Respond to the following prompts:
Do you believe the government should regulate certain religious practices? Use the following example, snake-handling, as a springboard for explaining your opinion. This practice is one of several cases where the government has placed restrictions on a faith-based practice in some way.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/02/polygamists/anderson-text/2
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/02/polygamists/anderson-text/2
41 comments:
1. I would argue that it is not appropriate for the 70 year old cross to remain raised in the desert because it does not likely represent the faith of all of the World War II veterans that it honors. I would, however, agree with a memorial that is more religiously inclusive, even though it would still mean placing religious symbols on government ground. One place that has done this well for decades is Arlington National Cemetery. In the cemetery, in a manner very similar to the cross in the Mojave Desert, tombstones mark the resting place of and honor fallen soldiers. These tombstones are imprinted with a variety of religious symbols- the Christian cross, the Jewish star of David, the Muslim crescent moon, etc. So long as a sincere effort to be inclusive is made, I think that religious symbols on government property are neither inappropriate nor do they pose an immediate threat to the separation of Church and State in our country.
2. This has got to be one of the most difficult blog responses we’ve had. I don’t think I know enough about the topic to write a full, general opinion on the government banning religious practices, so I'll start off with explaining the legal material I've found that has been used in First Amendment trials pertaining specifically to polygamy and snake handling. The Constitution does not define marriage, although each state has laws that do. I’ve looked up court cases pertaining to polygamy (try Reynolds vs. US), most of which have been from the 1870s-1890s, and several cite Thomas Jefferson, who said “the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions.” This has been broken down to say that there is distinction between religious beliefs and practices that “flow from religious beliefs.” The example that is often brought up is human sacrifice (what modern North American religion promotes human sacrifice?)- that while you may believe in human sacrifice, the government is in the position to punish you for following through with it. The Constitution also protects freedom of religious practice so long as it does not imperil the well-being of others.
Anyways, I believe that while various religious practices- such as plural marriage or snake handling- may be untraditional and frightening in the eyes of many, they should not be outlawed so long as the participants are of legal age and willingly consent to participating. What becomes tricky and a case-by-case thing is what does it mean to be willing (vs. feeling compelled)? Do the women who engage in plural marriages do so out of sincere willingness, or does their faith/faith community create a fear of consequence from their spouse, community, or higher power? It’s complicated.
1. i believe that there are certain places like parks, cities, and places with high population density, where blatantly religious symbols should not be allowed to be, at least big ones like this cross. i feel like if we allow these places to have religious symbols erected on them, different religious organizations will "spam" these spots with religious symbols, offending many people in the process. but a big cross in the middle of the desert isn't hurting anybody, i mean really. in all my travels overseas i've come across lonely crosses in the middle of nowhere and nobody fights over its rights to be erected there, because people have better things to do. if you're driving down nowhere street and you see a big cross chilling in the middle of absolutely nothing and get really offended, you need a hobby.
2. if, and only if, these practices cause harm to anybody outside of these groups or anybody unwilling to partake, and the solution to this problem is remove the practice, by all means do. if you want to start a cult where you glue shoes to your head and do cartwheels with leftover barbershop hair duct taped to your left leg and paisley carpet folded over the right to please the god of easymac, shamwows, reading, and pumpkins, you go ahead and do that, but as soon as you start throwing shoes at pedestrians or tearing out other peoples hair for your paisley shoehead cult, then we have a little problem. also no forcing people to join the paisley shoeheads, thats not cool.
1. I believe most religious symbols in society have more than just a religious meaning. I think people should leave religious symbols alone because they have been put somewhere for a reason, they aren't for converting people are spreading opinions. Most of the time its to represent something else as well. Like the cross in the Mojave, it was put up more as a symbol of hope than a symbol of religion by the Veterans of Foreign Wars. That definitely should be left alone.
2. I do believe the government should be able to regulate to a certain extent. People who are in the FLDS and participating in polygamy should be punished because that practice is against the law. If they can break a law for religion then other people could say they have ritual sacrifices that involve humans,(extreme I know) and it would have to be condoned by the government. Basically everything in society needs to abide by the law or else special exceptions will be made for everyone.
