ipl-logo

Argumentative Essay On Religious Monuments

572 Words3 Pages

A very controversial topic today in America is religion. Many believe religious monuments should not be allowed on public property. However religious monuments should be allowed on public property because of the first amendment, multiple court rulings in favor of religious monuments including the Supreme Court, and majority opinion The Constitution’s first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The first part of the amendment has caused great controversy about religious monuments on public …show more content…

Three examples of rulings in favor of religious displays on public property are Capitol Square Review Board v Pinette, Pleasant Grove City v Summum and Allegheny County v Greater Pittsburgh ACLU. These are United States Supreme Court cases. These allow religious displays on public property under specific terms; the first being the religious monuments follow the same terms as all public displays, the second being cities can decide whether they want to erect a monument, and the last being the lemon test. The lemon test follows 3 parts as listed in the previous paragraph. These United States Supreme Court cases have permitted religious displays on public property and there is no question on whether these monuments are …show more content…

According to an article by Mary Network on USA Today; 44% said yes, 28% said yes, but with other religions represented, 20% no, and 8% don’t know. A Rasmussen Reports said 74% said yes to public displays. By denying the majority, we are forgetting about the greater good. The welfare of the masses is more important than the minority. Even though this situation does not involve the welfare of the people, the minority is trying to stop the majority. This also proves that a small majority is offended and not a large group of people that some people want others to believe. The government is also to represent the

Open Document