Written by Don Byrd
One reason among many to oppose government displays that are overtly religious, even during the holidays, is because the appearance of religious endorsement by the government marginalizes those who don’t share in the beliefs. In recent years, those marginalized citizens have adopted a new tactic, akin to: “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.” Adherents of minority faiths and proponents of atheism are asking for equal space to spread their own message alongside the rest.
In Florida, that means a “Festivus” pole (from a holiday celebration invented by writers of the TV show Seinfeld), made of empty beer cans, has joined the Nativity Scene and other religious displays at the state capitol in Tallahassee.
“I still chuckle, I literally can’t believe there will be a pile of Pabst Blue Ribbon cans in the state rotunda,” said Chaz Stevens, a Deerfield Beach resident who applied to the state Department of Management Services to put the Festivus pole on display.
Stevens, who operates a blog that focuses on South Florida politics, said the intent of the Festivus pole is to make a political statement on the need for the separation of church and state.
He compared the Festivus pole with the nativity scene as “my ridiculous statement versus what I consider, as an atheist, as their ridiculous statement.”
Meanwhile, in Oklahoma, a group claiming to worship Satan is demanding a space for a monument of their own next to the Ten Commandments monument on the state capitol grounds (The Ten Commandments display is currently the subject of a church-state lawsuit filed earlier this year by the ACLU).
In Summum, the Supreme Court said government can accept as government speech some monuments to faith in a public space while rejecting others, but emphasized that such a decision leaves the government open to claims of improper religious endorsement under the Establishment Clause. So, while it’s not likely that Oklahoma is required to accept the monument to Satan, the problems remain. Why use government resources to adopt a religious message and push the boundaries of church-state separation? It enflames cultural tensions, marginalizes those who disagree with the message, and exposes taxpayers to church-state litigation.
Nativity scenes and Ten Commandment monuments are improper government displays that undermine the soul freedom at the heart of religious belief. As the BJC says (and tweets!), “For religion to be vital, it must be voluntary.” Even where a display is constitutional, that doesn’t make it a good idea. Government does no favors to religion by promoting it. Maybe the best gift government could give this holiday season is to stay out of the religious display business altogether?