1. Religious symbols and imagery often carry as much historical significance as they do religious significance. No one would argue that Israel should remove the crosses from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre even though the church is on public land and Israel is a not a Christian nation. Many of the crosses displayed on public property have been around for many years and were very important to the people there at the time. As stated in the article, a cross also is "used to honor and respect those [who performed] heroic acts" which certainly describes the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Instead of removing the cross, the cemetery should also display icons of other faiths and beliefs that would be important to all those buried in the cemetery.
2. The government generally does not have the right to regulate religious practices, with the exception of practices that harm other people or break existing laws. Many polygamists choose to have a spiritual marriage instead of a legal marriage, but marriage people more than two people is illegal. As long as the practice is consensual, people have the right to believe and practice however they would like.
1. I think it is acceptable for religious symbols to be displayed on public property, so long as they do not encroach citizens comfort levels. By this I mean that religious symbols should not be flourishing left and right and in people's faces. As far as the memorial cross in the Mojave dessert, I don't think its a terrible idea. I think it's a harmless symbol that doesn't discredit any other religions by existing. If someone feels they aren't being adequately represented, they should erect a sufficient monument of some sort.
2. I do not think the government should take part in regulating certain religious practices. I believe practices such as snake-handling should be allowed to continue as they have for decades. It is not the place of the government to protect or get involved with citizens putting themselves in situations of clear and present danger. I think the snake-handlers know full well what they are getting into, and therefore should accept the consequences accordingly.
It keeps coming up that plural marriage isn't okay because it is "against the law"- which kind of reminds me of how people deal with lesbian and gay marriages. If anyone can find anything explaining WHY plural marriage is illegal I'll bake them a cupcake.
1. I think that displaying religious symbols on public property is not good if it does not represent each religion. It is not fair to represent only one religion on public property, however it would be extremely difficult to represent every single religion in the world. Therefore, it may be best to just not allow religious symbols on public property. In the situation in the Mojave desert with the cross, I can sympathize that it could be troubling to some people to take it down. It has been there for quite a while, and it represents a memorial for the dead. Though it is difficult to bring it down, I just think that it is not appropriate to display only one faith as our nation is filled with numerous religions.
2. I think that the government regulating certain religious practice is a tricky situation. I can see both sides to the issue. First, I can see how it may be troubling to think that people could get heavily influenced by certain practices that may seem colt-like to others. That is one of the reasons, I think, that the government gets involved in certain religious practices. I think that we feel like sometimes people don't have a choice to branch away from some practices because of their close-family ties to the religion. I think that this only becomes an issue when your personal safety is at risk, such as snake-handling.
On the other hand, I can see how it can be scary to see the government influence our religious beliefs. The USA separates church and state, does it not? So what right does the government have in interfering with personal beliefs?
1. I think that the cross should be allowed to stand in the desert only if other religions can be represented as well. That way, the government isn’t showing favoritism to any faith or allowing any one religion more privileges than another. There’s no way nor need to hide religion from public and daily life; I don’t have a problem with all religions being displayed.
2. As far as polygamy goes, I don’t think that the government should have say within reasonable bounds. Love and family life is different for everyone, and I’m sure that many of those in polygamous relationships are very happy with how they live. If people start getting hurt, I think that the government should help protect them, but only at their own will. Children shouldn’t be removed from their families just because they are nontraditional. Snake handling doesn’t bother me either (though I don’t want to hold any snakes. :P) If no one is forced into having to drink poisons and hold snakes, than individuals should be free to worship how they want. They’re not hurting others and many feel as if they’re benefiting themselves, so why not?
1. As long as the religious symbol does not harm anyone or make them feel uncomfortable, i don't see a problem with it. I do think it's a little unfair if one religion monopolizes a certain area though, so it may be beneficial to try to represent multiple religions if we're going to allow any representation at all. I also think that many of the religious symbols we see around today have been there for a long time. Religion plays a huge part in the formation and history of our country and therefor offer a means of education. Again, i believe that as long as the symbol is not harming anyone it can stay.
