Should religious imagery be banned from government property?

  • I agree that religious imagery should be banned from government property because the Bible condemns being involved in politics.

    Prayer is not allowed in schools, nor is the teaching of Creation as a possibility. Therefore it is hypocritical to display religious icons on other institutions of the government. On the religious side of it, Jesus warned Christians about becoming involved in worldly affairs. He taught his disciples to look to God's Kingdom as the only solution for mankind--not worldly governments.

    Posted by: N3vinFace
  • The separation of church and state is very clear in the Constitution and should be RESPECTED.

    If we do not separate the church and state, we would most likely end up with a state similar to the one in Iran or Taliban-era Afghanistan. Neither government respects its citizens, but instead, they demand that the citizens respect a particular religion. A government exists to support and respect the citizens it represents, and this does not happen in an Oligarchy. The framers of the Constitution understood this and thus, created a system of government where religion was respected but made it so that no one religion could take power.

    Posted by: FarrAnnie
  • Yes, country secular nation not a Christian nation

    The separation of church an state exists to allow people to worship freely and to keep the government from favoring one religion or denomination over another. Letting certain religious symbols on public property but not other is government favoring one religion over another. Thus to make it fair you either have to ban all religious symbols or displays from public property or allow anyone who wants to establish a religious symbol regardless of whether the symbol offends others. An all comers policy can cause conflict as has been the case when atheist signs or wiccan yule wreaths are vandalized by people who are intolerant of beliefs that are not like theirs. Thus it is easier to just prohibit all religious symbols than to deal with all the conflict and over saturation of religious symbols.

  • Religion should not be involved in Government

    Religion is fine to exist in it's own property. However, they should pay taxes on any income they receive. No religious principals should be allowed in the building of countries and or political laws. Our laws should just involve logically created principals that would be fair to all people. One religion should not be allowed to tell other people that birth control is illegal. It is ridiculous for fantasy believers to tell anyone how to live their lives! Just live your lives in a way that would allow everyone to act correctly even though your religion does not like what they might do... Don't kill, fight, rob, cheat, be aggressive for improper reasons or any other act against good people for bad reasons. You don't need a religion to be a good person! We should not allow ANY religious imagery in public property unless you would allow Satanic, Muslim, Atheistic, and Agnostic imagery as well! Just be good people without rules from silly books involved!

  • Yes, because there should be a true separation of church and state.

    Since there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, having religious imagery in government places is not adhering to that. Unless all religions are being properly represented in the imagery, then it is entirely inappropriate. Such imagery can lead to problems with individuals that feel offended about not being represented.

    Posted by: StevyDemon
  • Religious imagery should not be allowed on government property.

    Allowing religious symbols of any kind on government property is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Furthermore, imagery associated with any one religion featured at a government site suggests a bias toward that religion in a country that was founded on the principle of freedom of religion.

    Posted by: C35Flames
  • I think that religious symbols or imagery should be banned from government property; the duty of the government is towards its citizens regardless of their religion and government resources should also reflect that.

    The government is supposed to be neutral and open minded; it cannot show any kind of favoritism towards any group of people or any religion. But, having any religious imagery on any property would violate this. Therefore, in order to maintain a totally neutral and fair image, government properties should be purged of religious touches. But the case of religious properties is different, and they should be left alone.

    Posted by: SocialGalv
  • Religious imagery on government property implies endorsement and should therefore, be banned.

    If we acknowledge the requirement as stated in the First Amendment, we must understand that no Government agency is permitted to encourage "establishment of religion" using Government resources. This would mean that religious imagery would imply endorsement. Because it would be impossible to acknowledge every religion's imagery on any government display without necessarily favoring one over another through design, it is impossible to display imagery without implying endorsement, endorsement implying encouragement of the establishment of religion.

    Posted by: NoIanMu5ic
  • I believe religious imagery should be banned from government property because church and state get hopelessly tangled when intermingled.

    Countries go to war over religious beliefs, and I believe it is just an excuse to fight. Religion should not tear people apart; it should bring people together. Unfortunately, it seems the former occurs when church and state mix.

