The LA Times supports the wall of separation, but misses the bigger point

The Los Angeles Times editorial page comes down, somewhat half-heartedly, on the side of the separation of church and state. Treading warily into the waters surrounding the etching of God invocations at the new Capitol Visitors Center, the paper makes, in the end, the right call:

No matter how large or small the conflict, government should speak softly in matters of religion. In this case, Congress ought to leave well enough alone, because the less said about God on the walls of government buildings, the better.

No argument here. The LA Times showed an appalling lack of judgment in printing Charlotte Allen's bigoted anti-atheist tirade (and in its dim-witted defense of said choice), but they are at the very least cognizant of the need for less religious encroachment into government. That said, they also engage in some nauseating hedging on separation issues in this piece, and miss the wider point of separation as a whole.

This is another case that calls for reasonableness rather than stridency. Although there is an understandable rationale for keeping phrases like "In God We Trust" in places where they've traditionally appeared -- on, say, pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters . . .

Let me stop you right there. Let's make sure we're all on the same page as far as what we mean by "traditional." Traditionally, as in the stadard set by the Constitution, throwing God's name around on official government documents and legal tender is less than traditional, and more a move by Salmon Chase to ingratiate himself (something Chase excelled at) with some fervently religious influentials during the Civil War, and then codified by anti-Soviet hysteria in the 1950s. Just wanted to clear that part up. Here's the substance of my beef:

. . . it hardly seems necessary to retrofit a government building at substantial cost merely to add words that might offend some people.

And now you've really lost me. Once again, we need to stop worrying so much about what is and is not "offensive." Keeping in mind that there are always degrees of offense (I would be offended, say, if the Senate chamber were to display a giant sign reading "Muslims are traitors" or "Hitler had the right idea" or some such evil nonsense), but that's not what we're talking about.

I don't think religious invocations should be removed from government buildings because they hurt my feelings. Hurt feelings is the rationale used by religionists when they oppose private atheistic displays. I want to keep these things separate because government support or endorsement of any kind of superstition, theology, mythology, supernatural revelation, or dogma is a bad thing. It fosters sectarianism, it is exclusionary to all those who don't subscribe to that belief or that form of theism (certainly our Hindu friends, for example, would probably like to know which god it is we are claiming to trust), it celebrates faith over factual understanding, it dilutes a commitment to science and reality, and casts as unAmerican those who do not trust in their imaginary superbeing. There is no constitutional amendment against being offended, nor should there be.

The LA Times again:

At the same time, it's worth noting that the defenders of secularism sometimes seem to make an inordinate fuss over minor issues (such as this one) when there are more significant battles to be fought.

That's fine that they think so. But just because one battle is "more significant" than another in a given moment does not in the least mean that it is not worth fighting.

Related Posts:

• At the U.S. Capitol, in God we really, really, really trust
• Charlotte Allen spews anti-atheist bigotry in the LA Times
• Does 'no religious test' for office mean religion is off-limits?