Usually these politicians have sham excuses explaining why they let political or cultural values trump Catholic teachings in support of traditional Judaic-Christian values. They often recite the politically expedient rationale of not wanting to impose their "religious beliefs" on other Americans, although they are less concerned about imposing Judaic-Christian prohibitions regarding murder, lying, adultery, and theft. They also argue that one must look at the "big picture", even if they concede the abortion issue, arguing, for example, Democratic programs are more consistent with Catholic teachings on social justice. That's an argument I won't concede; it seems one may argue that Christian politicians could argue a type of "tough love", whereby we don't encourage an undue dependence of an individual on the state and hence impede his actualization as a person; that individuals should have an opportunity to maximize their own income in order to extend the reach of their own philanthropic efforts, without government inefficiencies and overhead with ineffective social programs; that given a surplus of unemployed low-skill workers, a hike in the minimum wage may actually result in a counterproductive contraction rather than an expansion of relevant work opportunities, etc. But the bottom line is, as I've explained in an earlier post on Senator Biden's pro-choice views, why would a Christian sell his or her soul for political treasure?
Washington's Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire, also a Catholic, has sanctioned yet another front in the culture wars, using a preposterous rationale based on the First Amendment to justify including the display of a provocative atheist rant near traditional Nativity scene and a holiday tree in the state Capitol. (There is also a menorah.)
The poster reads:
At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. 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.Governor Gregoire's response to public outcry over the poster?
The U.S. Supreme Court has been consistent and clear that, under the Constitution's First Amendment, once government admits one religious display or viewpoint onto public property, it may not discriminate against the content of other displays, including the viewpoints of non-believers.The highly rated cable O'Reilly Factor featured the outrageous exhibit, which apparently was stolen shortly thereafter (oh, cry me a river!)
Let me make my position clear.
First, Christmas (and the Christian faith) has been an integral part of American culture since before the American Revolution. It has been a federal holiday for generations. The Nativity scene is symbolic of the traditional meaning of Chrismas. Americans have freedom of or from religion by the First Amendment, the same one which guarantees freedom of speech. However, just because the majority of Americans are fellow Christians does not mean that Christian rights to expression should be suppressed for fear of intimidating non-Christians. Exercising one's right to free expression implies tolerance of the same from others. I do not expect non-Christians to accept the belief system underlying the Nativity scene; what I do expect is certain minimal civility and respectfulness in the Constitution-required tolerance of Christian beliefs and symbols. I have no problem with atheists, agnostics or other non-Christians expressing their beliefs or skepticism and critical analyses of Christianity in various media . I don't have an objection to a natural setting or a representation of the winter solstice in the state Capitol; in fact, some holiday traditions borrowed from Roman pagan winter festivals. But putting a display that unilaterally ridicules, in explicit language, people of faith near a Nativity scene? Do Governor Gregoire and Attorney General McKenna honestly think that the state of Washington can't demand civility and apply professional or editorial standards on a consistent basis across exhibits?
Second, where do we draw the line? Do we need to permit, say, anti-Semitic passages from Hitler's Mein Kampf to be posted near the display of the menorah? And exactly what standards do we apply, given potentially hundreds of religious groups, each demanding equal representation in the state Capitol?
To a certain degree, I hate drawing more attention to this situation, because I know the atheists were using this situation as a publicity stunt and probably knew that by being provocative, they would be yanking O'Reilly's chain and getting more mileage than their intellectually-impoverished, mediocre, unoriginal thinking could yield on its own merits. Personally, I don't think that people come to a state Capitol just to see a Nativity scene; any Christian can buy all sorts of Nativity-inspired items from hundreds of vendors. For years the state Capitol did without a Nativity scene without adversely affecting Christian worship in Washington.
However, one feels compelled to speak out when pedestrian politicians like Gregoire and McKenna demonstrate moral cowardice and attempt to hide behind the First Amendment to rationalize permitting anti-religious propaganda to be prominently posted in the state Capitol.
