HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Dec. 21, 2004 I have no problem with banning government from creating religious displays. I do have a problem, however, with asserting that public displays of religion are offensive. It’s an important distinction. When a government refuses to display the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, that’s one thing. But when the reason given is that all religious displays are offensive, that’s when the alarms have to sound. We don’t display religious symbolism on government property because religion is none of government’s business, not because it’s offensive. Somewhere along the line, the debate about government v. religion became less about government, and more about religion. Critics took the correct result (no government religious display) but they used the wrong argument. The argument was no longer that religious displays don’t belong on government property; the argument was that religious displays are inherently offensive. By this logic, no Muslim should hear about Christ, because a Muslim has a reasonable fear of Christians. To say, ‘Merry Christmas’ to a Muslim was (according to the argument) deeply offensive. A Christian greeting of good will and peace was (according to the argument) an in-your- face threat. Consider E.J. Dionne in this morning’s Washington Post: “What in the world is ‘Christian’ about insisting on saying ‘Merry Christmas’ to a devout Jew or Hindu who might reasonably view the statement as a sign of disrespect?” To any emotionally balanced person, this is absurd. Part of this is simply a neglect of history. The desire for religious liberty sprang, not from some hatred of religion, but from a hatred of the tyranny of monarchy. You see, the European tradition was that individuals didn’t choose their own religion. Your religion was the religion chosen by the monarch. If your king was Catholic, his kingdom was Catholic, and that meant you were. It didn’t matter what your personal theological beliefs were. You were whatever the monarch was. If your king converted to the Protestants, then you did too, whether you liked it or not. The crown was where the action was. Modern critics often accuse medieval churchmen of tying themselves too close to the monarchy. The priests should have been out with the people, cultivating good will, if they wanted people to convert to their denomination … so charge the critics. Well, medieval churchmen were corrupt enough, but not on this score. There was no point cultivating good will among the peasants, because the peasants had nothing to say about their religion. Unless you focused on converting the monarch, you were doing more harm than good. Modern critics have no collective memory of living under a system where individuals didn’t choose their own religion. They think of present day England, which has a national church, but where individuals can worship elsewhere if they choose. It never dawns on them what a ‘national church’ meant to the founding fathers. So they don’t fully appreciate what Jefferson meant when he wrote the following to the Danbury Baptist association of Connecticut: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” To understand what Jefferson meant by a wall of separation, you have to know what a ‘national religion’ meant to the founding fathers. It didn’t mean that the state was forbidden to mention any religion; it simply assured an individual’s natural right to decide religious matters for himself. If you didn’t know that the founders opposed the idea of monarchy selecting everyone’s religion, you wouldn’t appreciate why it was necessary to separate church from state. When you heard Jefferson assert that ‘religion is a matter that lies solely between man & his god,’ you might presume that religion is a strictly private matter … and should be kept to oneself. You may come to believe that public religious expressions are unseemly. (It’s understandable how you could come to that conclusion, wrong though it may be.) Next, if you tried to keep religion quiet, and you faced a lot of resentment … it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy, then, that religion is too sensitive a topic to address in public. Your path to that conclusion may be understandable, but it’s still wrong. Religious expressions aren’t offensive. If a Muslim wishes you the peace of Allah, say thank you, no matter what your religion. How should we treat the separation between church and state? It isn’t hard to figure out. Let’s ask the question: Is a public display of a crèche offensive? Consider where the crèche is. If the display is in front of a Catholic church, that shouldn’t offend anyone. The church is expressing something about itself. It’s saying, ‘this is who we are.’ The church expresses its pride in itself. There’s nothing wrong with that. If the display is in a department store window, that shouldn’t offend anyone, either. The department store doesn’t speak for the general public. However, what if the display is on public property? That’s a different story. It doesn’t belong there. Government property is correctly reserved for the people as a whole. Expressions on public property are, necessarily, expressions of the people as a whole. Since not all citizens are Christian, or believers for that matter, it is unreasonable to use public property to display Christian expressions. It has nothing to do with feelings. It has everything to do with the proper role of government. Government addresses all of us, not just some. Symbols express who you are. When you display a Christian symbol, you’re publicly saying that you’re Christian. If you belong to a Christian group, or church, that’s perfectly logical. However, if you display that same symbol on government property, it’s wrong, because government is not a Christian group. The ‘we’ of government is not the same as the ‘we’ of the parish, even if everyone in town just so happens to be Christian. Suppose city hall had a sign: “We wish everyone a safe July 4th.” Should anyone take offense at that? Of course not. The sentiment comes from all of us, and properly so. Suppose, instead, that the sign reads, “We wish travelers good luck.” Again, no one should take offense, since the sign expresses a sentiment that comes from all of us. In fact, we have many expressions that come from all of us. Don’t take drugs. Drive safely. Read to your children. These are not laws, but they are public expressions that we all support. That’s why their display causes no threat. The expressions come from all of us, together. For that reason, I also see no threat to a sign that says, “We wish all our Jewish citizens a happy Hanukkah.” The sign doesn’t suggest that we’re all Jews, or that we’re promoting Judaism. It merely expresses everyone’s (and that’s the key: everyone’s) generous sentiment, even if the recipient is a minority. If you put a crèche in public, that’s a little different. The display of the crèche on public property does suggest that we’re all Christians, and that’s not true. But if you put up a sign that says, “All of us wish our Christian citizens a Merry Christmas,” because the sentiment comes from everyone (questionable grammar aside), I see no problem with that. We have enough problems. Why make Christmas another one? ------------ About the author: KC Mulville is a computer programmer, a happy husband and father of four, and holds several degrees in philosophy. Email KC Mulville: kcmulville@hotmail.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
