Rooster Puke wrote:  "...  a little sympathy for all believers, Christian, atheist, or otherwise.
     The real problem is that government now intrudes into so many aspects of our lives, the public square (literally and figuratively) is now larger than ever.  If freedom of conscience is one of the hallmarks of liberty in a society, shouldn't the public square take a backseat to the profession of belief. "

This article may be well meaning but in my opinion misses the point.

First of all the article attempts to paint an equal picture between the arguments of advocates of public religion and the advocates of keeping religion private. There is no comparison, the former are trying to impose their public exercise of religious rituals, and the latter limit the degree to which it is imposed.

I will grant you that there have been ridiculous lawsuits and legal actions, such as the LA city seal action you gave as an example. Also, some of the complaints about Christmas carols are childish. But this situation has not arisen because of pro-Christian vs. anti-Christian zealots; it is primarily the result of having a public school system forced upon us. Privatize the public schools, and 90% of the examples you gave evaporate. BUT, as long as there are public schools, you cannot get away from the reality that the schools will have to constantly struggle with inane issues like the ones that arise every Christmas.

Further, I will grant you that the ACLU is an extreme leftist organization, with an especially strong antipathy for mainstream American values that it does not display towards other value systems. Every 2 or 3 years the disingenuous ACLU will take up the fight for some Nazi marching somewhere, a Rush Limbaugh or some other such nonsense as a publicity stunt: a transparent and lame attempt to sell themselves as 'even-handed'.  But, these exceptions are just that: exceptions. Along these same lines they also will take cases that are trivial in nature, but act as a means to disguise or mask the legal cases that have state and national repercussions.The ACLU agenda is fairly obvious, its collectivist clothing cannot so easily be made invisible. It is not 'American Civil Liberties' that concern them, but 'Politically Correct Orthodoxy'. 

Lastly, the goal of those people that are the strongest activist against Christian displays is not an atheist America; they are not clean enough for that. Theirs is not the atheism of an objectivist, the logical extension of his reason. Theirs is the atheism of the post-modernist European brand; an extension of their rejection of Western values. They are supremely tolerant of theisms that are some hodgepodge of new-age paganism with Eastern theisms, just as long as the focus is on non-judgmentalism and altruistic collectivism. Secularized Western Christianity is signaled out because, in spite of all its inherent contradictions, compared to Eastern Religions and the new-age claptrap; it has far too much focus on the individual, and has become far too associated with Enlightenment ideals. Ironically, their assault on secularized Christian values is in reality an assault on Western values as they see them.

But, here again I must for the most part take the side of those that oppose religious displays. Once again, in a nation that commonly violates property rights by regulating endless aspects of it and blurring the distinction between the public and the private, no one should be surprised at the results. The lawsuits against the public schools may be petty, but the reality is that as long as there are so-called 'public' schools, the arguments of the ACLU have the greater validity than those of the parents that decry the anti-Christian legal actions.

If ever there were an issue that should be a non-issue it is this one. But the 2 sides are not equal in their claims. The side tending towards 'private' religion has the greater moral high ground. The side tending towards imposing itself based on 'majority values' has no moral leg to stand on. That the majority of those same forces that pose as defenders of 'minority rights' and 'defenders of America from religious zealots' are among the most intolerant, collectivist, anti-business, and pacifistic appeasers, does not change the fact that in this specific case they have the superior argument. The same contradiction can be seen when some truly right-wing fundamentalist Christian happens to side with greater economic freedom in some instances, although his agenda as a whole is no more than the fascistic variant of his collectivist counterparts of the left.

A morally equivalent analogy may be proper in the broadest sense, if one were to expand this specific issue into a greater context, but within the limited context of this particular fight - it does not apply.

On the brighter side however, I believe that both sides are losing their ‘culture’ war. In spite of endless barrage of leftist propaganda, mainstream Americans continue to increasingly reject their insipid ideology. In spite of the dogmatic ravings and pleas of the religious fundamentalist, the nation continues towards an ever-greater secularization of its religious values. Is the trend far too slow for my taste, it sure is. Are there sensational examples that can be cited to the contrary, there sure are. But the trend is there nevertheless. The ever-increasing percentage of children being home schooled or in private schools is but one example.  This issue, politically charged as it is, will become increasingly more marginalized within the next few decades. Good riddance!