2. I definitely don't think the government should regulate religious practices. As long as the practice is not altogether harming people, like sacrifice, it should be up to the religious group. Americans are very quick to judge and assume that because something is not normal it must be wrong. As for polygamy within the FLDS, how they chose to live their lives is up to them. As long as everyone in their community is aware of the practice and is fine with it, who are we to say it's wrong? Obviously they are very passionate about this element of their religion and it's not right for the government to say it's wrong. They aren't harming anyone by having multiple wives and lots of children.
As for snake-handling, it is a personal choice as to whether or not a member of their church wants to pick up a snake. Nobody is forcing the serpents into their hands, so it's their fault if they get bitten. If they believe they have an immunity to snakebites, then who gives us the right to say otherwise?
1)I agree with Justice Anthony Kennedy in saying that I don't think every single mention of a religion needs to be removed in order to honor seperation of church and state. That being said, I don't think the cross in the Mojave Desert needs to be removed. No one mentions the fact that there are dozens of crosses on the side of the road honoring people who have died. I think that since this cross has been there for over 70 years without complaint until now, it should remain there. Though, if the complaints continue, I think the solution should be to add to the memorial (other symbols) instead of taking it away entirely.
2) I'm going to agree with most, if not all of the people who have posted already. Polygamy and snake-handling have gotten a pretty bad wrap from the outside world, but they haven't done anything illegal. As soon as the government intervenes into something because of opinion, that's where our duty to separation of church and state can step in. Until the people who practice these beliefs do something illegal (underage marriage, etc.) they shouldn't be bothered just because it makes others uncomfortable.
1. I would have to say that religious symbols should be allowed to be displayed on public property. They aren't usually there just to persuade people to conform to that religion. They usually have deeper meanings than that, like in the article when it talks about a cross on the side of the road. The cross isn't there to persuade anyone into Christianity, it's just there as a remembrance of a man that died.
2. To some extent, I don't think the government should be able to have the right to regulate religious practices. They should only be able to have a say in it if it is against the law or if it some how harming others. For example, while polygamists believe in having multiple wives we know this is against the law. But the government should not have any say in preventing them from this if it consensual, it is one of there beliefs and people should be allowed to follow their beliefs. While they can't actually get married, if it is consensual then they should be able to live their life with their spiritual marriages. If it is consensual, it is not hurting anyone and the government should not be able to get upset about it.
#1) no, i don't believe religious symbols should be displayed on public property. if everyone followed the same religion, it would be fine, but since we all don't, some may have different feelings about said symbols and would cause issues that some groups don't want to associate that area with. like having a cross in the park next to a hindu temple, not very appreciated by the people going to the temple since it seems the park is for christians or it's threatening their faith. in regards to a cross in the desert as a memorial to troops, not all could be christain and it should probably be put in someone's private land if they feel strongly about it.
#2) i do not think the government should interfere with religious practice as long as it does not break that gov't laws. not all laws are well thought out, but majority are made in order to keep others safe and keep the general public at rest. in the matter of polygamy, i see no big deal. if your family works with multiple spouses, go for it. if you believe god has a connect to you through snakes or some other animal, go for it, religion in general can be crazy, but only crazy in the perspective to those outside the religion. people should have near freedom to their own actions. in the USA there's suppose to be separation of church and state anyway, and it should go both ways.
1. I feel that it is ok to display religous symbols, but only if each religion is going to be represented equally. When you start leaving religions out favortisim becomes an issue. There is no reason that the cross should be taken down. It is not hurting anyone who passes by it, and im sure the point of it is not to try to convert others to christianity.
2.As long as these practices are not hurting anyone i dont see what the problem is. When violence becomes a preblem then the government has the right to regulate.
1
I believe religous symbols should be displayed. What is the problem, are they hurting someone or something. What is it for, for me when I put up crosses and other religous things it is for me to prophese my faith, not convert people. in my opinion i don't think the point is to convert i think it is to show that i'm a christrian
2
i think that if you want prophese your faith by handling snakes thats cool but if you want to go sacrificing then you need to be stoped.
1. I think that it is acceptable to display religious symbols because you are not forcing anyone to believe in a certain belief. As long as all religions are represnted and none are frowned upon i think that there is no problem with having symbbols around.
2. I do not think the government should regulate certain religious practices if it is not against the law. If it is against the law then it would be acceptable.