    Posted by: Pyr0Edet
  • A government property should have imagery of the country it is serving, so religious imagery should be banned.

    There are many religions out there and many countries do not follow only one particular religion. If a government property were to have religious imagery, it should have images of all the religions as that would be only fair to the people it represents. So as not to offend anyone or any religion, if the imagery were only to represent its country, no one will be offended.

    Posted by: StripperMor
  • Curry and Lebron

    Steph, Seth, and Dell. They all shoot threes like bosses. They are kinda good at shooting. They can dunk like LeBron James, but they can shoot better. People don't like him unlike me. All of the Curry's are the definition of swag, even Dell Curry was really good. Allah Akbar

  • Matthew 10:33

    "But whoever shall deny me before men. him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." So you see the Bible will give a clear message on how we should live. Founder Fathers understood the message and we should do the same. Is s very sad that we go to other countries and we have to respect others but when they come here we think we are offending others bydisplaying our beliefs.

  • I think religious imagery could be considered a freedom of expression.

    Religious imagery ought to be allowed on government property. Although people talk about the separation of church and state, God is mentioned in our Pledge of Allegiance, on our money, and many other places. Religious imagery is another way of illustrating that God. People will complain if it is up, people will complain if it is removed, people will complain that it is even being debated. Leave it alone to concentrate on more important issues.

    Posted by: PinkMych
  • We are not Christ's protectors. Why are we fighting?

    Does it matter what we think? I personally think sure, it should be allowed. Here is the only problem: IT DOESN'T MATTER! The government isn't likely to change its mind all of a sudden. So we shouldn't squabble. We are not supposed to fight. If you are really a Christian, it shouldn't matter that it is or isn't allowed. People always display the wrong things anyways.

  • Ambiguity is the issue

    Who defines religion? Too many people isolate 'religious imagery' to just Christian symbols. There are, however, dozens more religions that have images displayed on our government buildings. To remove all of these we will need to demolish the historic structures and rebuild them as bland boxes with no images at all. Why? Because some religions worship animals and others gargoyles. Ignorance has driven this "separation" argument into a polarized christians vs. Atheists bout that fails to see that it is our culture that will lose in the end.

  • We are not in Christ to fight.

    Why should we argue about this? The government already has taken its own action, and it's not likely to change its mind. I personally think it should be allowed, but does it really matter? No, it doesn't. And it's not worth arguing and fighting about if you are really a devoted religious Christian. Even if not, fighting isn't the answer.

  • We are not in Christ to fight. Especially over such small things.

    Does it matter what we think? I personally think sure, it should be allowed. Here is the only problem: IT DOESN'T MATTER! The government isn't likely to change its mind all of a sudden. So we shouldn't squabble. We are not supposed to fight. If you are really a Christian, it shouldn't matter that it is or isn't allowed. People always display the wrong things anyways. But if I find something offensive, I just ignore it, not pick a fight to make me feel better.

  • No! Banning religious imagery is promoting an atheistic imagery.

    Look, atheists want to ban religious imagery, and guess what? An atheistic imagery is set up. Romans 1:25 says, "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. " Atheists say they don't have a religion, but they worship "Mother" nature, Man, and creation. People get put in jail for years for kidnapping a bird, while they get off scot free for killing another. What kind of world is this? No, it is the voice of God calling for us to repent. America, RISE UP! Become what you were once were! Be the only light in the midst of a dark world.

  • There is nothing wrong with it!

    Nothing is wrong with any religious displays. For goodness sake, this is America, the land of the free. If people have a problem with any displays for Christmas, Easter, Ect., they should keep it to themselves! What if we said, "We think Halloween should be illegal and nobody can be allowed to put up decorations for it because it is demonic."? Then what? People would get angry. Think about your actions.

  • Endorsement is not the same as law.

    The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This statement is used as an argument against religious imagery on public property. But to endorse something is completely different than making a law about it. Supposing it is endorsement to allow religious symbolism on government property, the First Amendment is still not violated. Congress has made no law about religion.
    But, the use of religious imagery on public property is not actually religious endorsement by the state. In reality, it is endorsement of the very cornerstone of the First Amendment, freedom of religion.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.