Religious Iconography on Government Property - Research Paper Example

Religious Iconography on Government Property Religious iconography refers to the set of specific symbolic representations of religions in the form of pictures. It serves to convey the ideologies of the religion. Religious iconography has been used by religions since time immemorial and depicts a belief central to the religion. Religions have used iconography in the past for various reasons. Iconography has been a tool for inspiring religious followers, providing them with a symbol to relate to. Symbols and icons have also been a source of instruction and have been regarded as sacred. Iconography has been used by a multitude of religions including Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism. Religious iconography is not restricted to copies of religious texts, videos, dissertations etc. Religious groups have promoted the cause of their religion and beliefs by displaying religious iconography in public. These activities have attracted a lot of debate, both from the proponent circle and the opponent. The ensuing debate has also received much attention in Lincoln school. Authorities, teachers and students are split on the issue of display of religious iconography in public schools, causing undue tension and volatility in the atmosphere. Ms Foster, amongst many other opponents and proponents, has been particularly active in the debate. In my opinion, there should be no absolute restriction on the display of religious iconography in Lincoln school and other public schools. I have discussed my points of view in the paper and have bolstered them with facts and evidence. In the end, I have followed my arguments with a conclusion, establishing the justifications for my opinion. Religious symbols on public property are frequently being questioned under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (Pollock, 2008). The First Amendment of the USA Constitution for religious and political freedom states that the Congress is not permitted to make any law that establishes or prohibits the free exercise of a religion, freedom of speech or press. The greater power of the First Amendment is the fundamental importance of such expression presumed to protect all Americans from violence (Hicks, 2009). Although the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion, it does not place any restrictions on the display of iconography related to religion. The Amendment was passed more than forty years ago and no changes have been made ever since. Whatever the Constitution states is the supreme law, and violation of these laws is a matter of state crime. Since the Constitution ratifies the display of public religious iconography, the recent decisions by local courts to classify religious iconographic displays as constitutional violation is not based on fair grounds. The establishment of religion is a state-funded activity and requires the state to promote a particular religion. Since public displays of religious iconography do not fall under the heading of establishment of religion, they are not unconstitutional and illegal. Iconography of religious elements is not restricted by judicial tests used by the Court either. These tests may include the Lemon test, the endorsement test and the coercion test amongst others. These tests define the degree of involvement of the government into religious matters. Thus, according to the law, the public display of iconographic religious data does not infringe or violate any constitutional provision, and can be practiced without any limitations by the government. Having established the legality of the practice of religious iconography, I shall now proceed to support the justification of religious practice by quoting the examples of politicians. According to President Clinton, schools play a central role in training children and reinforcing the values that they learn at home and in their communities. He further said that one of the best ways to do this is to allow students to practice religious beliefs in school. He went on to argue in favor of the First Amendment that, sensibly applied, it has protected and advanced the religious rights of communities (the US Department of Education, 1998). President Clinton’s statements are important in the context of the debate. School is a student’s second sanctuary; he or she spends a most part of the day in school. If religion constitutes a main part of a student’s life, it is expected that he or she would indulge in any religious practice during schooling hours as well. Since the purpose of schools is to instill in students the knowledge that they need and to advance their personal geniuses (Pawelski, 2007), there should be no restrictions imposed on students with reference to the practice of religious beliefs. The First Amendment places limitations on schools to both forbid students and encourage them from practicing religious rites. Schools do not have the right to discriminate against the free expression of religion by students and give them equal right to practice their religious beliefs as in any other activity. Therefore, the use of iconography is permissible, given that it is not meant to be provocative and instigate students to harass any one. In accordance with Richard W. Riley, the US Secretary for Education, with the increase in religious diversity in the country, steps to remain neutral regarding religious practices, can help school districts to devise a framework of civility that reaffirms and strengthens the community consensus regarding religious liberty. If schools refuse to comply with these practices, they would find themselves in the middle of a controversy involving religious expression in schools. Furthering this point of view, he said that public schools can neither promote religion not exclude. In fact, schools must aim to protect and advance the rights of students to freedom of religion; in doing so, schools would reaffirm the First Amendment and enrich the lives of the students (the US Department of Education, 1998). The guidelines proposed by him