I've said before I quite like Christmas as a secular holiday. I might be an atheist, but I like the sense of generosity, the urging (albeit with commercial motives) to do something nice for those we care about and those we don't know, the emphasis on Peace on Earth and Goodwill towards All. Too bad we can't do that more than just at Christmas. Unfortunately, this is not what I had in mind:
Imagine if the religious right's beloved "war on Christmas" was a year-round affair. Legions of lawyers ready to pounce on school and civic administrators, the persistent neon buzz of ACLU-paranoia in the air, Pat Robertson and the Bill O'Reilly Persecution Complex (nice band name...) pressuring corporate America to replace every "gezundheit" with a "God bless you." Now, imagine if the leaders of the effort weren't just the Jerry Falwell Admiration Society, but instead the full weight and force of the Department of Justice, training lawyers and enlisting supporters across the country ready to blow the whistle on any perceived slight to religion. Got the picture? It's the DOJ's new "First Freedoms Project" announced earlier this week by Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, an effort to tout and enhance the Department's pursuit of religious discimination claims through the Civil Rights Divison.[snip]
[Gonzalez: Make] "no mistake, I am here to ask the Southern Baptist Convention, and all of you in this room, for your help. The Department of Justice has many tools to protect religious freedoms in this country, and we are using them. But even with all of our passion and our dedication to this cause, we cannot do it alone." (Talk to Action)
Or as blogger Don Byrd at Talk to Action ("Reclaiming Citizenship, History and Faith") put it: Gonzalez Deputizes entire Southern Baptist Cponvention. Indeed Gonzalez's call to defend religious freedom was not made to the public at large or even a religious interfaith group. The announcement of the new Department of Justice initiative was made at the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, a major faction of the religious Hard Right.
The National Council of Churches (NCC) chimed in:
The head of the National Council of Churches, when asked for a comment on the announcement by an Associated Baptist Press reporter, said he wished Gonzales had chosen a more representative body to hear his announcement. SBC leaders have been among Bush's strongest and most consistent supporters.
"We are pleased to see the Bush administration focus renewed interest on religious freedom," said NCC General Secretary Bob Edgar, in a prepared statement. Nonetheless, he continued, his organization does "find it unsettling that only a single denomination, representing a fraction of the rich diversity of religious life of America, was selected to receive the attorney general's personal presentation. It would seem more appropriate had he made such an appearance before an ecumenical or interfaith gathering, symbolically underlining the vision of a nation in which the law plays no favorites but sees all faiths as equal before the Constitution." (Associated Baptist Press)
The Baptist Joint Committee also had reservations:
Brent Walker, executive director of the Washington-based Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, said he appreciates the administration focusing on the First Amendment -- but that the amendment covers two aspects of religious freedom that are inextricably linked to each other.
"The First Amendment has two protections for religious freedom -- prohibition on religious establishments and protection for free exercise of religion," Walker said, in a statement provided to Associated Baptist Press. "The administration has often ignored the importance of the no-establishment principle by supporting attempts of governments to endorse a religious message, using tax dollars to fund pervasively religious organizations, allowing religious discrimination in hiring for federally funded projects, and going to the Supreme Court to cut back on the rights of citizens to challenge such practices." (Associated Baptist Press)
For an atheist, though, the most pertinent question was asked by the blogger for Talk to Action:
I guess I'm not surprised that the Attorney General chose to speak to a group so full of free exercise fervor, and with such a dubious relationship to the Establishment Clause in recent years. After all, in his 3400-word speech Gonzalez didn't once mention a commitment to protecting those of no faith from religious discrimination, and despite having sworn to defend all of the Constitution, did not use the occasion to make any substantive mention of one half of our precious first freedom: the one assuring that the Government will not enact an establishment of religion. (Talk to Action)
I looked at the DOJ website, www.firstfreedom.gov. A lot of nice words about how every religious faith deserves protection. Not a word about protecting people whose "religious views" are that no religion is valid, even though, as we pointed out last week, intolerance for our views is probably more marked and unashamed than for any other group.
I guess it's only OK if you think everyone else's religion is full of crap.
- Log in to post comments
For whatever it is worth - I can't name the cases off the top of my head but there is some Supreme Court case law from mid-twentieth century involving Article Six religious tests and CO status for war resisters. In both the Article Six cases and some of the resister cases Court allowed for belief systems that held the place that religion would for a believer in terms of guidance for behavior etc. served as the equivalent of a religious belief with all of the accompanying protections. In theory that would apply the relevant Establishment protections for the atheist. That does not prevent the atheist from being exposed to religious beliefs of others where government is also a party (e.g., chaplins in the military or whatever). Court has never interpreted Establishment clause to prevent ANY involvement of government with religion it has only interpreted it as preventing government from going so far as to establish a religion. That is a different thing than expecting government will never offend the atheist or believer in a particular sect with some activity.
So if I was going to pick one group of individuals that most nearly approximated the Nazi hardcore in terms of thinking and narrow-mindedness, in this country, the SBC would fit the bill.
And this is different from religious policing how?
I notice a pervasive Christian bias in their message delivery, as well, which is not news to me, but really ought to wake some people up. (Wishful thinking, I know.)
I wouldn't want to take anyone's religion away from them, they'd fall flat on their face. It keeps them afloat, even if it is antiquated thinking. It's just when the movement turns radical that it's crossed the line of tolerance.
We're basically safe revere for now, as long as we know where the government is coming from. When the govt' stops letting us know its true motives, well, then that's when we're in trouble.
That is a different thing than expecting government will never offend the atheist or believer in a particular sect with some activity.