No? Well it's out there, and, like many things involving the dynamics of personal freedom, raises a plethora of interesting questions, but let’s discuss one:
Public Speech.
Let’s say that a big religious monument was placed in your town. For the purposes of this discussion the type of religion does not matter, except that it is not representative of a faith you hold. This monument is placed in a public park and was done so as a donation from whatever religious organization it represents.
Question 1: Is this disruptive to your personal freedom?
If this question is asked, then so is the question running opposite, “would stopping the placement of this monument be infringing on the rights of expression of those who donated the structure?” Both are legitimate claims and the reason why cases like this are all about Balance. Where does one person’s freedom end and another’s begin?
Something we must remember about the idea of the First Amendment is that it ensures the Freedom of Speech, not the protection of the listeners. Freedom is freedom, but nowhere does it say that freedom is particularly nice. It is the right of our nation to say what we want without fear of censorship, but while speaking aloud is a brief thing…
Question 2: …is erecting a permanent monument invading the free space of others?
Legally speaking, no. Religious freedom and freedom of speech are both intrinsic rights given to American citizens, and if public displays of religion were outlawed then there would be no churches, temples, mosques or any other buildings of religious practice. This nation was largely colonized by those seeking freedom of religion, so limiting its expression seems somewhat out of character. It is simply the right of the people to display their faith if they wish.
However, the permanent structure in a public place is breaking the golden “ends at my nose” rule mentioned earlier. For people like you (in this instance), it is a constant barrage of expression you don’t believe in. Still, the expression is protected and you technically don’t have to look at it. There is one question that involves the ethics of this situation, though, and that is…
Question 3: …are the people in the local government who placed this showing preference for one religion over another?
Here’s a lotty one which speaks to the intentions of the parties involved. It is true that expressing every opinion would litter the whole park with one form or another, and then the issue would be whose was bigger, but, by that same token, all those not represented are having their freedoms infringed upon by a show of preference. This one would be one for the judges, as most ethical issues are in cases like this. What do you think?
