Objecting to religious symbolism in public places.

Symbolism over substance (there’s a phrase you haven’t heard in a while) is what I think of when debates come along on whether or not it’s OK to display religious images on public property.

I mean, for example, at Christmas time, say that there’s a nativity scene at the city council offices. Now, first of all, a nativity scene is part of Christmas, a nationally recognized holiday. Secondly, it’s symbolism. What people should be concerned about is substance. What’s substance? It’s how the city council members treat no Christians, and what kind of ordinances they pass. If those responsible for the nativity scene, or those who allow the scene to be put up, treat everybody the same and don’t pass any anti-Christian ordinances, then they aren’t letting their religious beliefs interfere with their work, and I don’t see any problem. But if they’re passing anti-Christian ordinances and treating people they know, or think, aren’t Christians, like crap, then yes, you have a substantive problem, not a symbolic one.

But then there’s the argument that people of other religions feel excluded. Well, if was Hanukah and I saw a menorah displayed somewhere (on public property), I would understand that the menorah is a symbol of Hanukah and why would I feel excluded? I’m a Christian, I don’t celebrate it anyway. Now, I went somewhere and the Jewish people I encountered had the attitude, get lost gentile, then that’s what would bug me.

But, I being a bit narrow in just talking about holiday displays, so I’ll talk about year round displays too.
The Ten Commandments being displayed in a courthouse for example, as in the Roy Moore, ‘defender of the Constitution’ thread.
Now I want to briefly (since this OP is running way longer than I thought it would) and in general, as opposed to addressing the Roy Moore case.

The argument, as I understand it, is that doing things like displaying the Ten Commandments is either an indication, or gives the impression, that the judge or judges will be imposing their moral views on people instead of upholding the law. Well, if they’re fanatical or radical, then yes. But if they’re clear thinking rational individuals, then they won’t be doing silly things like punishing people for working on the Sabbath, worshiping other Gods, or whatever.

And finally (damn, I never thought that I’d make an OP this long) this brings up my final point. When someone of one religion sees a symbol of another religion, or an atheist see a symbol of any religion, and feels uncomfortable, just because a religious symbol is displayed is just wrong. To me, automatically assuming that those who put up religious displays are religious zealots who hate those that aren’t of their religion, is as bas as a white person seeing a black person and being afraid of being mugged based on nothing else than the other person being black.
It’s funny that, for years, I’ve heard about how we all need to be tolerant of others beliefs, lifestyles, and so on, but yet, it’s OK to see a religious display on public property and think “Well, I’ll never get any decent treatment here since I’m not (fill in religion here).” without knowing the people behind the display. Again, you’re making decisions based on symbolism instead of substance. Yes, it’s possible that the people who put up the display could be religious bigots or zealots or radicals, but it’s not right to just assume that based on a display.

Anyway, that’s all, let the debate begin.

The OP makes it sound as if people are getting up in arms about a public official publicly displaying his or her religion in his or her capacity as a private citizen–a public official going to church on Sunday (in full view of everyone); or putting up a Nativity scene or the Ten Commandments on his or her front lawn or on the wall of his or her law office. But of course that’s not what’s happening. By usurping the common property of everyone to express the religious beliefs of some, people like Roy Moore have already displayed their contempt for people with different religious beliefs.

If secular punishments for working on the Sabbath or worshipping other Gods are inappropriate, why is it appropriate to post the Ten Commandments in a secular court of law?

If I were to post the “Affirmations of Humanism” on my living room, you probably wouldn’t be bothered by that. But if I were to march into your house and post the “Affirmations of Humanism” on your wall, I suspect you might feel “uncomfortable” about that.

I agree with ME B.

When a Christian wears a cross on a chain, or like priests do as a little pin on their cloths, there is no problem at all with the display of their religious conviction publicly.
The same when Jews, Muslims, Hindu or others wear something that distincts them as belonging to this particular religion or group.

I can decorate in the privacy at home all the walls with verses of All Qur’an (wont do that although I admire the art of calligraphy very much) and listen constantly to Qur’an recitings. It wont bother anyone (except that my family would fall backwards of my sudden switch of being the excentric hopeless lost case to incredible extreme devoted lunatic).
I can even do the same in an office or wherever I have a place that I consider private upto the inside and outside of a car.