included that offices should have a neural stance on the practice of religious acts. What society has a right to expect and to demand of the schooling system is that it develops and promotes certain tendencies to behave, and it strives earnestly to remove or prohibit any other tendencies that are detrimental to the rights of the students (Strayer, 2008). The Equal Access Act was also passed to ascertain that religious practices of students are given the same status as any other secular activity in public schools. According to the Act, prayers have been legalized, and there are no restrictions for publicizing meetings (the US Department of Education, 1998). Students are allowed to meet and carry out discussions on religion, with equal access to school services as for any other co-curricular or extra-curricular activity. The Act endorses the constitutional and legal justifications of the public display of religious iconography. It can be argued that placing a ban on the public display of religious iconography curtails freedom of religious expression. Freedom of religious expression is an inherent right of everyone. Banning iconography means that one is not allowed to practice his or her religion, and their beliefs e.g. acknowledgement to the God are imposed upon. Freedom of speech and expression constitutes an integral part of a democracy. If attempts are made to preclude the display of religious symbols, the authorities are sending across a message of totalitarian control, where the common public does not have the freedom to follow what they want. Moreover, officials have an obligation to protect and endorse the public’s rights. Since public displays of iconography represent freedom of expression and the public’s right to openly communicate with each other, officials are bound to support them and maintain a neutral stance on the establishment or prohibition of religion. By doing so, officials are not violating the First Amendment, since they are not actively encouraging religious activity or endorsing a particular religion; rather, they are serving the interests of the public. For many opponents of public display of religious iconography, seeing a symbol might be a cause of offence and they may accuse the district authorities of indulging in unconstitutional activities; however, it should be noted different people may have different views on the matter and therefore, the fact that one does not favor such displays, does not make the district governors and officials guilty of breaking the law. Moreover, the courts have time and again held that US government at all levels must remain neutral in matters of the religion (Bardes, 2008). Curbing the expression of people by prohibiting public displays promotes atheism. In a society where people are not given the permission to voice out their religious beliefs, the only people who would feel comfortable would be atheists. Since eighty-five percent of Americans are affiliated with a religion or some religious group, banning the free practice of religion would cause dissatisfaction and tension amongst the religious groups. If the majority of the people can not relate to the authorities’ measures, and if their constitutional rights are not safeguarded, they would be more inclined to rebel against the authorities, creating civil tension. People who have religious affiliations would feel left out of the political process, and subsequently would feel suppressed and dominated over by the regulatory body. Since the government would fail to acknowledge the religious rights of the people, it would have a natural tendency to favor atheism. Thus, it can be labeled as an atheist promoting body. Since USA is a secular country, it can not promote any atheist or religious groups. The state aims to protect the rights of both the minorities and the faction of religious groups forming the majority of the population. The state can not favor one faction over the other, since that would again mean that it is curbing the freedom of a certain group of people. Reiterating the data, 85% of the people in US belief in a religion, and therefore form the majority of the population. They would be in favor of promulgating religious iconography as a representation of their religious beliefs. On the other hand, the small percentage of people who do not follow any religions would be affronted by religious displays and might take the matter to Court, regarding the displays as illegal. If the Court favors the minorities and imposes limitations on the display of religious symbols, it is discriminating against the majority of the people, especially since such religious activities are not illegal. Symbols and iconography can be displayed in public to represent the religious origins of a holiday. Such displays should not be considered discriminatory. In the Supreme Court case of the County of Alleghany et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union, the legality of the depiction of religious symbols in two holiday displays was questioned. It was argued that the display was meant to acknowledge the historical background and the religious and secular nature of the holidays. The symbols were traditional and typical of religious holidays, and had acquired a secular nature with the passage of time. According to one of the judges, the authority does not have any right to enforce their personal opinions. So even if the judges may personally not be in favor of the public display of such symbols, since it may be offensive for religious groups if someone desecrates the displays, their role is only limited to implementing the Constitution. The First Amendment makes reasonable accommodation for the pluralism of the society and allows individuals to acknowledge their religious beliefs. Therefore they also have full liberty to showcase the historical and religious aspects of holiday displays. The case concluded that no constitutional violation occurs if people display symbols that represent the religious origins of the holiday. There should also be no restrictions on the display of religious iconography because