I have long followed and commented on the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s efforts to banish all religious references from the public square. Well, they just lost one, when the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the City of Warren’s refusal to include an FFRF message disparaging religion from its rather pluralistic holiday display (whose one explicitly religious element is a nativity scene).
Here’s the language on the placard FFRF would have placed in the atrium of Warren’s civic center:
At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, [n]o heaven or hell. There is only our natural world, [r]eligion is but [m]yth and superstition [t]hat hardens hearts [a]nd enslaves minds.
Warren’s mayor James Fouts offered a spirited rebuff to the FFRF. As the Court noted, he overreached a bit, but we can still applaud the following words:
This proposed sign is antagonistic toward all religions and would serve no purpose during this holiday season except to provoke controversy and hostility among visitors and employees at city hall….
Everyone has a right to believe or not believe in a particular belief system, but no organization has the right to disparage the beliefs of many Warren and U.S. citizens because of their beliefs.
Thus, I cannot and will not sanction the desecration of religion in the Warren City Hall atrium.
As I would not allow displays disparaging any one religion, so I will not allow anyone or any organization to attack religion in general. Your proposed sign cannot be excused as a freedom of religion statement because, to my way of thinking, this right does not mean the right to attack religion or any religion with mean-spirited signs. The proposed sign would only result in more signs and chaos.
The appellate panel noted that the Warren display falls squarely within the lines (too narrow in my view, but that’s an argument for another day) drawn by the Supreme Court in a series of cases dealing with holiday displays. And they affirmed the city’s right to decide (within the confines of the Establishment Clause) what messages it wished its display to convey.
Perhaps most crucially, neither the Free Speech nor the Establishment Clause requires any government to provide “equal time” in its speech to those who oppose its message. As the appellate panel points out, if FFRF wants a naked public square, it should seek to elect candidates committed to it. That court, at least, won’t do its dirty work for it.
Merry Christmas!
March 1st, 2013 | 7:13 pm
Merry Christmas to you and thank you.
I have very much missed that cheerful, kindly, neighborly greeting.
Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas. And every good wish to those who celebrate other religious traditions.
May this dreadful bullying cease.
(… and every good wish to atheists of good will …) Pax hominibus bonae voluntatis.
March 3rd, 2013 | 11:15 am
As usual ‘freedom of religion’ here seems rather one sided.
I’m sorry but let’s take a sign like “Christ was born to save humanity”. If you are an Orthodox Jew, this statement is deeply wrong. Sure you can ‘tolerate’ those who embrace it but the fact is it’s deeply contrary to your theological understanding of God. Even a devout Christian would agree IF Jesus was not the Son of God, if he was just a man, such a statement would be blasphmey.
So over and over again people here and on blogs like this have told us atheism is a religion. Well if it is then certainly an atheist will fairly have faith that his faith helps counter enslavement to myth and superstition. Yet it’s ok to banish this view from ‘the public square’ while letting ‘preferred views’ through?
March 3rd, 2013 | 1:18 pm
Reply to Boonton:
Tolerance with principle is kindly. It is respectful of others. It is generous. One small example – arranging work schedules so that a Jewish colleague can observe the Sabbath or that a Christian can celebrate Easter.
A person who understands principled tolerance does not disrupt the ceremonies and rituals valued by neighbors or, for that matter, by any person at all. He or she would rather protect those practices from any intrusion.
A principled atheist who is a person of good will toward all would recognize the importance of choosing the right place at the right time to advocate for this position. His or her choice can then reflect respect for fellow citizens and demonstrate his or her desire for peace on earth.
March 4th, 2013 | 11:27 am
He or she would rather protect those practices from any intrusion.
Yes, which is why it would be very bad form to put such a sign up in a church. But this is the so-called ‘public square’ which is hosting what seems to be an open forum of messages by various religious faiths. On what grounds then does a mayor have a right to declare a statement of faith that athiesm saves us from superstition not worthy of protection? Recall the mayor’s statement:
Everyone has a right to believe or not believe in a particular belief system, but no organization has the right to disparage the beliefs of many Warren and U.S. citizens because of their beliefs.
I’m sorry but this is incoherent. Many clear assertions of faith have to end up disparaging conflicting faith assertions. One can be rude about it or polite about it but that doesn’t alter that fact. The statement from the group didn’t single out citizens of differeing faiths for disparagement, it asserted what it thought was the merit of atheistic faith.