Yet when I go to for example a colloquium or congres and have to give a discours, and I place Quranic calligraphy on all the walls of the building and put an open Qur’an on the desk because I’m inthere and want my religion be present visibly, I think there is a problem.
Same when I would be asked to give a class, be it on Islam or its history, and I start reciting Al Qur’an to begin with. I think I have then also a problem.

So when people in official functions in a secualar nations start displaying symbols of their religion in public places and members of a government start making the reading of a religious book some part of the policy in office, I think there is not only a personal problem for these people, but also a very serious one for the country they serve.

Salaam. A.

I think, sweetie, the point you’re not taking into consideration is that the Hindus, atheists, Muslims, agnostics, Buddhists, etc., who live and work in this country are tax paying citizens, too. So it isn’t fair that their taxes are used to decorate a public building–which they paid for and are entitled to use–with a Jewish/Christian plaque that says

Don’t you see how that would be a slap in the face?

Judge Moore has the right, I’m sure, to post the 10 Commandments all over his private office if he wants. Once your in “your space,” you’re given more leeway (at least that’s how it works in state offices). But when he uses public funds to build monuments to his religion on public property, then he’s crossed a line.

Here’s another thought: This monument to the ten commandments is supposedly a monument to LAW. The conceit is that, without God, there is no law; if the 10 commandments hadn’t been written down in stone, we’d all be thieves, murderers, working on the Sabbath, disobeying our parents, etc., etc. This completely ignores the fact that there are many cultures that have managed to have law abiding citizens without ever hearing about the 10 commandments. Moore is using tax dollars to tell citizens of all faiths that “MY religion is the LAW.” Can’t you understand why that has some people up in arms?

I have read in other threads that the funds for the monument were from private sources. That still doesn’t make it Constitutional.

Public funds may have to pay to have the monument removed though, or to pay the fee for every day that it stays up in violation of the court order.

Speaking of religious tolerance, you might find some interesting reading about religious displays on public property at:

http://religioustolerance.org/sep_c_s1.htm

Joel, I miss Nativity scenes too. But I grew up in a town where everyone was a Protestant except for one Catholic and a few non-church goers. But our culture has changed significantly since then. It certainly would be unfair to do that in my neighborhood.

Would you really want Satanic groups to have the right to set up symbols of their religion on public property? I do know people who would love to test that law and they are not even Satanists.

Separation of church and state protects you in another way. It keeps the government from interfering with your church and its displays on its property.

My OP wasn’t about Roy Moore specifically, but since what he’s doing is related, I’ll comment on it. I heard him defend his views on The O’Reilly Factor and yes, from hearing him speak, he is pretty fanatical in his views, that’s obvious, but as for usurping common property
Userp:
To seize and hold (the power or rights of another, for example) by force and without legal authority. See Synonyms at appropriate.
To take over or occupy without right: usurp a neighbor’s land.

Placing the Ten Commandments hardly on public property hardly constitutes usurping it. It is illegal and unless an appeal case is won, they should be removed, I do agree with that.

The Ten Commandments represent a point of view. Many of the things on there, not steeling, not murdering, are pretty much agreed on by everybody, regardless of their religion, or lack of. Some things are exclusive to Jews and Christians. Displaying a point of view shouldn’t be the issue here, it’s whether or not the judge, in this case Moore, lets this point of view interfere with his duties. In this particular case, I’m inclined to think that it does. However, removing the symbolism, won’t change the substance, which is, what is in judge Moore’s heart. If he’s fanatical about his rulings, and, for example, wants to punish people for working on the Sabbath, taking down the commandments won’t change that. If he’s fanatical and can’t administer justice properly, within the confines of the law, then he’s the problem, and he’s the one who needs to be removed. Again, it’s symbolism (The Ten Commandments) over substance (judge Moore’s actions).