of the historical significance of the First Seal of US. The First Seal that was proposed by the Great Seal Committee took its foundations from Masonic iconography. The pyramid and the eye are depictive of Masonic symbols. The Masons believe in a providential God, and hence the delineation of religious symbols in the Seal is an example of use of religious iconography for public purposes (King, 2009). The all-seeing eye of God has been used at various places in the Bible. The original seal proposed by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams drew inspiration from both the Bible and the Old Testament. This illustrates that two of the most crucial figures in the history of US were not against the display of religious iconography on currency notes and other matters of national importance. Moreover, the pattern of glory stars on the obverse of the Seal is attributed to Haym Solomon, who was a Jew. The stars had a strong resemblance to the arrangement of stars in the Star of David. There has been evidence to suggest that George Washington authorized the Seal. If the history is full of examples that demonstrate the use of religious iconography in signing important documents and as a representation of the entire country, one can conclude that the state can allow the use of religious iconography since the founders of state, who had the best interests of the state at heart, were in favor of it. Therefore, it can be argued that the state and religion can operate separately, and there can be no entanglement between the two in the public displays of religious symbols. Polls on the religious displays of iconography show that most of the Americans are in favor of it. In the 2003 September 24 poll regarding the Ten Commandments conducted by the CNN, USA Today and Gallup poll, 77% of the voters did not approve of the removal of the Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the Alabama Justice Building. The margin of error was only 3.2%, representing that the majority of the people agreed on the display of the monument. The Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore said that removing the monument from the building would be the prohibition of the Judeo-Christian God; this would be a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the unrestricted exercise of religion. Rev. Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for separation of Church and State, was of the view that the separation of the state from religious matters is illustrative of the victory of compliance with the constitutional law (Robinson, 2005). It also suggests that the state has great respect for religious diversity. In another controversy regarding the display of religious monuments in Texas Capitol, the display had a historical meaning, and it delivered a moral message that was portrayed in the values and ideals of the Texans. In another poll regarding the inscription if ‘In God We Trust’ on US coins, ninety percent of the people approved of the inscription, with only 8% against it. This represents that majority of the people in US are supportive of the pubic displays of religious iconography. Support for religion in puvlic schools is highest amongst older people (Heyer, Rozell & Genovese, 2008). Most Americans adhere to the notion that religion helps in infusing morals into children and so is an important part of a child’s learning. In a poll conducted by Public Agenda, 53% of the people were in favor of observing a moment of silence, where people with diverse religious backgrounds can practice their specific religious activities. 20% of people were in favor of prayers to God, while 6% wanted Christian prayer to Jesus. In contrast to that, only 19% of the people were against having any form of religious activity in the schools. The poll also established that majority of the people wanted religion to be followed in school and that children should be taught the importance of God. This constituted to be about 51% of the total opinions on the matter. Moreover more than half of the voters agreed that religion is effective in improving and nurturing the values of young minds. Less than fifty percent of the people were of the view that school prayer violates the Constitution. Therefore, one can deduce that most of the parents were of the view that religion is an integral part of a child’s life since it helps him or her become better individuals. Likewise, they advocate the practice of religious activities in school. Elaborating upon the depth of this statement, the free practice of religion would mean that there should be no limitation on the use of religious iconographic symbols. The aforementioned polls also represent the same school of thought. Americans in favor of promoting religious activity would employ the use of religious iconography and thus, it follows, that they bolster its appropriateness with regard the controversy surrounding it. In an article printed by Fox News in 2005, it was reported that the majority of the Americans are of the view that courts were driving religion out of the lives of the people (Blanton, 2005). The article said that most Americans were in favor of allowing nativity scenes on pubic property. Amongst the people who gave their opinions, 83% of them agreed that the government should not place any restriction on the delineation and display of nativity scenes on government property. The article also presented the poll that three-fourth of the Americans were of the view that Ten Commandments on government property should be allowed, and more than sixty percent were of the outlook that Ten Commandments should also be displayed in schools. 