Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Briefly explain the importance of symbols in religion
5importances of religious symbols
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
A religious symbol is a representation that symbolizes a religion, or an idea within a specified religion. For example, the cross is a symbol of Christianity, or the moon and the star represent Islam. Both of these are religious symbols, representing a religion. However, there are also other religious symbols that people wear, or have. For example, Muslim women wear a Hijab, or a head covering, which is considered a religious symbol. Another example of a religious symbol is the Turban and the Kirpan. These two are religious symbols of Sikhism. In today’s world, religious symbols are a very controversial topic. Many people want to ban religious symbols, so that we can have a more secular world, which would reduce a lot of discrimination. However, other people believe that religious symbols are part of a person’s beliefs. In addition, Canada is a free country, so by banning religious symbols the government is taking away this freedom. This argument has been going on for a long time, and a lot of countries have banned religious symbols or have problems with religious symbols, leading to a lot of disputes. These countries include: France, Belgium, Tunisia, Turkey, Syria, and Morocco. Currently, Quebec wants to ban religious symbols, and surprisingly, more people are for this ban, then against it. However, the rest of Canada is still going against the fact that Quebec wants to ban religious symbols, as it is a part of everyone’s freedom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab_by_country
A categorical imperative believes that an act is right if it gives an individual happiness. Also, a categorical believes that an action is either moral or not, and that the consequences of it does not matter, if it can become a universal law, then that a...
... middle of paper ...
...ing religious symbols is very clear. I feel that religious symbols are part of someone’s beliefs, and represent who and what they are. Religious symbols do not create discrimination because religion is religion. Everyone can practice what he or she wants, and just because they have religious symbols, should not mean they should get discriminated or that it should cause a rift among humanity and mankind. Also, if we ban religious symbols, it challenges the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This would not allow individuals to practice their religion. If they are not allowed to practice their religion, then they are being denied the right to free speech - as religious symbols are a form of speech, and thus this ban opposes both freedom of religion and speech.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/09/30/letters-leave-your-religious-symbols-and-garb-at-home/
In this instance the government regulation to keep the school safe is interfering with Rajiv’s fundamental freedom of conscience and religion stated in section 2 of the charter, and it is doing so unjustly. While the information given in the story was scarce, there were no reports of a Kirpan being used a weapon before, any problems with weapons, or any attempt to find an alternative instead of disallowing the Kirpan completely . In the case Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys The Supreme Court of Canada decided that the decision to prohibit the wearing of a Kirpan to be a violation of one’s fundamental freedom. This is important because a precedent has been set by the Supreme Court of Canada. After the Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys case the court decided that if that given the premise a student has not used the Kirpan as a weapon before, and sincerely believes that a metal Kirpan is essential in paying respects to their religion, it is within their rights to wear one. This important as it proves that the government regulation seized Rajiv’s Kir...
If the Charter claims that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and expressions, then why is the discussion of prohibiting public employees from wearing clothing with religious symbolism even brought up? Why are the majority – 60 percent – of Quebecers in favour of the Charter's ban on religious symbols? Perhaps it is difficult to understand the importance of such religious symbols when someone is not practicing any religion and are not required to wear anything to show their faith. However, imagine having something that you find greatly important and highly value being taken away from you. It does not have to be a cross or a hijab, maybe it is a favourite piece literature, or a piece of jewelry passed down from an important family member, whatever it may be, it holds high sentimental value. Taking away an object of high value would offend and upset anyone, no matter what that object may be. When it comes to taking away someone's right to wear whatever they wish, and on top of that halting their right to properly practice their religion is a definite infringement of the Rights and Freedoms possessed by any person living in Canada, which is just
Symbols, by definition, have meaning that is established and changed by interaction through the cycle of meaning. This meaning, then, is multifaceted and complex with a rich history of culture and tradition behind it. However, in cultural appropriation, only the front-stage presentation of the meaning of a symbol, often the presentation that is the most cohesive with a heteropatriarchical, white supremacist Western society, is acknowledged. This removes a symbol from its cultural context as well as its human roots, facilitating its exploitation and commercialization.
Take for example giving a performance report for a subpar employee. Do you give that person a stellar performance report because you like them as a person? Or are you up front with them and tell them their performance is lacking and needs to improve? To follow the Categorical Imperative, you give them the poor report because it is the right thing to do to help that person succeed in the future. It explores the idea that an act or a decision can still be morally good as it follows the guiding rules of the universe, even if that act does not produce maximized good (Barlaup, 2009).
A symbol is a unique term because it can represent almost anything such as people, beliefs, and values. Symbols are like masks that people put on to describe their true self. In To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, the author uses Tom Robinson and Arthur Radley to represent a mockingbird which illustrates the theme of innocence by presenting these characters as two harmless citizens that do not pose a threat to Maycomb.
Benjamin, S. (2013, 09 10). Quebec Seeks Ban On Religious Symbols In Public Work Places. Retrieved 12 10, 2013, from huffingtonpost.com: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/quebec-religious-symbols-_n_4072327.html
According to Kant, there are two types on imperatives, categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. The Categorical Imperative is based on relation and not by means, which hypothetical imperatives are based on. Kant describes them by stating, “When I conceive a hypothetical imperative in general, I do not know beforehand what it will contain- until its condition is give. But if I conceive a categorical imperative, I know at once what it contains,” (88). Like before, categorical imperatives are absolutely moral in themselves, meaning they do not rely on a person’s desires or feelings. This is compared with hypothetical imperatives, which are obligations that have an end result of your action, which in turn results in your personal desires or thoughts. An example of a hypothetical imperative is, “I need to ea...
