[NYTr] Peace on Earth? Keep Religion Separate

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel - Dec 22, 2007
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=699264

Op-Ed:

Peace on Earth?

Keep religion separate

By Dan Barker

The Freedom From Religion Foundation hears from a lot of people this
time of year, especially when we complain about Nativity scenes on
government property. The messages from believers range from nasty
unprintable hatred to mockingly friendly yet uncivil "Merry Christmas"
and "Jesus loves you" wishes (would they call a synagogue and say
that?), as if we were challenging those believers rather than the
government.

However, we receive many more positive remarks than negative from
believers as well as non-believers who support keeping state and church
separate.

What most of the detractors don't seem to understand is that we are not
threatening their freedom to believe, practice or advertise their
religion. We sue governments, not individuals or churches. We are not
barging into services pulling worshippers from pews. We don't drag
Nativity scenes from front yards or Christmas trees from private
businesses. We don't want to break the law: We want to keep the
government from breaking the law - law based on the First Amendment
protection of personal liberty.

We all have freedom of conscience in this wonderful country, but here
is what many believers do not seem to grasp: There is a difference
between private speech and government speech. Private speech is
protected; government speech is limited. Individuals and private
organizations have maximum freedom. Governments possess curtailed
freedom in order to allow individual freedom.

In this case, the conservative principle of limited government is an
idea with which most liberals agree.

We are not governed by majority rule. We are ruled by a secular
Constitution. Specific individual freedoms are hard-wired into our
guiding document that no local majority can vote away. No mayor, for
example, has the authority to abridge freedom of the press, and no
Southern county, regardless of its tradition, may vote to segregate
schools - as we saw not so long ago, when federal troops were called in
to enforce the will of the Constitution over that of the majority.

The very first liberty in the First Amendment is religious freedom, but
notice that before this freedom is spelled out, a restriction is first
put in place: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion."

The establishment clause does not apply only to Congress: The 14th
Amendment makes it clear that the states and all local governments must
act accordingly. The courts have nearly universally affirmed that our
government, from the White House to the public school principal's
office, must neither advance nor hinder religion. Government must be
neutral.

Some say our challenges of religious symbols on government property are
trivial and not worth the waste of time and money. But if that were
true, no one would miss them if they were removed. Are these people
saying the depiction of the holy birth of the Christian savior-god is
merely an inconsequential secular trimming?

Of course this is not trivial! Not to them or to us. (Besides, what
could be less trivial than working to uphold the First Amendment?)

Others say that we non-believers are simply angry at Christianity and
use lawsuits to attack the freedom of belief. But if that were true, we
would not be joined by so many believers who agree that we should
protect the "wall of separation between church and state," as Thomas
Jefferson described the First Amendment.

Yes, some of us do find the anti-humanistic nativity scene offensive
since it assumes we are all sinners in need of salvation and slaves who
need to humbly bow to a dictator - in a country that is supposedly
proudly rebellious, having fought a Revolutionary War to expel the
king, sovereign and lord.

When the city, county or state erects a religious symbol on public
property as the sole or primary focus of the display, representing (or
appearing to represent) the government, that is government speech. It
is illegal and un-American.

In America, we are free to disagree about religious teachings; we are
not free to ask our government to settle the argument. The government
must back off and allow all of us maximum latitude to believe or
disbelieve as our consciences direct us.

As the founder of the Freedom from Religion Foundation Anne Nicol
Gaylor has always said: "You can't have religious freedom without the
freedom to dissent."


[Dan Barker is co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation in
Madison. Dan Barker is co-president of the Freedom from Religion
Foundation in Madison.]