81% of the Americans who registered their opinions thought that religion should not be completely and absolutely precluded from the lives of the Americans, as compared to a small minority of 17% people who felt that religion already influenced people’s lives greatly. Many Americans (58%) contended that they feel that religion is under attack more this year as compared to the previous year and public displays of Christian symbols are being targeted. Thus these statistics demonstrate the importance of religion in the lives of the Americans and proves that most of them are supportive of the religious display of symbols not only in public places, but also in schools. In accordance with Sweetman (2006), the state could allow the display of Ten Commandments as long as the state is not endorsing the religion behind it. In a poll conducted by Michael Foust (2005), majority of the Americans were not satisfied with the role of religions in public schools and were of the point of view that it should have greater impact on the lives of school children by organizing voluntary prayer. 76% of the adults adhered to the idea that the Constitution needed to be amended to allow voluntary prayers in schools. These facts show that most of the Americans consider religion to play an integral part in character building of their children and hence encourage that religion should be interspersed with learning. It follows that they would support the use of iconography of religion in public displays. This would lead to better cultivation of religion in the lives of the children. Religious symbols are illustrative of the traditions of the past. Religious holidays and religious values have become central to the practices of most Americans today. What the religion shuns wrong is wrong, and most people live their lives according to the commandments of their religions. Religious values represent the rich tradition and culture of the people, and form a vital part of their individuality. The morals and personality traits of people are judged taking the ones described in religion as the criteria. Most people have a high regard for these religious values, and with time, these values have come to be defined as the good and morally justified traits of one’s personality. Therefore, they create feelings of good-will amongst people and foster healthy interaction. The religious values and the regard for morals do not promote any illegal activity or any antagonist behavior. Since these traditions represent the best of a person’s character, they should not be viewed with any bias or prejudice. These values have come to embody individuals and have helped shape their identity and individualism. From an anthropological point of view, religion is an essential part of a cultural system’s superstructure, earlier defined as the body of ideas, beliefs and values which enables people to figure out the world around them (Haviland, Walrath, & Prins, 2007). In fact, since they symbolize the constructive aspect of the past, they should be displayed in public in order to publicize and endorse the good points of the society. Since they are depictive of the collective identity and cultural beliefs of people (Goman, 2008), showcasing them will promote feelings of belonging and eliminate alienation amongst the people. The state aims to provide equal respect and rights to everyone. If the state gives equal recognition to all religions and does not discriminate against any on of them, religious iconography can be allowed to exhibit the chief influence of religion in the lives of Americans. Religion is an expression of the values that individuals endorse and what they consider right or wrong. Religion is provides guidelines for living lives, and people incorporate these guidelines in their daily conduct. It is naturally expected of them to show their devotion to their religion through the means of public displays of information. This not only reinforces their beliefs, but also provides them with an environment that is sensitized to their beliefs. Given all these reasons, if the state supports the equal representation of religious symbols in public, that are neither meant to incite any one, or insult any other religion, the display is appropriate. According to the Frame of government for Pennsylvania, drafted by Governor William Pen, on May 5, 1682, explains how the government should be framed. Lynten writes about Article XXXIV (2008): “That all Treasures, Judges, Masters of the rolls, Sheriffs, Justices of the Peace, and other officers and persons whatsoever, relating to courts, or trials of causes or any other service in the government; and all members elected to serve in province Council and General Assembly, and all that have right to elect such Members, shall be such as possess faith in Jesus Christ, and that are not convicted of ill fame, or unsober and dishonest conversation, and that are of one and twenty years of age, at least; and that all such so qualified, shall be capable of the said several employments, and privileges, as aforesaid”. This quotation highlights the importance of religion in the lives of politicians. The argument in favor of the appropriateness of religious iconography is presented by Lynten when talking about Article XXXV (2008): “That all persons living in this province, who confess and acknowledge the one and Almighty God, to be the Creator, Upholder and Ruler of the world; and that hold themselves obliged in conscience to live peaceable and justly in civil society, in all ways, be molested, prejudiced for their religious persuasion, or practice, in matters of faith and worship, nor shall they be compelled, at any time, to frequent or maintain any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever.” Thus this provision serves to highlight the importance of religious practice of people without any persuasion. Evidence justifying the appropriateness of religious iconography is presented in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom for establishing religious freedom in Virginia. The draft was proposed by Thomas Jefferson and section II states (1779): “We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities”. According to Jefferson, forcing someone to accept a belief is tyrannical and is an intrusion on his political and religious rights. The draft was enacted into law in 1786, and establishes the fact that annals of history are rampant with examples of laws that support the free exercise and expression of religion. Jefferson encouraged freedom of religious expression; he