1. I think that it is acceptable to display religious symbols because you are not forcing anyone to believe in a certain belief. As long as all religions are represnted and none are frowned upon i think that there is no problem with having symbbols around.
2. I do not think the government should regulate certain religious practices if it is not against the law. If it is against the law then it would be acceptable.
1. I don't think it's right for the government to ban religious symbols. Everyone should have a freedom of expression for what they believe in, just as long as nobody is trying to push the religion or influence others unwillingly. I agree with Frank Buono, the cross is just a symbol for commemorating those who died.
2. I have very mixed feelings about the government regulating people's faiths, but because I have a biased opinion against polygamy my answer is not to be generalized among all religions. I just don't agree with polygamy, and I don't want to say it's okay for it to be banned but i don't think other FLDS members should have the power to influence others into joining their polygamist society. I think they should keep that to themselves. But in general, I don't think it's okay for the government to regulate religious practices, as long is it doesn't corrupt others it should be fine.
1) I feel that religious symbols can be displayed on public property on 3 conditions:
The federal government has nothing to do with it (to avoid endorsement of religions)
Anyone from all religions has the right to display these religious symbols. (which is what didn't occur when the Park Service declined the request to build a Buddhist Shrine which showed endorsement)
These religious symbols may not be explicitly offensive to people.
2)I believe that government has the right to regulate certain religious practices under the circumstances that they are dangerous and/or offensive to others.
So technically speaking, there is no case against plural marriage despite the fact that it is not socially acceptable. However, there is no case only under ideal situations. When women and children are abused and girls are forced to marry men (regardless of age), then the government has the right to step in.
Snake-handling on the other hand is pretty straight forward, if the practice is done in a safe way, then government should not have a right to intervene.
1. I believe that when it comes to religious symbols on public property it should be judged on a case by case basis. While some religious symbols can be offensive and sometimes cross the line, I don't think it is always a bad thing. I think that displaying religious symbols on public property can sometimes fall under the categories of people's right to their first amendment. However I also believe that every person should get permission by the town/city government to be allowed to display their religious symbol. I don't think its any different then when religious groups get permission to advertise/promote their religion on Franklin Street.
2. I feel that Americans have the right to practice their religion in whatever way they please. Even if it goes against the morals of society. However I do feel that it is the governments job to step in if it endangering people's lives or they are being forced to do something against their will. Because people come to America to flee religious oppression, I feel that it is wrong to try and "regulate" their practices unless it is causing harm.
1. I definitely think the government has a right to regulate religious symbols on public property, but on the condition that they either allow complete religious expression (i.e. every religion that wishes to be represented is) or none at all. In fact, I think that no religious affiliations with the government is more appropriate because when it comes to separation of church and state, the less complicated the better. The government in the Mojave Desert was out of line in allowing only certain religious symbols to be displayed. People can express their religious beliefs in numerous ways without having to involve public property, though. No matter how discreet or modest religious affiliations would be on public property, some one will always be offended, and the best solution is to have a uniform law that either prohibits it entirely or allows all types of religious icons. Either way, it will be a tough job mandating such directions.
2. It is tough to say that the government should handle cases like this on an individual basis, because that would of course be unfair to the parties involved due to biases of the overseeing officials and for several other reasons. On the other hand, how on earth could there possibly be a law (or even set of laws) which would be directly applicable to every case, and used fairly in each one as well? The government should have a right to intervene if: citizens are being harmed against their will or are too young to stand up for themselves. To reiterate a point I made in the first response, the less government involvement in religious affairs the better, and as long as no one is being harmed, I don't see reasonable need for government interference.
I disagree with the argument made in the article regarding the cross in the Mojave desert. I think that a cross is an undeniably Christian symbol, and even though it has become a sort of historic monument, I don't think that it is appropriate to place a large, religious symbol on public land. Our nation is one that relies on the idea that church and state are separate, but religion is often tangled with politics. The fact that the Supreme Court was divided at all is proof that there is indecisiveness due to religious affiliation. But I agree with what Anthony Kennedy said about the cross on the side of the road marking a memorial to a lost loved one. Still, that is a separate issue all together due to the size and implications that each situation holds.