March 4th, 2013 | 1:37 pm
There is a difference between having a right to do something and having the courtesy and kindness to do so in a manner that is respectful of one’s neighbors.
You defend the innocence of the atheists’ statement’ they are not guilty of “singling out citizens of different faiths for disparagement”. I am not quite certain how you derive this from a public notice that religions are to be dismissed as “superstition”.
Christmas scenes and symbols single out no one for disparagement. They announce a belief.
March 4th, 2013 | 3:04 pm
A Reader –
True – though note, courts are supposed to rule on rights and not courtesy. Except with respect to contempt of court, I suppose.
I (and other atheists) agree that more positive messages would be wiser choices. But again, that’s not the same as what is or should be legal in a truly open forum.
March 4th, 2013 | 4:46 pm
Christmas scenes and symbols single out no one for disparagement. They announce a belief.
I think many symbols have become so mundane people neglect to note just how serious they are.
A nativity, while non-textual, announces a particular set of beliefs about the nature of Jesus. Namely that he was both a man and God. That an infinite God can also be a finite man as well as this all happened at a point in history as opposed to being some type of theoretically abstraction. Taken seriously this is more than a mushy belief that ‘Baby Jesus was cute”. It’s a bold assertion about the nature of reality that’s a serious challenge to competiting assertions. That is indeed disparaging to those who do not have such beliefs.
You’re right, it ‘singles out no one’. It doesn’t say “Mary Smith on 124 Main St. is WRONG! for having a Jewish/Hindu/Unitarian view”, but it does indeed say her view is wrong.
Likewise this message singles out no particular person of any non-atheistic faith. So what’s the problem? The problem seems to be that ‘religious freedom’ isn’t really what it say it is. It seems to really be about a religious entitlement to occupy a portion of the public square provided it is used in only a mushy manner expousing a belief that has more tradition behind it than others. In other words ‘religious entitlement inertia’ more than anything else, so much for a diverse public square carrying on a serious discussion!
March 4th, 2013 | 7:52 pm
One of my favorite psalms entreats God not to “enter in judgement with your servant, for before you no living man is just”. The suppliant understands that justice is severe; that untempered by mercy, it crushes the guilty (and this suppliant considers everyone “the guilty”). Justice without caritas can be inhuman.
If we no longer understand the necessity of consideration and respect for the things that are put forth and valued by our fellow citizens – atheist philosophical concepts, religious beliefs and philosophical reasoning, political philosophy as a basis for our common life -and must depend on the courts for decisions that could be settled with the smallest amount of kindliness and generosity, we have in my opinion become uncivilized.
You are of course correct. I am defending an intangible. Nothing that would be upheld as a matter of law.
March 5th, 2013 | 6:33 am
Christmas displays represent a celebration of one aspect of our diversity. A nativity scene placed in front of a church makes a doctrinal statement. A nativity scene or a Christmas tree in the public square on the other hand has a folk art quality; its meaning is received by the passers-by in diverse ways.
Mother, father, child – a simple family. A decorated tree to light the winter darkness. Or, for a Christian, the birth of Christ and a joyful symbol of that birth. For some it may be “mushy”. But at least for now citizens of the United States of America are still free to be “mushy” if that is their choice. .
Given the fact that almost all citizens are now carefully educated to observe individual rights and not educated in the arts of kindliness, courtesy, and grace that are so necessary to human happiness and peaceful common life, it is possible that Christmas displays will be forbidden by law. Something intangible yet invaluable will be lost. You will have the victory.
March 5th, 2013 | 8:42 am
A Reader –
Hmmm. Just to be perfectly clear, you’re saying that a nativity scene in the public square does not make a doctrinal statement? It’s only when it’s in front of a church (or perhaps a home) that it becomes a religious statement?
How ’bout a Buddha statue? Some Ramadan lanterns? A Pentacle? The ‘Sigil of Lucifer’? How and when should those be displayed in the ‘public square’?
March 5th, 2013 | 10:46 am
To: Ray Ingles
I am saying that a nativity scene in the public square is received in different ways by the passers-by. Christmas has different meanings for different people. Some meanings are secular but kindly and humane; some are doctrinal and specific; some are simply hopeful in the sense that there may be higher things.
Your last sentence indicates your annoyance with my argument. Please be assured that I value and respect our cherished right to free speech. I am not offended by public displays of convictions completely and utterly opposed to mine; rather I respect serious commitments held by persons of good will.
