In my view, there is an inherent flaw in all of these religious holiday display cases ever since the Supreme Court allowed the city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island to put up as part of its “official” display a Nativity scene along with secular symbols including Santa, reindeer, and the ever popular Yuletide “blue bears”. According to a majority of the court this mix did not give passerbys the impression that the city was officially embracing religion. Instead, the court should have told Pawtucket to lay off the religious references and been done with it. Of course, since the “establishment clause” doesn’t prohibit cities from promoting secular ideas it could have lured the shopping public downtown with Santa and his elves and reindeer. (Purist alert: I am really not losing sleep over the fact that Santa may be related to Saint Nicholas.) Just as obviously, cities should not be allowed to promote any sectarian ideas or icons. (The manger scene is one; the Decalogue is another.)
In Olympia, Washington, the Governor did what she is required to do under an agreement with your friends, Jay, over at the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). Last year ADF lawyers demanded that a client be allowed to put up a Nativity scene in the capitol building because the state was already displaying a menorah. Rather than just removing the menorah, the state agreed to allow pretty much anybody to put up his or her favorite seasonal message. Thus, the ADF has achieved the result of preserving atheist rights this year by clearing the path to the “religion is a myth” solstice signage that is so upsetting to some in Washington state. (What happened to their old argument: if you don’t like a cross, or a creche, just “look away”?)
In regard to Pleasant Valley, I would refer back to my earlier posts on this matter. If the Ten Commandments monument is in fact “government speech” then it violates the core constitutional principle that government cannot endorse a particular religious viewpoint.
I simply don’t want to have to walk around everybody’s religious and political paraphernalia when I want to visit any state capitol building. States don’t have to open all their facilities to everybody’s “speech” and they shouldn’t.
posted December 11, 2008 at 4:06 am
I totally agree with you Rev. Lynn. I’ve said on other blogs that I think all of the religious symbols need to be removed. How about putting up something fitting of a State house, including a display of the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, or paintings of past presidents, etc.? You know, State-y things.
posted December 11, 2008 at 8:54 am
Well said sir. Because I am an atheist, I have been following this circus pretty closely. I am very keen on understanding America’s disposition towards non-believers, so I read all the news I can about it.
Regarding the current situation in Washington, I don’t really see why it was necessary for the FFRF to be as antagonistic in their message. Plenty of other advertisement campaigns for atheism are going on in the U.S. and Britain this year. Most have messages that are fairly mundane. I like that approach much more—even though I am certain any such attempts to expose popular culture to atheism will be met with backlash.
In the end, I think you have written the most sensible article regarding this. Fitting, in my cynical opinion, that a Reverend would have the good sense to sort it all out. People just need to realize that most of us have a lot more in common than they think. It doesn’t always have to be Us versus Them.
Best Wishes.
posted December 11, 2008 at 10:09 am
You can post what you want you can take away what you want but
you can never take Jesus out of My Heart and I will never stop
celebrating and saying Happy Birthday, Jesus, every Blessed Season
of Christmas. It is His Birthday. As Jesus was apolitical who cares
what any body thinks but what God thinks about those who Love, Know
and Honor Him and His One and Only Son Jesus’ Birthday.
Have a Blessed Day, filled with Wisdome From God and the Way,
The Truth and the Life. Amen. Love,
posted December 11, 2008 at 10:27 am
Good words, Rev. I agree 100%. It is a government building’s lawn, not a personal display area. People should feel free to celibate the holidays anyway they want, but there is not need to insist on the government’s involvement. I am an atheist myself, but I feel that there is no need for any of the displays. Put up anything you want in your own yard.
posted December 11, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Who ever put up the Nativity scene should take it down. As Mr. Lynn said, it’s become a circus and what you’ve been trying to honor has become dishonored. The other displays are going to look pretty stupid without the Nativity. Put the Nativity in front of a church and move on.
posted December 11, 2008 at 3:16 pm
==Who ever put up the Nativity scene should take it down.==
“Should.”
Value judgment.
posted December 11, 2008 at 3:27 pm
==It is a government building’s lawn, not a personal display area.==
Government buildings are public property, not government’s private property, and the Constitution says that the State may not interfere with religious expression on public property, nor anywhere else, for that matter. Religious expression Freedom is the first Freedom.
==…there is not need to insist on the government’s involvement.==
We don’t insist that the State be involved. Only that the State should stop surrendering to atheists and stop telling us not to express.
====…there is no need for any of the displays.==
No need for YOU. You speak only for yourself, not others.