When it comes to the federal government regulating various religious practices, part of me wants to say that people should be entitled to practice their faith however they want to. But I think that, in some situations, there is a need to protect people's lives rather than respect their tradition. If there are signs of abuse in any situation where religious extremists are practicing what they think is holy and good, we should understand that there is a need to put life over faith. When people see leaders of groups like the FLDS make the news for alleged abuse or practicing in underage marriages, it can seem foreign or disturbing. But ultimately each person has a life and a choice as to how they want to lead it. I'm sort of torn between my personal feelings that polygamy is wrong and the knowledge that America promises "liberty" to all people.
1. The notion that all religious symbols must be removed from public places to maintain separation of church and state is absolutely absurd. Removing religious imagery for this reason is equivalent to an ostrich sticking its head in the sand to hide from danger. A cross memorializing those who have died in the service of this country is not an attempt by the government to push Christianity on citizens; it is a show of respect for the fallen, most of whom were Christian. It is extremely disrespectful for these activists to try to get the cross removed. The cross is not the equivalent of a Buddhist shrine because the shrine is not a war memorial, which is the primary function of the cross. Arlington National Cemetary is on public land. Will the next step for these liberal crusaders against religion be to demand the removal of all cross and star-of-David headstones? I sincerely hope not...
2. The only time the government should rightfully be allowerd to regulate religion (thus inherintly unseparating itself from the church)is when people are being made to do things against their will. If a Mormon woman was forced into a polygamist marriage that she did not want, then it would be necessary for the state to intervene. Otherwise, for the government to regulate what religious groups can and cannot do violates the core sacred principles upon which this nation was founded. America is a nation built upon the ideals independence and self reliance, and this intrusion into people's private affairs is a slap in the face to the American spirit.
1. I am undecided about whether or not religious symbols should be displayed on public property. In this context, I see nothing wrong with it because it has been there for so long. Also because it is for veterans not just Christian veterans. The fact that they refused to put up a Buddhist shrine irritates me though. This does make it seem like Christianity is being favored.
2. I believe separation of church and state means keeping religion out of the government and the goverment out of religion. I do not think it is right for the government to regulae religious practices. The only reason polygamy is illegal is because it is socially frowned upon. There is not harm in polygamy unless it is involving young girls. I do not see any reason the government has the right to regulate who is married to who. Polygamy could be compared to gay marriage in the sense that there is no logical reason for either being illegal. Snake handling is a little bit trickier because lives could be in danger. I do not think anyone should be accused of murder because of death by snake bite though. It was the person's choice to hold the snake and that's not illegal. I hold true to the idea that government should stay out of it.
1. I believe it is fine to display religious symbols on public property so long as all religions are allowed equal representation. I don't think that it would be appropriate for the cross to be torn down due to religious favoritism as it is representative not just of one religion but also honors World War II veterans who died in service for their country. However, I do believe it is religious discrimination if one religion is allowed to be represented while others are not. I believe that by declining the request to build a Buddhist shrine near the Mojave Cross, the Park Service was upholding this religious favoritism.
2. I believe that it is very hard to judge what should or should not be regulated by the government especially when it pertains to something as personal as religion. Although I personally have an issue with plural marriage, does this mean that the government should outlaw it? We do live in a country based upon freedom of religion and expression. By banning practices that the majority disapproves of, we are taking away this constitutional right. It is also impossible for us to truly understand the motivations behind the people who engage in activity we disapprove of. On the subject of plural marriage, I believe it should be allowed but only as long as it is between two consenting legal adults. I believe the government should have the right to intervene if a person's life or liberties is being endangered.
1) I think think that religious symbols should be allowed to be displayed on public property. Many religious signs represent peace in many religions. In this article, the cross was meant to represent the honor and respect for people of heroic acts. The cross in California's Mojave National Preserve was put up to honor the veterans of foreign wars.
2) I think that the government should be able to regulate some part of all religious practices. Just as long as the religious practices are not hurting anyone else it shouldn't be a problem. As a country we have many freedoms compared to most countries. If the government takes away the right to practice certain religious tradition, then the government will fail it's promise to citizens all of their rights.
1)I definitely think that religious symbols should be allowed to bedisplayed on on public property. In the diplayed article, they mention a cross on a highway that is placed in memory of a fallen state trooper. The cross doesn't necessarily asscociate with religious views, but acts as a symbol for the death of someone.