endorsed that the faith of people would be protected, not pummeled (Siriano, 2006). The Americans United for the Spearation of Church and State is an organization working for the religious cause of the Americans and advocates the display of religious symbols (Finkelman 2006). The opponents of the public display of religious symbols argue that by advocating the cause of religious iconography, the officials are violating the Constitutional law and doing an impermissible endorsement of religion (Manuel, Reardon, Wilcox, 2006). On the other hand it can be counter argued that such depictions do not establish any religion and hence do not digress from the law. Symbols are not places where people come for worship, nor are they attracting government attention for monetary benefits. Symbols are not meant to recruit more people or to level criticisms on any other religion. Symbols are simple depictions of the practices a certain group of people follow and give high regard for. They are not aimed to raise civil tension, or to anger any one. In contrast to that symbols are placed and displayed openly to establish the faith of the followers of that religion. By not intervening in the display of symbols does not make the government guilty of establishing that religion (Dimitrakopoulos, 2007). Officials would only break the law if they contest the freedom of religious practice of people or if they secretively or openly fund a religion in order to establish it. The society in US is multi-cultural and the government has to cater to the needs and requirements of the diverse religious elements present. By supporting a particular religion, it would be biased, and not represent the secularity of the state justly; this can be one reason why the officials can break the law. The display of symbols in public schools does not call upon the government to financially fund the cause; neither does it require the government to discriminate against any religious faction. Subsequently, the government is not being involved in religious matters, maintaining the separation of the state from the religion. Thus, de jure, the display of symbols in public arenas is justified. In conclusion, the public display of religious symbols is appropriate. The government is not stepping over the line separating religion and state by advocating such public displays. The public displays are representative of the freedom to exercise the political and religious will of the people; by limiting the display of religious iconography, officials would be infringing upon the rights of the people. Moreover, the display of such symbols has been advocated by many politicians, even the founders of the country. The symbols have a cultural value and are representative of the traditions of the people. They do not promote hatred or feelings of ill-will, and showcase the positive aspect of the culture. Moreover, the state does not establish religion by not censuring symbols. Conversely, symbols establish the religion and faith of the people. Most Americans believe that religion should be inculcated in the lives of students in school as well, and supported the cause of displaying nativity scenes. Thus, in my humble opinion, the public exhibition of religious iconography on government property is justified. References Bardes, B. A., Shelley, M. C., & Schmidt, S. W. (2008). American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials (15th ed.). Massachusetts, MA: Cengage Learning. Blanton, D. (2005). FOX Poll: Courts Driving Religion Out of Public Life; Christianity Under Attack. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177355,00.html. Dimitrakopoulos, I. G. (2007). Individual rights and liberties under the U.S. Constitution: the case law of the U.S. Supreme Court. Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Finkelman, P. (2006). Encyclopedia of American civil liberties, Volume 1. CRC Press. Foust, M. (2005). Poll: Americans want religion to have larger role in public schools. Retrieved from http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=21499. Goman, C. K. (2008). The Nonverbal Advantage: Secrets and Science of Body Language at Work. California, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Haviland, W. A., Walrath, D., & Prins, H. E. L. (2007). Cultural Anthropology the Human Challenge. California, CA: Cengage Learning. Heyer, K. E., Rozell, M. J., & Genovese, L. A. 2008. Catholics and politics: the dynamic tension between faith and power. Georgetown University Press. Hicks, D. A. (2009). With God on All Sides: Leadership in a Devout and Diverse America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press US. King, E. L. (2009). Eye in the Pyramid. Retrieved from http://www.masonicinfo.com/eye.htm. Lynten (2008). Religious Symbols. Retrieved from http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-religious-symbols-be-displayed-on-public-property/comments. Manuel, P. C., Reardon, L. C., & Wilcox, C. (2006). The Catholic Church and the nation-state: comparative perspectives. Washington D. C.: Georgetown University Press. Pawelski, J. O. (2007). The dynamic individualism of William James. New York (NY): SUNY Press. Pollock, E. E. (2008). The Supreme Court and American Democracy: Case Studies on Judicial Review and Public Policy. Connecticut, CT: ABC-CLIO. Robinson, B. A. (2005). The separation of church and state U.S. public opinion polls. Retrieved from http://www.religioustolerance.org/sep_c_st5.htm. Siriano, D. E. (2006). The Cultural Collapse of America, and the World. USA: Xulon Press. Sweetman, B. (2006). Why politics needs religion: the place of religious arguments in the public square. Wisconsin, WI: InterVarsity Press. Strayer, G. D. (2008). How to Teach. BiblioBazaar, LLC. Jefferson, T. (1779). Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Retrieved from http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_vsrf.html. United States Department of Education (1998). United States Department of Education the Secretary. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/Speeches/08-1995/religion.html Read More