== Put up anything you want in your own yard.==
If you’re offended by “religious” displays, you’d be complaining about what I put up in my yard, too.
posted December 11, 2008 at 3:30 pm
==…you can never take Jesus out of My Heart and I will never stop
celebrating and saying Happy Birthday, Jesus, every Blessed Season
of Christmas. It is His Birthday.==
Praise God!
==…who cares what any body thinks but what God thinks about those who Love, Know and Honor Him and His One and Only Son Jesus’ Birthday. ==
Very few, and it is few who find the gate.
posted December 11, 2008 at 3:34 pm
==I think all of the religious symbols need to be removed. ==
How do you get by the First Amendment which says that religious expression is the first Freedom, that this expression on public property is allowed?
posted December 11, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I agree completely with Rev. Lynn and have deep respect for his work to protect the separation of church and state. I’ve never understood why anyone would feel the need to erect religious symbols in government buildings. Isn’t this what private dwellings and churches are for?
Those who insisted on a nativity in the Capitol have managed to create what can only be described as a circus. To honor their request, the governor had no choice but to open the door to all comers.
A small segment of the Christian community has been fighting a “war on Christmas” with themselves for a couple years. It now appears that they’ve finally managed to destroy Christmas. The atheists are being blamed by some uninformed observers, but their role is rather minor in this debacle.
posted December 11, 2008 at 4:29 pm
So the city hall lawn is a canvas for my free religeous expression?
Are we sure we want to do that?
posted December 11, 2008 at 4:43 pm
==So the city hall lawn is a canvas for my free religeous expression?
Are we sure we want to do that?==
Read the First Amendment. It says that the State may not interfere with expressions of worship, the first Freedom, and the Founders’ background suggests that it is the worship of God.
posted December 11, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Since when does one segment of the community, backed up by the State, tell me what expression — specifically religious expression, as contemplated by the First Amendment and the Founders’ background — I may display on public property?
Since when does the State, or other citizens, get to manage and edit beforehand the content of my worship of God — or even political expression — on public property?
The First Amendment requires the State to let me worship God on public property without fear of State intervention.
posted December 11, 2008 at 5:02 pm
==So the city hall lawn is a canvas for my free religeous expression?==
Atheists say atheism is no religion.
If that’s the case, that atheism is not a religion, and you are an atheist, you have no such expression.
The First Amendment’s “religion” clause refers to those who believe in God and their Freedom to practice. If you have no belief in God, there’s nothing to express that is covered by the First Amendment’s “religious” clause.
posted December 11, 2008 at 5:09 pm
The only thing that an atheist can claim, regarding the “Freedom to Worship clause,” is what’s called “viewpoint discrimination,” if they are denied expression. In all cases, under the law, if a viewpoint is raised, another person is given leeway to respond to that viewpoint. However, in the case of “religion,” the atheist viewpoint, it is claimed, is not a religious one, rather merely an opposing one. An opposing viewpoint doesn’t have to be an equally expressed viewpoint, though.
posted December 11, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Mr. Incredible:
If you think that you can express yourself in any way you choose on “public property”, try setting up a tent on the White House lawn or building a replica of your favorite religious building on the steps of your local federal courthouse. I think you’ll find that most government-controlled space is not open to the rest of us to promote our feelings, religious or otherwise. I know we pay the taxes, but that doesn’t mean we get to use every facility we help to build or maintain.
posted December 11, 2008 at 5:11 pm
So, are atheists claiming to have a “religious” viewpoint?
posted December 11, 2008 at 5:17 pm
==Mr. Incredible:
If you think that you can express yourself in any way you choose on “public property”, try setting up a tent on the White House lawn or building a replica of your favorite religious building on the steps of your local federal courthouse.==
Those who are born again know that buildings are not the places of praise and worship. So, your point is moot.
In any case, such permanent STRUCTURES would be inappropriate confiscation of public property.
== I think you’ll find that most government-controlled space is not open to the rest of us to promote our feelings, religious or otherwise.==
Now you’re talking, not of buildings, but of “feelings” expressions. Which is it?
== I know we pay the taxes, but that doesn’t mean we get to use every facility we help to build or maintain.==
However, in those buildings in which we ARE allowed, we may express belief in God, as long as it doesn’t physically impose on others. Merely expressing a worship, or praise of God, there, gets others’ attention, but that’s not imposition.
posted December 11, 2008 at 5:25 pm
== I think you’ll find that most government-controlled space is not open to the rest of us to promote our feelings, religious or otherwise.==
The background of the Founders is Christian. They did not invite a smorgasbord of religious activity. They had Christianity in mind. The purpose of the first settlers on the Mayflower was to “advance Christianity,” in their own words.