2) As for the government regulating religious practices, I want to say that they have no right to regulate someones religious practices, considering our country was founded on the belief of freedom of religion. However, in certain situatuions, like where people are treated unjustly or unfairly or against their will, then I do think that it is the governments job to step in.
1) I think that religious symbols should be allowed on public property, such as in parks or recreational areas, so long as they do not denounce other religions. I do not, however, believe that it is appropriate for government or educational facilities to promote a specific religion. Religion is a part of culture and should be expressed, but not forced upon people.
2) I do believe that government should be able to regulate only very specific aspects of other religions. When a religion encourages violence or other practices that brake basic laws which affect other people the government can intervene. If someone however wants to harm themselves (say, suicide) as a part of thier religion, and it does not harm others, that is where freedom of religion should come into play.
1. I believe that religious symbols should be allowed on some public properties, like a park or something. I do not believe that they should be allowed in schools or somewhere that is educational, because I do not think religion should be promoted or forced upon people. I think religion should be allowed to be expressed to a certain extent.
2. I do think that government should be allowed to regulate unjust religious practices. If the practice is getting out of hand and should be illegal, I think that the government should be allowed to take charge. Polygamy is a prime example, I think it should be illegal, therefore government should be allowed to regulate it. However, I think freedom of relgion should still apply to the regulation, and people should be given as much freedom as possible, if that makes any sense.
1) I believe that religious symbols can be placed on certain public properties. However, I do believe that there should be restrictions. I don't agree that the cross should placed in the desert because it does not represent all faiths of the men that served in the military. But if one religious group is recognized in a public place, then I think that all faiths should be allowed to represent their people as well. However if it is something specifically for one religion, I think that should be allowed.
2) I do not think that the government should be able to determine the practices of people's faith. Religious practices are sacred and when the government interferes, that is messing with a practice of their higher being. However, I do understand the concern with polygamy. There are many complications with this law, but overall I do not feel like the government should interfere.
1) I believe that religious symbols can be placed on certain public properties. However, I do believe that there should be restrictions. I don't agree that the cross should placed in the desert because it does not represent all faiths of the men that served in the military. But if one religious group is recognized in a public place, then I think that all faiths should be allowed to represent their people as well. However if it is something specifically for one religion, I think that should be allowed.
2) I do not think that the government should be able to determine the practices of people's faith. Religious practices are sacred and when the government interferes, that is messing with a practice of their higher being. However, I do understand the concern with polygamy. There are many complications with this law, but overall I do not feel like the government should interfere.
1. I believe that is not inappropriate to have religious symbols on government property that honor members of that country. The National Cemetery is a great example of this, because it has religious symbols placed in a way that do not offend any particular religion. However, I believe display should be limited, and should not exist in public schools.
2. This is definitely a controversial issue in the US today. I believe that religious practices should be allowed, as long as they do not pose an emotional, mental, spiritual, or physical threat to others. If the snake handling is safe, then it should be allowed. If all members of the marriage are of legal age and consenting, then that should be allowed as well.
Religious symbols are ok to be put on public property as long as it doesn't make other people feel uncomfortable. If you have a cross to commemorate someone who is in fact a christian that is perfectly fine. If the government puts a cross to commemorate a group of people who in some cases weren't christian then it wouldn't be okay. The government must show equal respect to all people of different religions. The can put some sort of religious icon upon public property as long as it is tradition, not in any way promoting the act or shooting down the act.
2. The government should never interfere with practices of religion in any way shape or form as long as the practice is victimless. The government does not have the authority to regulate these religious practices based on what they deem as "moral". The laws against polygamy and other forms of marriages are based upon personal belief where other forms of religion have had an effect. Government regulating how to worship is another intrusion upon our liberties.
1. What really bugs me about this case is that it was a government organization that put the cross up, as any such organization shouldn't be associated with any faith. Still, I don't think it's that big of an issue, since the VFW did have good intentions. However, I do have a problem with Kennedy's opinion; since when did a giant cross not have religious implications?
