RSS
Home
Preventing violations of the Establishment Clause has nothing to do with feelings
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
(A wonderfully charming sticker I keep on my desk.)
Last year, controversy over holiday displays at Washington's Capitol building became a chaotic, emotionally-charged circus that garnered a great deal of media attention.
This week, Capitol officials have, in an attempt to forestall a repeat of last year's drama, issued an interim policy that:
[D]oes not allow any nongovernmental displays in any building on Capitol grounds. But it does allow such displays outside, on campus grounds.
This is obviously a wise and pragmatic move. And, more importantly, it's also one that will prevent religious displays that flagrantly violate the Establishment Clause.
So many of the reactions to the valid criticisms of religious displays on governmental grounds, and to the sign that the Freedom From Religion Foundation put up in response to the religious displays, were extremely emotionally-charged and often sprung from Christian individuals and groups feeling "offended" by those who pointed out the inappropriateness and the unconstitutionality of the displays and by the presence of the sign. Of course these individuals have the right to feel offended (although the fact that religious individuals are often so easily offended even in situations where they face the gentlest of criticisms does indicate both a disturbing and a ludicrous sense of entitlement.) But this issue is solely a legal and a Constitutional one. Feelings have no bearing here.
I can't say this enough. It bears repeating over and over again, as so many people do not seem to understand or accept it: this issue and ones like it are not about feelings.
I live in Spokane, in Eastern Washington. It's a lovely area and I'm quite fond of certain aspects of it. But, unfortunately, when it comes to politics, this area can perhaps best be described as the red part of a blue state. I remember closely following last year's Capitol drama, both because upholding the Wall of Separation is something that is crucially important and because it was happening in my state. The events generated a great deal of state and national media coverage and commentary (who can forget Bill O'Reilly's ignorant, histrionic ranting?), but I took a special interest in the responses that were published in Spokane's media outlets, whether as editorials in our newspaper or as comments on various local news websites. Unfortunately, the vast majority of them, in whatever media context, were misinformed and were based upon, yes, you guessed it: feelings.
This commentary, from last December, published in The Spokesman-Review, displays this mindset. From it:
There’s something about a Christmas display that inevitably annoys activist atheists, who feel it’s their sworn duty to make sure everyone knows the “good news” is really the “bad news.”
This couldn't possibly be further from the truth. Yes, in general, those of us who are non-religious do find it annoying when we see religious displays on governmental grounds. But our feelings aren't the issue here. It should be obvious that the issue is that such displays are illegal and indicate a state endorsement of a specific type of religious belief and of a particular religious tradition. It's not about our annoyance. Additionally, as in the current situation in Oklahoma, these displays also send a subtle but unmistakable message that the state views its non-Christian citizens as less important than its Christian ones.
Again: objecting to religious displays on governmental grounds has nothing to do with our feelings. Characterizing atheists as nasty, dangerous meanies is both immature and inaccurate. It's not as if there's some sort of mythical roving band of Scrooge-like atheists out to destroy Christmas and take away personal religious beliefs.
Referring to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the editorial goes on to assert that:
They get upset about faith expression in the public square and labor to inform the naïve that there are unbelievers amongst us. At the Capitol Nativity scene, they put up a sign declaring: “At this season of the winter solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
Once again, being “upset” has nothing to do with it (however, I do understand why some religious individuals felt upset by the sign and, although I'm a member of and a supporter of the FFRF and of their actions in this case, I do think that the wording was a bit too purposefully inflammatory. However, that does nothing to change the fact that feelings haven't the least bearing on this issue.) The FFRF's primary aim was to illustrate the importance of protecting the Establishment Clause. But the organization's actions also performed the crucially important task of consciousness-raising. Unfortunately, many people hold misconceptions about and/or demonize non-believers. The FFRF's activities here worked to remind people of the important fact that yes, atheists are citizens too and that atheism deserves to and needs to be a part of public discourse.