George

 

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 12/23, 11:17am)

Thanks for all the responses. Let me address some of the issues that were raised.

1) Of course, dismantling the public school system will in large measure put an end to the public face of the Christmas Wars. The truth is that the system was from its inception in ancient Sparta a machine to churn out obedient citizens who would be loyal to the state. And though central planners might not exist as such today, a dangerous orthodoxy still remains. I get this.

 2) But the choice we have isn’t between “letting all who are in that system profess their beliefs freely or forcing them into silence,” as Pukszta suggests. How about this? The teacher can profess his beliefs freely so long as it relates to the subject matter and equal energies are exerted in discussing freely opposing beliefs in an intellectual manner.

        Several weeks ago, my 1960s American History professor said in class, “Capitalists are swine. They are the bastards of society.” As a matter of teaching method, she revises history and tells it her own way—not only failing to address her rants as opinions but failing also to discuss other opinions. That is an abuse of academic freedom. And though the line might be disputed, to me it is clear.               

         A 20^th century American literature teacher assigning complete readings of Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, Anthem, We the Living, and The Romantic Manifesto is an example of abuse. But assigning a Rand book among other hallmarks of 20^th century literature is fine.

            Just because a belief is yours does not make it inappropriate. If a huge fan of Einstein is teaching physics, he can obviously teach what he believes. So, in my opinion, the line can be drawn clearly and objectively.

3) Reed might be right, for I confess I never actually counted the number of times the ACLU intervened on the side of religious expression. But I would be more tempted to believe this if Reed did not defend the ACLU in the county seal case. He writes, “In the case of the LA City seal, the case was brought only when several teachers in the government schools insisted on subjecting their pupils to long Christianist indoctrination sessions, under the pretext of teaching them the meaning of the local civic symbols.”

            So the solution is to get rid of the seal so the teachers can find a new pretext?! The Declaration of Independence has also served as a pretext. Should we get rid of that too? Of course, you see how silly this will be. It doesn’t matter why the teacher made inappropriate comments in class, but that he did. Reed’s defense of the ACLU on this case is shamefully subjective.

And so perhaps my thesis for the LA City seal section might be revised: The ACLU is using the pretext of a pretext to eliminate religion from the public square.

4) Though it certainly did not come off that way, I do not hold both sides as equal enemies of liberty. I do believe, however, that liberty is the loser in either case. When one person is saying, “Christianity is the majority religion—how dare you!” and the other is saying, “It is precisely because it’s a majority that the minority feels oppressed,” there can and must be a third voice. Our voice. The ACLU is right in some cases and the Christians are right in other cases. But the reasons they take those cases are dreadfully wrong. We should not stand by on this issue because we think that in any given case, our side is represented. Though “our side” might be looking for the verdict we want, they are not looking for the final result we need.

Adam,

I reserve the title Mr. for those whom I respect. I’ve discovered all too late that you have no intention to make this dialogue civil.

Now I don’t know why you’re digging up my past columns in desperate attempts to break me down. But since you’ve brought it up, I’ll comment.

My basic point is that government must be secure and objective—everyone must be equal under it. This is a process, not an end result. And I believe that the process too must be clean. There are some laws that guarantee freedom and others that detract from it. Stupid immigration laws detract from it. This is such a basic point.

I was arguing that in addition to laws being fair, they must also be protected. What is the use of a law if it is not enforced? What happens if the administration in charge can choose to apply some laws and not apply others? What will happen to those inalienable rights if their existence is at the hands of constantly-changing administrations?

In the context in which I was writing, I said (perhaps too boldly) that there is no difference in principle between immigration laws and robbery laws. I was commenting on the fact that they take root from the same process and a process cannot function without objectivity. If it appeared otherwise, it was due to bad articulation, not bad belief.

You missed my last point too! The law can be upheld AND we can have open immigration at the same time. THAT is the ideal. It is wrong to say one is against the other. I believe we can have both.

Also, I do not cite Ayn Rand to bolster any argument for majoritarian law. The Ayn Rand excerpt was merely a transitional paragraph from what initially seems so simple to what then becomes complex after further examination. And the issue is more complex. That is where the meaning and implications of the quote end for me. And I maintain once more that all those concepts you say I believe in, I actually reject.

 
Adam, I thought of many clever lines to say to that offensive last line of yours—the one where you said that you wished that I was never born. But discretion here is the better part of valor.