Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This debate has been going on for years now. Are religious signs common in public buildings all over your country and do they cause controversy? What's your opinion about it?
My opinion on the matter is that there shouldn't be any purely religious sign of any kind as the first article of the Italian constitution hints several times at our being a secular state and it being a sign of disrespect to minorities. I don't consider every aspect of Christmas and Easter religious and I think they have become cultural celebrations which are mostly devoid of their meaning
Although I'm not a religious person myself, I don't mind the crosses hanging in classrooms or public building (if even). It's our history and what our culture evolved from.
We still have a lot of Christian schools, and parents are free to choose if they want their child in such a school or not; if they don't like the crosses > take another school. Simple as that. There are plenty to choose from, just like there are Muslim schools for Muslims, and international schools for Western foreigners. We also allow them to have their symbols. An American school is free to wave the American flag whenever they want, right?
And I really don't agree that our Christian symbols would be disrespectful towards other minorities, they are certainly not meant to be. If those "minorities" would be offended by our symbols, they shouldn't be here in the first place.
No, of course not.
At least not in countries that have been Christians for millenia.
I love mangers, crosses do not nother me and I do not consider such thing religious.
Although I'm not a religious person myself, I don't mind the crosses hanging in classrooms or public building (if even). It's our history and what our culture evolved from.
We still have a lot of Christian schools, and parents are free to choose if they want their child in such a school or not; if they don't like the crosses > take another school. Simple as that. There are plenty to choose from, just like there are Muslim schools for Muslims, and international schools for Western foreigners. We also allow them to have their symbols. An American school is free to wave the American flag whenever they want, right?
And I really don't agree that our Christian symbols would be disrespectful towards other minorities, they are certainly not meant to be. If those "minorities" would be offended by our symbols, they shouldn't be here in the first place.
The problem is not there being crosses in Christian schools but there being in fully public school. I don't ever care much about it being a problem for the minorities but this going against the notion of our state being secular and church and state being separate entities.
Religious symbols in schools goes against our constitution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makako
No, of course not.
At least not in countries that have been Christians for millenia.
I love mangers, crosses do not nother me and I do not consider such thing religious.
Mangers (which i have help set up and bring oug several times) and the whole meaning of Christmas are cultural nowadays but the cross is an exclusively religious symbol and unneeded one in our schools, municipalities, hospitals, ecc.
Yes, no religious symbols in schools. Governmental buildings should be totally irreligious. Expressing your personal faith: crosses, kipas, hijabs and so on is okay, except if you are in an governmental uniformed service. Otherwise it should be a personal choice.
I think religion should be practised privately and not in public.
Therefore, I am against religious stuff anywhere. Not schools not offices, and not at work. Do that at home on your own time.
I also don't agree to religious accommodation at work. If you cannot work until 6pm because at 5pm is your praying time, then don't get a job where your uninterrupted attendance is required until 6pm. If you work in a kitchen that deals with a certain kind of meat and your religion doesn't allow that you touch that kind of meat, maybe you shouldn't work in a kitchen. If you are a teacher and your religion tells you to wear something on your head, then you shouldn't be a teacher (assuming you work in a country where not EVERYBODY wears that head thing).
I also don't agree to religious accommodation at work. If you cannot work until 6pm because at 5pm is your praying time, then don't get a job where your uninterrupted attendance is required until 6pm. If you work in a kitchen that deals with a certain kind of meat and your religion doesn't allow that you touch that kind of meat, maybe you shouldn't work in a kitchen. If you are a teacher and your religion tells you to wear something on your head, then you shouldn't be a teacher (assuming you work in a country where not EVERYBODY wears that head thing).
THE DECISIVE DAY came on June 17, 2002, when the Supreme Court published its written opinions. What was the decision? Newspaper headlines told the story. The New York Times proclaimed: “Court Strikes Down Curb on Visits by Jehovah’s Witnesses.” The Columbus Dispatch of Ohio stated: “High Court Invalidates Permit Requirement.” The Plain Dealer of Cleveland, Ohio, simply said: “Solicitors Don’t Need OK From City Hall.” The Op/Ed page of USA Today proclaimed: “Free Speech Wins.”
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
