.ruth93
    And You're even more clueless what rituals do you believe Masons practice you idiot. They don't. What do Mason's boast of? You can even attend a Masonic meeting if you so please. Protestants borke off from Christianity, sure its a break-off, but its a very far break off. Resembling very little of actual Christianity. I also studied mideval history as well. We have representatives in our cities because of No-Taxation without Representation.
  • Hula gi... c.ruth93 2012/05/08 02:12:02
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    Sweetie...my ex was a grand master in charge of the whole State he lived in. Trust me there are many rituals and you seem to be clueless about the Masons.

    No Protestants didn't break off from Christianity.

    I see you are totally clueless.


    No we have our representation because our Founders new the Bible and it came from Exodus 18. Guess you best read the founders own documents and diaries.
  • c.ruth93 Hula gi... 2012/05/08 15:57:22
    c.ruth93
    You must not have studied the great Kings of England then. That's where Protestants came from. England. Which is where most colonists were from. Yes they knew the Bible from their Protestant background.

    Also, speaking of rituals. Don't tell anyone, but on the pagan day of the sun god Ra, I kneel at the foot of an ancient instrument of torture and consume ritualistic symbols of blood and flesh.
  • c.ruth93 Hula gi... 2012/05/08 17:08:06
    c.ruth93
    I retract my statement it was not Prostestants, but Puritans as well. Those two religions were the ones that contributed mostly to our government, all break offs of Christianity.
  • Hula gi... c.ruth93 2012/05/08 19:38:10
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    Puritans believe in Christ....and are Christians.
  • c.ruth93 Hula gi... 2012/05/08 23:18:44
    c.ruth93
    So Do Satanists
  • Hula gi... c.ruth93 2012/05/08 23:37:17
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    No Satanists only know of Christ they don't accept Christ as their personal Savior. Big difference.

    I may know of Satan but I'm not a Satan worshiper.
  • c.ruth93 Hula gi... 2012/05/09 03:49:13
    c.ruth93
    Considering the fact that Christianity took much of it's religion from other Pagan religions, I see this country as a melting pot of religions. This is not a Christian land at all. More of adopted Religions land.
  • Kibbles 2012/05/07 04:45:53
    No
    Kibbles
    Put into the school no, but if a student brings it and does not cause any problems with it I see no reason the person should get into trouble for it.
  • ☆Ed☆ 2012/05/07 04:30:50
    Yes
    ☆Ed☆
    I fail to see any problem with it.
  • Gregaj7 2012/05/07 04:26:45
    Yes
    Gregaj7
    +1
    Faith should never be denied.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Fun

2014/10/21 05:30:24

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals