Do you think religious symbols should be placed in Government Buildings?

keithclancy

Cork County Hall Chambers has a Cross in it.

Personally I don't think there should be any religious objects placed on the wall (they actually moved this one from the old chambers to the new one)

So do you think Government Buildings should be Secular or should religious symbols be allowed on the walls (e.g. Crosses/Crucifixes/Flying Spaghetti Monster Statues/Yoda Statues/A covered picture of Alan)

realdanbreen

keithclancy wrote: »

Cork County Hall Chambers has a Cross in it.

Personally I don't think there should be any religious objects placed on the wall (they actually moved this one from the old chambers to the new one)

So do you think Government Buildings should be Secular or should religious symbols be allowed on the walls (e.g. Crosses/Crucifixes/Flying Spaghetti Monster Statues/Yoda Statues/A covered picture of Alan)

Is that all you have to woory about on a sunny Friday afternoon?

Melodeon

Balls!
Poll question contradicts thread title, so please regard at least one Yes vote as an intended No.

conorhal

ISIS certiantly think so.

Conar

Melodeon wrote: »

Balls!
Poll question contradicts thread title, so please regard at least one Yes vote as an intended No.

2nd that. Is this some trick by the church?
Ask a question then reverse the poll

foggy_lad

keithclancy wrote: »

Cork County Hall Chambers has a Cross in it.

Personally I don't think there should be any religious objects placed on the wall (they actually moved this one from the old chambers to the new one)

So do you think Government Buildings should be Secular or should religious symbols be allowed on the walls (e.g. Crosses/Crucifixes/Flying Spaghetti Monster Statues/Yoda Statues/A covered picture of Alan)

There should be no fantasy trappings in ANY public building including schools and other buildings which are used by state groups or organisations!

B.A._Baracus

Too much anti-religion crap on here.
Like fair enough to such topics as should religion be thought in school. A parents choice for their child has to be respected and all that. That's a valid argument.

But talking about some buildings having a cross or other religious imagery?
Do you have that much of a hard-on for religion?

Peregrine

Poll question is the exact opposite of the thread title. I'm going to change the thread title and reset the poll.

Melodeon

There's still some sort of weirdness going on; I can see the new thread title and the poll numbers reset, but the system is still telling me I've already voted and therefore can't vote again, and I suspect the 'Yes' that's still there is attributed to me.

<whinge>I want to vote 'No'!</whinge>

brevity

Just like voting in the Greek referendum.

Peregrine

Melodeon wrote: »

There's still some sort of weirdness going on; I can see the new thread title and the poll numbers reset, but the system is still telling me I've already voted and therefore can't vote again, and I suspect the 'Yes' that's still there is attributed to me.

<whinge>I want to vote 'No'!</whinge>

It won't let me vote again either but it'll stop future confusion. No, all curents votes were made after I set both to 0.

Not a NSA agent

Do you think religious symbols should be allowed in Government Buildings? No
Do you think Government Buildings should be Secular? Yes

I think I voted no in the poll though. Teaches me to read the poll question more carefully.

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Too much anti-religion crap on here.
Like fair enough to such topics as should religion be thought in school. A parents choice for their child has to be respected and all that. That's a valid argument.

But talking about some buildings having a cross or other religious imagery?
Do you have that much of a hard-on for religion?

Of course, being a fan of a secular goverment is being anti religion :rolleyes:

lazybones32

Allowed? Yes, if people want them.
Mandatory? No.

Samaris

The correct answer by the law and the spirit of the law is "No" but I actually and honestly Do Not Care. It's a cross on a wall. If it means something to you, good for you, if it doesn't, consider it Art.

I honestly cannot make myself care about it.

dont bother

who cares. they only mean something to the people who know what they are.

Of course they should be allowed.

Acedia.

So you want to ban colanders from the Dail kitchen? Have you thought this through?

Nodin

keithclancy wrote: »

Cork County Hall Chambers has a Cross in it.

Personally I don't think there should be any religious objects placed on the wall (they actually moved this one from the old chambers to the new one)

So do you think Government Buildings should be Secular or should religious symbols be allowed on the walls (e.g. Crosses/Crucifixes/Flying Spaghetti Monster Statues/Yoda Statues/A covered picture of Alan)

Either all or none. Ideally none, as the wall would start to look cluttered.

Pherekydes

Kali Flabby Children wrote: »

Of course they should be allowed.

All of them?

catallus

Of course they should; as a statement and reminder of the basis for our democracy and common faith, as a symbol of the traditions which nurtured our ancestors and nourished our civilisation, and as a warning to those who would undermine the tenets of equality and liberty through the majesty of religion, which is the epitome of culture, it is only right that the Cross be in all public buildings.

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly

If Jesus returned to earth tomorrow morning Id imagine the last thing he would want to see is crosses all over the place ?

kneemos

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly wrote: »

If Jesus returned to earth tomorrow morning Id imagine the last thing he would want to see is crosses all over the place ?

Always looks fit though.

Never seen a fat Jesus.

eviltwin

Kali Flabby Children wrote: »

Of course they should be allowed.

ALL of them or just the ones that suit your own belief systems?

I don't think religion has any place in state buildings considering the state is meant to represent all of us equally.

Pherekydes

catallus wrote: »

Of course they should; as a statement and reminder of the basis for our democracy and common faith...

There is no common faith.

Rough Sleeper

Someone should bring in their own cross but hang it inverted on the wall. It might seem petty but I'd love to see how the tree-stump worshipers would react.

stimpson

catallus wrote: »

Of course they should; as a statement and reminder of the basis for our democracy and common faith, as a symbol of the traditions which nurtured our ancestors and nourished our civilisation, and as a warning to those who would undermine the tenets of equality and liberty through the majesty of religion, which is the epitome of culture, it is only right that the Cross be in all public buildings.

I think you should cut down on the altar wine there.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

JumpShivers

keithclancy wrote: »

A covered picture of Alan)

Surely you mean Allah?

catallus

Pherekydes wrote: »

There is no common faith.

"The scriptures constitute the common good of believers, agnostics and atheists"
Czeslaw Milosz, Visions de la baie de San Francisco. P224.


Maybe we should pay attention to those who witnessed the near oblivion brought about by those who would eradicate religion; poor Czeslaw woke amidst the smouldering ruins of a Europe burned by Hitler and his ideological lackeys, who thought they knew best and used the jackboot to silence anyone who thought otherwise.

It was in those ruins that Czeslaw found a bible, and recognised its importance if any civilisation is to survive.

We should recognise those who would see religion outlawed for what they are: barbarians.

Religion is the only thing protecting us from the wretched evil spinning endlessly at the heart of Man.

Bonedigger

JumpShivers wrote: »

Surely you mean Allah?

He probably means Alan Shatter?!

foggy_lad

catallus wrote: »

"The scriptures constitute the common good of believers, agnostics and atheists"
Czeslaw Milosz, Visions de la baie de San Francisco. P224.


Maybe we should pay attention to those who witnessed the near oblivion brought about by those who would eradicate religion; poor Czeslaw woke amidst the smouldering ruins of a Europe burned by Hitler and his ideological lackeys, who thought they knew best and used the jackboot to silence anyone who thought otherwise.

It was in those ruins that Czeslaw found a bible, and recognised its importance if any civilisation is to survive.

We should recognise those who would see religion outlawed for what they are: barbarians.

Religion is the only thing protecting us from the wretched evil spinning endlessly at the heart of Man.

Nobody wants religion outlwaed but it is something that should be practiced in ones own time and never enforced by any state entity.

eviltwin

catallus wrote: »

Religion is the only thing protecting us from the wretched evil spinning endlessly at the heart of Man.

Speak for yourself!