My house and your house are both private property, so yes, I wouldn’t be to happy with you posting anything in my house without my approval. But public property is supported by all our tax dollars. It’s not exclusively my property, or your property, it’s everybody’s property, and if a tax paying Christian want’s to display the Ten Commandments on property partially being supported by his/her tax dollars, they should have as much right to do that as you should to post the Affirmations of Humanism as a tax paying citizen. But then, that’s just my opinion.

I would never support a policy of making people read any religious book in a public office. To me, that’s substance. That’s the sort of thing you have to worry about.
If I went to talk to a member of congress for some reason, and their office had Islamic decorations, that would let me know that I’m dealing with a Muslim. But, is the congressman a rational thinker? Does he or she impose, or try to impose his or her views on others? This, I cannot tell just from the Islamic decorations. If the decorations is where it ends, then, to me, there’s no problem. If it goes beyond that with any public official at a local, state or federal level, into public policy, laws, rules, regulations or ordinances, then yes, there is a problem and it needs to be dealt with.

So the Stanists can put a permanent monument at the courthouse?

Joe, I am a Christian very much opposed to the religious use of any government property.

My questions about how you would deal with Stanists who want the same privileges are serious.

…er…Satanists…

Stanton is that other fellow.

**

I would only see it as a slap in the face, if the reason the Ten Commandments were put up was to send a message to non Christians. Otherwise they’re just a list of 10 of ten things that Christians and Jews are supposed to adhere to. If you’re not a Christian or Jew, then you don’t have to worry about it, because it doesn’t apply to you.

OK, again, I’ll just state that my OP wasn’t about Moore.
Now then, to address what you said. I take these things case by case, and in Moore’s case, yes, I understand why people get upset by what he says. He is fanatical in his views. This is something that I doubt that anybody but other fanatics would argue with. So, like I said earlier, to me, this means that maybe he should be examined more closely to see if he’s fit to stay in office, because, being as fanatical as he is, the Ten Commandments monument is a symptom of his fanaticism and removing them won’t cure him. Then again, if he’s fanatical enough, maybe he’d resign if he looses his appeal, thus, causing a desired effect.

If the display was from an established Satanic church, and didn’t violate any public obscenity or decency laws, then legally, I wouldn’t have a problem.
Now, since somebody will probably come along and ask why I’d only support it in the case of an established church, as opposed to any cults, the answer is that all freedom’s are not absolute. Convicts loose their rights to vote and keep fire arms. Freedom of speech does not include liable, slander, false alarms, and so on.
Even with our right to assemble, cities, or states can still require people to buy permits.
So, I would have no objections with the privilege to display religious symbols or images being granted to established religions only.

Permanent…hhhmmmm, I think it’s best not to use any permanent decorations or monuments.
If a religious decoration is put up by one official, or group of officials, then it should be removable so that when other’s are voted in who don’t hold the same views, or public opinion changes and the community wants the decoration gone, then they would be able to remove it.

Define “established”.

From Dictionar.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=established
3 entries found for established.
es·tab·lish ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-stblsh)
tr.v. es·tab·lished, es·tab·lish·ing, es·tab·lish·es

To set up; found. See Synonyms at found1.
To bring about; generate: establish goodwill in the neighborhood.

To place or settle in a secure position or condition; install: They established me in my own business.
To make firm or secure.
To cause to be recognized and accepted: a discovery that established his reputation.
To introduce and put (a law, for example) into force.
To prove the validity or truth of: The defense attorneys established the innocence of the accused.
To make a state institution of (a church).

[Middle English establishen, from Old French establir, establiss-, from Latin stabilre, from stabilis, firm. See st- in Indo-European Roots.]

es·tablish·er n.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
[Buy it]
established

Establish \Es*tab"lish, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Established; p. pr. & vb. n. Establishing.] [OE. establissen, OF. establir, F. ['e]tablir, fr. L. stabilire, fr. stabilis firm, steady, stable. See Stable, a., -ish, and cf. Stablish.] 1. To make stable or firm; to fix immovably or firmly; to set (a thing) in a place and make it stable there; to settle; to confirm.

So were the churches established in the faith. --Acts xvi. 5.

The best established tempers can scarcely forbear being borne down. --Burke.

Confidence which must precede union could be established only by consummate prudence and self-control. --Bancroft.

