No, I'm not referring to the somewhat charming Tim Allen movie. I'm referring to a rather pathetic effort by lawmakers around the country to circumvent the First Amendment.
Every December, courthouse lawns (and other public properties) nationwide are converted into religious advertisements, usually by the display of a nativity scene. Now, as we all know, this is wrong. The display of a religious symbol on government-owned property is in violation of the Establishment Clause.
But there's another clause that comes into play, here. You see, when nativity scenes are accompanied by non-religious displays, such as snowmen, reindeer, and such, the religious display magically transforms into just another secular diorama. (Actually, it's usually referred to as "The Reindeer Clause," but c'mon… "The Santa Clause" just makes more sense.)
Now, this is the most transparent ruse. As I pointed out in a recent meeting of my freethought group (which meets in a bookstore), it's like saying that a Bible will become a cookbook by placing it on a shelf full of culinary titles.
This same deception is used in relation to the Ten Commandments. Standing alone, they're a religious document. But hang them on a wall beside The Constitution, the Magna Carta, and the Declaration of Independence, and somehow the religious aspect of the Commandments seems to vanish.
For some obscure reason, lawmakers fail to see the obvious logical flaws with these arguments, and those of us who protest these displays are often faced with the less desirable "Plan B" attack. This is to demand equal time for other displays.
For example, when a protest of a Ten Commandments monument on First Amendment grounds was thrown out, a local group begged for equal time, asking for their monument to also be featured in the public arena. This group is Summum, and even a cursory glance at their website will show that they're a little off the beaten path. And this is probably why their efforts in this paid off.
Naturally, the lawmakers in Salt Lake City didn't like the Summum stuff, and denied them the right to put up their monument, featuring their creeds. And in so doing, they shot themselves in the collective foot. When one religious group was denied this right, all religious groups had to be so denied. And the Ten Commandments came down.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has fought similar battles all over the country, asking for equal time in putting up monuments or signs near nativity scenes and Commandment plaques. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. But in any situation, this is the approach they'd rather not use. It is, after all, a First Amendment issue, no matter how you slice it.
But if this is what it takes, then we need to pursue it. We need to insist on displaying things that the zealots don't want to see. We need to show them how it feels to have to look upon something distasteful seemingly being promoted by a government that is ostensibly "for the people."
Recently in the local newspaper, a Catholic woman rightly protested the fact that a prayer was given at the beginning of a government meeting for which she was present. She saw that this was inappropriate, even though she's a religious woman, but others took offense. One individual stated in reply that no prayer should ever be viewed as "contemptible."
Once again, it was time to turn the tables. My reply asked if this individual would find prayers to Satan (or a number of other mythological characters) "contemptible," or at the very least, "inappropriate."
As I've said in these pages before, we in the freethought movement must arm ourselves with mirrors, just to show our antagonists what it would be like if the tables were turned. Perhaps then they'll understand that the wall of separation between church and state is a defensive wall for both parties.