2.If a religious practice is harming others, it should obviously be regulated. But if a religious practice is only harming the practitioner, there is no need for the government to step in. For instance, any marriage between consenting adults should be legal, no matter the gender or even the number of spouses.
1. No. We have fought long and hard over the issue of separation of church and state and by letting religious symbols being posted freely of public ground is a step backwards. I understand the argument of the cross not representing Christianity and instead those soldiers who died in combat, but there are other ways to show support to our troops. For instance statues of soldiers, an American flag, a memorial monument, or an engraving. Religious symbols should be confined to private property or religious centers property.
2. Yes. But the government should only regulate religious practices if there is risk of harm to the participants. The FLDS aren’t harming people (for the most part) the controversy over child molestation is another issue. But overall the FLDS are not harming the own or others with their practices. Snake handling is obviously dangerous and not a justifiable religious practices. Those types of religious practices I believe that the government should regulate. The main reason people have against plural marriage is that it goes against the “norm”. Thus it makes most people uncomfortable and when things make people uncomfortable, people tend to try and discredit the thing that makes them uncomfortable. And they try to get rid of it.
Deb Metz
1. No. We have fought long and hard over the issue of separation of church and state and by letting religious symbols being posted freely of public ground is a step backwards. I understand the argument of the cross not representing Christianity and instead those soldiers who died in combat, but there are other ways to show support to our troops. For instance statues of soldiers, an American flag, a memorial monument, or an engraving. Religious symbols should be confined to private property or religious centers property.
2. Yes. But the government should only regulate religious practices if there is risk of harm to the participants. The FLDS aren’t harming people (for the most part) the controversy over child molestation is another issue. But overall the FLDS are not harming the own or others with their practices. Snake handling is obviously dangerous and not a justifiable religious practices. Those types of religious practices I believe that the government should regulate. The main reason people have against plural marriage is that it goes against the “norm”. Thus it makes most people uncomfortable and when things make people uncomfortable, people tend to try and discredit the thing that makes them uncomfortable. And they try to get rid of it.
1. I think religion and state should stay completely separate. There is no way to represent all religions out there, and to even begin to try would cause a whole mess of problems. Even though it's not always an easy solution, the best solution is to not represent any so nobody feels left out or ignored.
2. I think the laws should apply normally, whether to religious people or not. Laws shouldn't be able to be ignored because it's in someones belief not to follow them. Conversely, I don't think laws should come down any harsher or place a closer watch on more eccentric religions. I believe everyone should get the same treatment in terms of laws.
1.I believe that it is acceptable for religious symbols to be portrayed in the public, as long as their not offending anyone. But due to society's ignorance, many find it "inappropriate" and offensive. Still, i don't understand why this is such a big issue.
2.If the practice is harming others then the goverment should step in. If it's harming the praticioners then the government needs to back off. In my opinion, the government should not interfere with religious practices but if they choose to do so, only when things are getting "out of hand." Still, there is not much to say about this issue. Either you interfere or not. Either way, you must treat all religions and relgious practices equally.
In my opinion religious symbols displayed on public property isn’t a big deal. I believe that the decision to keep the religious symbols on display doesn’t not violate the division between religion and state. The first commandment includes free will to practice one’s own religion and the involves religious symbols. I think that people are extremely judgmental about religious symbols that are on public property. I personally don’t agree with the fact that they should bring down all symbols, I wouldn’t get offended with a saw a statue of deity.
I think that government should in some way regulate religious practices. I don’t agree with the way the people in the two articles are practicing their religion. I don’t like polygamy and I find it odd that people would use snakes. However I feel as though if all people in those communities are 100% sure they want to continue with these traditions it’s their decision. They should be allowed to practice their religion as long as they don’t break any laws, for example, no 15 year old girl can be arrange to marry a 30 something year old.
1) Yes and no. Yes, because I think everyone has the freedom of speech. No, because other religious people might feel offended by seeing other symbols. If there are symbols around, I don't think people should take it too seriously because again, everyone has the freedom of speech.
2) I believe the government should regulate certain practices if it gets way too far and out of hand. Like, polygamy for instance, if Mormons are trying to convert others or thinking they are the best people on the planet is just wrong. Overall, it shouldn't be too much of a big deal unless if it harms others and gets out of hand.
Post a Comment