  1. To appoint or constitute for permanence, as officers, laws, regulations, etc.; to enact; to ordain.

By the consent of all, we were established The people’s magistrates. --Shak.

Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed. --Dan. vi. 8.

  1. To originate and secure the permanent existence of; to found; to institute; to create and regulate; – said of a colony, a state, or other institutions.

He hath established it [the earth], he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited. --Is. xlv. 18.

Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and establisheth a city by iniquity! --Hab. ii. 12.

  1. To secure public recognition in favor of; to prove and cause to be accepted as true; as, to establish a fact, usage, principle, opinion, doctrine, etc.

At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. --Deut. xix. 15.

  1. To set up in business; to place advantageously in a fixed condition; – used reflexively; as, he established himself in a place; the enemy established themselves in the citadel.
    Source: Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
    established

adj 1: brought about or set up or accepted; especially long established; “the established social order”; “distrust of established authority”; “a team established as a member of a major league”; “enjoyed his prestige as an established writer”; “an established precedent”; “the established Church” [ant: unestablished] 2: securely established; “an established reputation”; “holds a firm position as the country’s leading poet” [syn: firm] 3: settled securely and unconditionally; “that smoking causes health problems is an accomplished fact” [syn: accomplished, effected] 4: conforming with accepted standards; “a conventional view of the world” [syn: conventional] 5: shown to be valid beyond a reasonable doubt; “the established facts in the case” 6: introduced from another region and persisting without cultivation [syn: naturalized]

Very cute.

It doesn’t tell me what you mean by it.

Do you have a useful answer to the question, or shall I fall back on my first understanding of how you mean the term, which was, “Recognised by the government”?

“But public property is supported by all our tax dollars. It’s not exclusively my property, or your property, it’s everybody’s property.” – Precisely. In the case of Moore, he specifically refused to allow anyone else to put up any other kind of monument. More generally, in all of these Ten Commandments cases I think you’ll find that the governments in question aren’t even attempting to allow equal representations of all points of view, which would be impossible in a country this diverse anyway. If we’re talking about a public park which allows any group to put up temporary banners on a first come, first served basis, that’s one thing–but I hardly think such a policy would be tenable in a courthouse. (And I do this sort of thing is a form of usurpation: an “exercise of authority or privilege belonging to another; an encroachment”. No government has the authority or privilege of proclaiming what god the citizens ought to worship or how they ought to worship him; in a free country that right belongs exclusively to the individual citizen.)

Of course I certainly agree with you that as far as the question of symbolism and substance goes, Roy Moore is a bad judge, and should be voted out of office even if the monument is removed. But I think that in the case of putting up Ten Commandments monuments in public courthouses, that’s a sufficiently blatant symptom of at best a total disregard for the equal rights and privileges of other citizens, if not outright crypto-theocratic leanings, that I’m willing to consider that such persons are probably going to violate on the substance as well; or as much as they can get away with in a country with a strong Bill of Rights and a federal judiciary and an activist citizenry to oppose them.

Of course, there’s still nothing keeping Christians from putting up nativity scenes in their living rooms, on their front lawns, on the front lawns of their churches, inside or outside their privately owned businesses, and so on. Heck, there’s nothing keeping an atheist who still gets all sentimental about Christmas from putting up a nativity scene inside or outside of his or her home, either.

Thanks for responding, Joel.

Who gets to decide what is a cult and what is a religious organization? Many people that I know think that the Church of the Latter Day Saints is a cult. Still others think that the Catholics or Baptists are…and on and on.

You and I agree that the judge in Alabama is a fanatic that shouldn’t be on the bench anymore. But I’m sure that a good number of the people in Alabama would disagree with us. Who gets to decide who’s a fanatic?

There are very good reasons why our government is not allowed to endorse a particular religion. You are more tolerant than I would be with the Satanists. I wouldn’t fight against them if the law allowed equal access, but I wouldn’t want to go anywhere near that park.

I read just today that church membership is falling at the rate of 1% a year and that by the year 2030, Christianity will be a minority faith. It will be best for all of us if we just stick by the laws of our land that protect us and our faiths.