The point I would like to make is one I would impose on myself and recommend to others. I would not intrude on religious observances of others by insisting that my symbols be displayed at the same time and in the same place. I consider our treasured right to free speech invaluable, beyond price. Nothing short of egregious obscenity or malicious criticism would bring forth a complaint from me.
I am arguing for kindliness, “tolerance with principle,” respect for the common good – those things which are learned and learned only by living them
March 5th, 2013 | 3:27 pm
A Reader –
Is there any message that isn’t perceived in multiple ways? Is the intent of the people who put up the display irrelevant? If someone puts up a nativity scene, do they intend a doctrinal statement?
The thing is, nativity scenes don’t get vandalized at anything like the rate atheist displays do.
I’d trust ‘kindliness, “tolerance with principle,” respect for the common good’ more if it were actually displayed toward atheists more frequently.
March 5th, 2013 | 5:39 pm
To Ray Ingles: I do believe that as nativity scenes are perceived in multiple ways, they are also displayed for the different reasons I mentioned previously. In other words, some do intend a doctrinal statement; some do not.
But that is not the point of my comment. If I understand you correctly, we support the same goal for all persons of good will – that their public speech be treated with respect. I am of the opinion that certain things can only be taught one person at a time. There is dignity in refusing to personally participate in abusive behavior and in providing a counter example.
History provides some comfort. Persons holding strong opinions have throughout history been subjected to harsh criticism and worse. That is the basis for the praise given to those who have the “courage of their convictions”. I am a Roman Catholic; you are an atheist. Only time will tell which of those principled commitments will be subjected to persecution. I tend to think it will be mine.
Best wishes. And, again, “Pax hominibus bonae voluntatis” – to all men and women of good will.
March 6th, 2013 | 8:28 pm
Government displays of the baby deity Jesus in a manger with his virgin mother Mary during the week of the holiest days of Christianity, Christmas, which celebrates the birth of the Christian god Jesus, are a government establishment of Christianity. Unfortunately, due to public pressure, courts wanted to find some way to permit such displays. So Supreme Court precedent declares that if a government provides citizens with the ability to put up displays of their choice then a free speech public forum is created which avoids what would otherwise be an EC violation. So now governments just erect crèches each Christmas, and before anyone can complain they have to first go to that government and ask for their own display.
These free speech public forum invariably only occur once each year during the week before and after Christmas, and not during rest of the year when the holidays of non-Christian minorities may take place. Furthermore, a government need do little more than erect a crèche to create a free expression public forum, the burden is mostly on the dissenters to prove it isn’t a free expression public forum. Clearly this is a biased legal precedent that is unfair to non-Christian minorities.
Now, to make it even worse, a federal court unilaterally decides, against the existing precedent, that it isn’t a free expression public forum after all. Instead it’s government speech, and therefore government can censor any speech that disparages ALL religions (not just Christianity), while somehow the government sponsored speech on behalf of Christianity, a religion that itself disparages atheism, is still not government establishment of Christianity.
March 7th, 2013 | 6:37 am
A nativity scene placed in front of a church makes a doctrinal statement. A nativity scene or a Christmas tree in the public square on the other hand has a folk art quality; its meaning is received by the passers-by in diverse ways.
This reminds me a few years back a store had a nativity thing in one of their windows with a Bart Simpson doll as Jesus. The Catholic League raised a fuss and they took it down. Too bad they didn’t have you around to remind them that because nativities outside of churches are ‘folk art’ there was no need to have taken offense!
Seriously do you really want to stick by this line of argument? That religious speech in the public square is just random stuff with no meaning at all other than what the viewer wants to assign to it? Sure people perceive different messages but let’s get real here. If the KKK burns a cross on the lawn of a black family, the message isn’t “remember Jesus died for our sins”….although if the black family just arrived from Africa with no knowledge of the KKK’s history maybe they might misread the display. The reason to put up a nativity display isn’t to ‘celebrate family’ or ‘cute babies’ but to celebrate a real doctrine of a real religion. Is squashing religious freedom so important to you that would reduce religious speech to meaningless mush?
March 7th, 2013 | 11:38 am
Well, at least we know the 6th Circuit Court is religiously corrupt in a very devout way. Both the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of Religion was refused. Meanwhile a government regulated entity is acting against the 1st Amendment during the Holidays when endorsing a religion (Nativity Scene? Hello? Specific Doctrine? Hello? Anybody Home?). All the Signatories would be rolling over in their grave by now. I guess they worked very hard on a Secular Constitution for nothing.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact