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.