When Is A Religious Symbol Not Religious?

I have been going over the arguments I have presented why it is hypocritical for the PQ to want to eliminate religious symbols in public areas, but yet still keep the crucifix. But after much deep consideration I have come to the conclusion that I am wrong.

Because fundamentally is the crucifix itself being in the national assembly a religious statement, and can symbols that can be characterized as religious be able to get government funds? For example if the crucifix is broken and needs repair should taxpayers pay for it?

In this situation I find myself agreeing with the PQ and complacently disagreeing with my former post. That the crucifix does have historical reasons to be in the national assembly. It is a historical artifact, and like many historical artifacts in the world they do have religious meaning. For example in Mount Royal there is a big cross and many historical places that we preserve can be characterized as religious.

That doesn't mean simply because we invest in repairing or preserving these symbols that we are therefor endorsing a religion or another but rather that we are preserving it's historical meaning. For example the UN does spend money on preserving many very historical sites which can in some cases be a religious site, It doesn't mean that we endorse the religion the symbol may represent to some people but rather the protection of an old historical site.

On the question of whether people should be able to wear religious symbols in public I do still disagree with them, because I believe we should live in a very tolerant society that allows people in most cases (with very few exception) the ability to wear whatever we want as long as it is decent of course. Which means Hijabs, Kipahs, Kirpans etc... should be allowed to be worn by anyone anywhere in public.

In conclusion the crucifix should be allowed to stay in the national assembly, because it is historical.