Seriously though, do you actually believe this? :eek:

Buona Fortuna

Do I think they should be put on any new public buildings? - No, but I'm not genna die in a ditch over it.

Do I think we should remove existing symbols? - Nah

Jamsiek

catallus wrote: »

Religion is the only thing protecting us from the wretched evil spinning endlessly at the heart of Man.

Religion also causes wretched evil spinning endlessly at the heart of Man

Wang King

kneemos wrote: »

Always looks fit though.

Never seen a fat Jesus.

Or a historically correct coloured Jesus really

DivingDuck

I don't think they should be banned from individual, personal spaces of public buildings (people's desks, offices, etc.) but the public spaces of public buildings should, IMO, be free of religious iconography (unless they form an integral part of the original architecture).

Boring username

I would say, having considered the OP's question at length, that this is without a shadow of a doubt the least pressing issue in the history of the Irish state, and probably the Western world at large.

I hope this clears things up. Thank you and goodnight.

BunnyRabbit

To me it is a non-issue.

c_man

Acedia. wrote: »

So you want to ban colanders from the Dail kitchen? Have you thought this through?

The only kitchen items those fukers would miss are the deep-fat fryer and the pan.

OiL RiG

To everyone saying it's not important, it's really more a matter of principle than anything else (same with the angelus thread).

No one's going to go tearing through government buildings removing religious symbols, but for those of us who believe in separation of church and state, it can be irksome to see. There's an obvious hypocrisy in the law that deserves to be recognised. It is a discussion forum after all.

Obviously, personal items would be alright but not symbols in public areas. I believe they should be removed, but can see why someone wouldn't care (vote Atari jaguar).

B.A._Baracus

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Too much anti-religion crap on here.

I do not see it that way at all. No - I do not mean I think there is not enough anti religion crap on here :P I mean I do not see the question in the OP being anti religion. I think it is a genuine question.

Micheal Nugent - dare we say it the public face of atheism in Ireland at the moment - talks not just about how he does not want religious symbols in secular places - or in the angelus - but how he would be equally opposed to atheist symbols or ideas in those self same places.

What people like he and I appear to want are symbols that celebrate our humanity - including our religious tendencies and differences. Symbols that celebrate our need for narrative and - yes even then need for symbols. But symbols that celebrate that without subscribing to any religion - or the lack of it.

There is a niche bracket to make millions there for any budding artist that comes up with words, graphics, or media that celebrate this - because many of us are seeking it.

For many secularists like myself the reason we object to religious symbols in secular places is not because or sometimes JUST because we dislike religion or god or we want to promote atheism. Quite often it is because we do not want to in any way promote one religion over another in a pluralist and modern society.

I myself do not object to a cross hung in a tax office - as a random example - because I am anti religion (which I am in many ways) or atheist (which I am told I am but a few atheists have told me we do not use that word any more hehehe). But because I have enough empathy to put myself in the position of a person NOT of the religion that the symbol represents walking into such a place and feeling instantly alien or put out or at a disadvantage for it.

My secular ideal has a person of a minority religion, a new religion, no religion or whatever walking into government buildings - feeling no religious pressure of any kind in any direction - and then leaving that building to skip happily down to the local club house associated with his religion. With no judgement or injustices along the way. THAT is what secularism means. Not the destruction or minimisation of religion. But the removal of it from places where it does not belong - and the strong and powerful support of it where it is actually wanted, needed, and loved.

Son Of A Vidic

I find the presence of a cross in a predominantly Christian country, to be no more unusual or offensive. Than I found the presence of the crescent & star in a similar building in a predominantly Muslim country. The difficulty seems to stems from some people not having the logic, reasoning or cop on to realise that these religious symbols long predate the arrival of the over sensitivity brigade and those who look to be offended. I'm certainly not going to take issue with the Arabic name of Allah written inside a public building in Jordan or Egypt. Largely because I have the ability to understand the context of its use within the environment and country I am in.