Atheists, themselves, say that they are not religious. So, then, their expression is not, it would be according to their own standard, religious expression.
No all expression is allowed on public property. Physical, commericial expression — that is, permanent signage and places of bidness — is prohibited, but, according to the First Amendment, temporary “religious,” according to the beliefs of the Founders, and political expression are allowed.
posted December 11, 2008 at 5:31 pm
==…try setting up a…replica of your favorite religious building on the steps of your local federal courthouse.==
Illegal impedance of traffic. A picture of The Ten Commandments, hanging on a wall, impedes traffic in what way, except traffic in the spirit of the person who stops to contemplate his condition before God?
posted December 11, 2008 at 5:48 pm
You assumed im atheist and meant an atheist display. How would you feel seeing oh lets say a display by a satanic cult? By the way i identify myself as as a skeptic not an atheist not that i expect anyone to care.
posted December 11, 2008 at 6:01 pm
==You assumed im atheist …==
Post the exact words you say I wrote to indicate that I “assumed” you are an atheist. I know what I wrote, and everybody can go back and check them and see that there is no such assumption whatsoever.
Here, I’ll do it for everybody. My exact words are:
“If that’s the case, that atheism is not a religion, and you are an atheist, you have no such expression.”
In other words, the conditional “if” tells the story.
posted December 11, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Mr Incredible you are incredibly tiresome. Go ahead and have the last word.
posted December 11, 2008 at 10:15 pm
==Mr Incredible you are incredibly tiresome. ==
We understand how “tiresome” it must be to be confronted by somebody not spellbound by and taken in by the incantations of the “separation of Church and State” crowd.
posted December 14, 2008 at 10:15 am
However, in those buildings in which we ARE allowed, we may express belief in God, as long as it doesn’t physically impose on others. Merely expressing a worship, or praise of God, there, gets others’ attention, but that’s not imposition.
Maybe you need to think about what kind of “attention” you’re getting. It’s honestly not the kind of “attention” you really want!
What sort of religious expression” is it when Christians only want to show off? Your efforts have become a “my religion’s better than your religion” effort. You only seem to want to boast on your power to get your way.
I don’t want to see any religion cheapened by having its symbols displayed at this time of the year or at any other time. It’s especially inappropriate at the holidays when the focus has shifted to spending money and acquiring material goods instead of on spending time with family and volunteering some free time in the community helping the less fortunate and acquiring spiritual benefits.
Isn’t that closer to the real meaning of Christmas anyhow?
posted December 18, 2008 at 2:50 am
Is Jay Sekulow “Mr. Incredible”? Sure sounds like it. Always monopolizing the conversation and giving the impression that only his viewpoint is logical or worthy of insight.
posted December 18, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Your Name,
I cast out the Mr. Incredible demon from this site:
Mr. Incredible
December 14, 2008 6:10 AM
You said that you are going to humiliate me to the point that I will leave. I said that you are in for a surprise. Then, you go off on some wild tangent. Do you suppose you could keep your thoughts straight for a little while?
He said it couldn’t be done but poof he’s gone is he not?
posted December 23, 2008 at 12:17 am
and this guy is a preacher? did he ever study the history of our country? we have freedom OF religion, not freedom From religion.
posted December 23, 2008 at 10:09 am
Dave we have freedom FROM religion in this country too. If you don’t like it LEAVE.
posted October 15, 2009 at 12:34 am
Free speech is held under strict scrutiny. Thus, a display of the Ten Commandments should not be censored and banned by Uncle Sam unless it is necessary to serve a compelling government interest. Furthermore, the government is free to accept and decline which religious monuments are displayed, especially since the case is not judged under a violation of the Establishment Clause. In addition, the monument supports the community’s religious heritage and history. Thus, it should stay.
posted October 15, 2009 at 1:48 am
Free speech is held under strict scrutiny, thus a display of the Ten Commandments does not require, or deserve, promotional work done by the government. Equality and religious neutrality are compelling government interests. Government business deals with actions, not spiritual beliefs. For spiritual beliefs you have a variety of choices. The community may celebrate in complete harmony, if such is indeed the case, but not with endorsement or funding from the government. I agree with Reverend Lynn, it is not proper government business.