Predictably, many religious individuals and organizations were upset by the content of the sign and even held a protest.
As the editorial says, regarding the protest (Christine Gregoire is the governor of Washington state):
Some rewarded Gregoire’s fidelity to the Constitution, with signs such as “The Gregoire Who Stole Christmas.” Preacher Ken Hutcherson said of Gregoire in a speech, “You have led the state of Washington to be the armpit of America. And (you are) the one adding the offensive odor to the armpit.
Oh, Hutcherson. How terribly clever of you. Hutcherson also said this at the protest:
Hey, I believe in Jesus Christ and if you don't that's OK because you're going to fry like a Jimmy Dean Pork Sausage on Judgement Day," said Hutcherson.
Way to keep the debate rational and reasonable there, Pastor. Apparently, for him, it's not only about feelings. It's also about weird metaphors and similes. And armpits and sausage. Or something.
Anyway...
Protesters in cases like this one display both a strong sense of entitlement (the protesters are sending the not-so-subtle messages that they believe they have some sort of right to have their religion promoted by the government, and, more broadly, that their religious beliefs should never be criticized) and a clear undercurrent of insecurity. How does disallowing religious displays in the Capitol threaten Christianity's existence in any way? How does having one's beliefs questioned or criticized threaten the person who holds those beliefs? No one wants to prevent these individuals from having religious faith or from engaging in the Free Exercise of it in non-governmental situations.
The editorial continues with:
First-century Christians weren’t fussed about public Christmas displays. They were too busy being lion lunches and human torchlights at Nero’s garden parties.
Oh, the persecution complex! It slays me. How is this even relevant to the discussion? How are Christians being persecuted in this case? And, if we're going to bring up persecution or discrimination, let's discuss the blatant antipathy, bigotry, and intolerance toward atheists displayed by a large portion of American society, which is much more common today than any sort of discrimination against Christians.
The editorial moves toward its conclusion with:
But atheists would do well to show more of their highly-prized “tolerance.” Will a Nativity display take down the country in the hands of lobotomized, brainless drones? Haven’t atheists kind of made “no religion” or “the natural world something of a … religion? If so, shouldn’t they refrain from proclaiming their screed in the public square? By the way, the First Amendment says freedom of, not from, religion. And the Constitution doesn’t mention separation of church and state. This is a myth … gasp!
This begs a few questions, to say the very least: how were the attitudes or actions of the atheists in this situation intolerant in any way? How exactly does being a non-believer and/or having a naturalistic world view make one religious? In what way was the FFRF's sign a “screed”?
And, predictably enough, the author also decided to throw in a blatant misrepresentation of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses for good measure. Focusing on the meaning of a particular preposition doesn't change the clear intent of the Amendment, nor of the Supreme Court decisions and opinions that have set legal precedent upholding that intent. It's intellectually and civically irresponsible for any writer to call the crucially important Wall of Separation a "myth".
I highlight this local editorial both as an example of the misinformed and angry mindset that I observed at the time, specifically in my city, and also because I have great respect for this city and hold hope that, in the future, our reputation might be enhanced by rational, informed responses to important issues such as this one instead of poorly reasoned, uninformed, and emotionally-charged editorials.
Believers and non-believers alike would do well to recognize and appreciate the necessity and appropriateness of the Capitol's recent decision in support of upholding the Establishment Clause. Preventing violations of the Establishment Clause has nothing to do with feelings. Private religious belief is in no way threatened when tangible expressions of that belief are rightfully banned from governmental grounds.
Those who were or are offended by either the prohibition of religious displays on Capitol grounds or by the presence of the FFRF's sign are free to feel offended, persecuted, discriminated against, or angry all they'd like, throwing tantrums because they feel that the laws should bend to their beliefs and that they are entitled to special treatment from both the government and the general public. However, the law and the Constitution are, and must remain, deaf to their tantrums, in order to protect all citizens and to maintain the Wall of Separation.
Related Articles:
Comments
