Government displays of religiously themed materials are sure to be controversial and lead to some serious silliness at any time of year. But during the holidays, when so many faiths have their own competing celebrations, along with the secularized versions of same, things can get particularly silly. Like they have in Washington state at the capitol in Olympia. Here's a good account of the background (paragraph breaks added by me):
According to The Spokesman Review (Spokane, WA), conflict has been brewing in the Washington State Capitol over the past few years. In 2005, state Rep. John Ahern (R-Spokane) decided to protest the state's decision to call a large evergreen tree placed inside the Capitol this time of year a 'holiday tree.'That's right. With the lawsuit establishing that if the capitol area is going to open to any party for a display it must be open to all, a creative bunch of non-believers put up a sign this year that reads:
Evidently, Rep. Ahern found this form of cultural sensitivity unacceptable. He gathered some like-minded Christians to sing carols on the Capitol steps and added a small 'Merry Christmas' sign and a cardboard menorah at the bottom of the tree.
In 2006, rabbis showed up to light a large menorah with the Governor, and Christians asked for a nativity scene. The state initially denied this request but then caved during a lawsuit, paving the way for the nativity scene the following year. Now the state says they'll allow virtually any sort of religious or political display.
Enter the atheists.
At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail.Granted, it's a little heavy handed at the end, but I can't say I disagree with the sentiment. Whether such a sign is the best way to advance "the cause," whatever that may be, is best left for another day.
There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world.
Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.
Needless to say, the presence of those words at the state capitol have sent some folks into apoplexy. Complaints from religious folks have sprung the issue to national attention, gaining the ire of such noted clear thinkers as Bill Donohue and Bill O'Reilly. As a result, more folks are flocking to Olympia to have their message endorsed by the state:
The skirmish over Christmas in Washington state just gets funnier every day.Personally, I find the idea of an unadorned metal pole (tinsel is too confusing) in the state capitol very amusing. I just hope the Phelps folks will be singing to the tune of "Santa Claus is Comin' to Town."
Now someone wants to put up a Festivus pole in the capitol. That's hilarious enough, but it gets better.
The Westboro Baptist Church has demanded to be allowed to put up a sign that says, 'Santa Claus will take you to Hell'.
The underlying lesson in all this hullabaloo is simple - the state shouldn't be in the business of displaying anybody's religious beliefs. Period. Put you tree/nativity/menorah/pole up on private property to your heart's content. But keep the state out of it. As the First Amendment intends.
8 comments:
The underlying lesson in all this hullabaloo is simple - the state shouldn't be in the business of displaying anybody's religious beliefs. Period. Put you tree/nativity/menorah/pole up on private property to your heart's content. But keep the state out of it. As the First Amendment intends.
Sounds reasonable--and more important--constitutional to me. But in practice, it's really not about what the First Amendment commands but rather what belief system the majority seeks to impose on the minority.
Yeah, but aren't you the guy who thinks the big singing Grinch in your office is great? When will you stop forcing your Seusicality upon the rest of us? ;-P
I hate to use a tired cliche, but freedom of religion =/= freedom from religion. I fail to see how a country that has "In God We Trust" printed on their currency should oppose a decorated evergreen on their lawn one month out of the year. Christmas decorations on a courthouse lawn are no more oppressive or exclusionary than a deity's name printed on paper money.
Besides, Christmas is about as religious as Cadbury Cream Eggs these days anyway. And a lot of folk who bitch about the decorations have no problem taking the day off along with the rest of their coworkers. So whether or not you're observing the birth of Christ you're still observing the holiday (unless you volunteer to work that day every year).
That being said, I wouldn't care if they just put nothing up. I'm sick of the whining about it every year.
I fail to see how a country that has "In God We Trust" printed on their currency . . .
But that's just begging the question. If "In God We Trust" or "Under God" in the pledge are First Amendment violations, they can't justify other ones. FWIW, "In God . . ." became the official national motto at the same time "under God" came in, i.e., to distinguish the US from those godless commies.
And I disagree about the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom from religion. Without that, freedom of is an empty gesture, for it would allow compulsion into some faith or another. The best way for the state to steer clear of problems in that area is just to stay out of it entirely.
Now, that's legally speaking. Socially/personally speaking, yeah, I agree people shouldn't be so thick skinned. For instance, the God language in the Kentucky homeland security plans. I fully support the folks suing to get that out on a First Amendment/declaratory judgment action. On the other hand, I think their claim for damages because, basically, they experienced emotional distress because of that language is silly. They should have thicker skins, but so should the Christians. To hear many of them tell it, the country discriminates against them, even though they make up 90% of the population and you can't get elected to much more than dog catcher without paying homage to their God.
I agree with you there. The whole theory of a "War on Christmas" is overblown and typical right-wing fearmongering, IMO. But someone complaining that their rights are violated by a douglas fir and a few lights makes me sick too. No one is trying to take Christmas away, but neither is anyone trying to force it on you by displaying a few decorations.
Douglas Fir?!?!? Every right thinking American knows that the Frasier Fir is the appropriate pagan-derived Xmas display vehicle. Blasphemer!
Haha!
"This isn't one of those trees where all the needles falls off, is it?"
"No, that's them balsams."
I also find the folks who are protesting "The War On Christmas" to be ridiculous. Especially those who rant against stores like Target (which isn't covered by the first amendment).
I like the idea of the Westboro Baptists telling people Santa will take you to hell though. :-)
Post a Comment