When the Supreme Court allowed nativity scenes on public property several years ago, it did so by adopting the most specious of arguments:that such a scene was permissible if it was surrounded by otherwise secular symbols, since it simply represented “‘the historical origins of this traditional event long [celebrated] as a National Holiday,’ and that its primary effect was not to advance religion”. The decision was viewed as an insult to both believers and non-believers. That decision, and the steady erosion of the wall between church and state, has led to an increasing number of religious displays throughout the country.
These court decisions have always carried the seeds of their own destruction. All that was necessary was for non-mainstream religions to demand equal time, something that the Constitution seemingly requires. Local governments are then faced with a choice. Give equal time to everyone, or stop allowing religious displays.
We got a foreshadowing of this in Utah a few years ago, in a somewhat different context. A federal law demanded by religious groups requires public schools to allow student groups of all descriptions to meet after school. The law was intended to aid religious groups, but it couldn’t be written that way, for obvious reasons. Result: Utah was told it had to allow a Gay-Straight Alliance group to meet in its public schools. Utah, in order to preserve its traditions of intolerance (exception: polygamy) passed a law virtually eliminating after school activities.
In the religious display context localities have been set up by a sort of incremental invasion of the “other”. First the Jews came, and no one but a few bigots objected to letting them display their Menorahs. But that set a precedent. Then other fairly non-objectionable groups came. But sooner or later it was inevitable that the true “other” would arrive, and by that time any legal basis for excluding such groups had been destroyed by precedent.
So something like this was inevitable: In Washington State the state government allowed a group of atheists to put up a display.
The display talks about the natural world, says there are no gods or devils and calls religion a “myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”
Well, of course Bill O’Reilly heard about this attack on Christmas, and he unleashed his hordes on the governor, who, much to his credit, stood firm and refused to order the display taken down. Now the state has called a halt to requests for other displays. Among other things, a hate based religion wants to join the fun, so it can tell everyone that “Santa Claus will take you to Hell”.
The obvious thing for Washington to do is ban all private displays. That’s normally all that the non-religious are really looking for-real and not sham religious neutrality. Governments are supposed to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Religion is another business altogether.
Post a Comment