Thus, Kant gives cases in which duty and self-interest clash, with the goal that it is clear that the operator is persuaded singularly obligation. He highlights the two cases of cooperative attitude that Kant refers to are the to a great degree distressed individual who chooses not to confer suicide since it is unethical, and immoral. An individual's duty as per Kant, takes the type of the ethical law. The moral law, dependably applies to us, and applies to everybody in the same way. In light of this, Kant depicts the moral law as a categorical imperative that is an exemption command. The moral law is widespread hence very diverse for every individual. Conversely, moral laws are generally applied to each operator in the same way. Kant gives various diverse plans of the categorical imperative, which he claims are comparable to each other in importance. The most well known is the universal law formulation. As a universal law, it requires that an individual ought to act just in a manner that the principle you act under can turn into an all inclusive law. Kant contends that it is constantly shameless to
Emmanuel Kant was a influential philosopher and strong proponent of the modern era. Besides his large contribution to epistemology and metaphysics, his work in ethics was just as substantial. Kant’s ethics came to propose an objective morality, where moral judgments is not only true according to a person 's subjective view. He believed the moral worth of an action is not determined by its consequence but the motive behind it. Additionally, the “only motive that can endow an act with moral value, is one that arises from universal principles discovered by reason” (McCormick). Through Kant’s ethics, he demonstrates this duty through his unconditional moral principle, the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative expresses that morality is not about the outcome (good or bad), but the right action regardless of the outcome. It is the responsibility to do one 's duty for its own sake and not in pursuit of one’s own desire.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of Canada's constitution; the highest law in Canada. Therefore, it`s only proper we treat it the Charter to its utmost priority. That being the case, prohibiting others to practice or promoting their religion goes against one of our Fundamental Freedoms; freedom of religion. Section 2 of the Charter states, that you can practice your religion and declare them without fear of hatred and/or bullying. In addition, you cannot force another individual to follow the same religion a you; as that is assimilation. However, a tiny village in Quebec; Hérouxville was doing the opposite of this. For instance, Hérouxville was having a heated debate on trying to ban religious headgear like hijabs,taqiyya, and turbans. In either case, this is obviously unacceptable because it goes against the Charter. Furthermore, Hérouxville also adopted a peculiar code of conduct that forbade women from being stoned alive or burned with acid, along with other measures intended for newcomers. Forcing immigrants with other measures and basically assimilating them infringes section 15 of the Charter; being equality rights. Equality rights state, every individual in Canada is under and before the law. This means that they guaranteed equal protection, regardless of their race, gender, ethnicity, religion, age, and mental/physical disability. In summary, practising and promoting religion is protected under the Charter therefore, it's only right that it should be
Moral decision-making constitutes an important part of the everyday human life. In this paper, I will examine and contrast Utilitarianism and Kant’s theory of the Categorical Imperative, both, which provide people with a moral structure, and how the issue of etiquettes relates to Kantian Theory. It is important to note that both the theories have their advantages and drawbacks, thus to enable one to make a methodical decision, it is important to understand the basic principles of each. However, in this paper there will be a main focus on Kantian Categorical argument and then discussing the issue of etiquettes.
The first formulation of the Categorical Imperative “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” seems at face value viable. Nevertheless the lack of guidelines to determine which maxim should be used to describe an action causes problems with the consistency of the Universal Law formulation. Moreover, the abundance of false positives and false negatives suggests a deep problem with the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative that may not be fixable.
The universal law formula of the categorical imperative ("the CI") is an unconditional moral law stating that one should “act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” A maxim is the motivating principle or reason for one’s actions. A moral act is an act by which its maxim can become universal law that would apply to all rational creatures. As a universal law, all rational creatures must act according to this maxim. The CI requires one to imagine a world where the maxim one wishes to act by becomes a universal law, in which all people must act according to this maxim. If one wills this maxim to become universal law that all rational creatures must follow, but there is a contradiction in conception or will, than this maxim cannot become universal law, and thus, the act is not morally permissible. A contradiction in conception occurs when by willing one’s maxim to become universal law, one is imagining a logically impossible world, for there is a contradiction in the very idea of every rational creature acting on this maxim. In contrast, a contradiction in will does not yield a logically impossible world, but there is a contradiction in willing what it is one proposes to do and in wanting the maxim to become universal law.
In conclusion, Kant’s three formulations of the categorical imperative are great examples of how we should live our lives. Along with living our lives by the formulations of the categorical imperative, we should also treat every rational being as an end in itself. It is quite obvious that Kant’s theories are still in existence today.
Each culture has their own set of symbols with different experiences and perceptions. A symbol represents a nation, a country, rules, xan represent everything.The meaning of a symbol is not literal or instinctive, the people of the culture must interpret and share the meaning of the symbol with the next generations. Some are represented by nonverbal language, while others are represented by objects. However, the most powerful symbol is language. Language is a verbal and written representations , which convinces the world of a meaning. It is important for the continuity of the culture and crucial for the communication. Although language is part of our culture, people should not deny themselves the opportunity to learn other languages. In Canada, a group of French people refuse to learn English, this being the official language of this country, for fear of losing their cultural