Angels We Have Heard On High…And Had Them Removed
The athiests are at it again, ever vigilant in protecting us from the scourge of religion run amok in the public square. According to an article by Joshua Rhett Miller published on FoxNews.com, Sonoma County (California) Administrator Chris Thomas ordered the pictured angel and all other “religious” symbols removed from Christmas trees on display in all government buildings after a single complaint was filed by 65-year-old atheist Irv Sutley. I say a single complaint with confidence, because Jim Toomey, public information officer for Sonoma County, said that he knew of no prior complaints about the Christmas trees. It is ironic that in a supposedly democratic nation a single citizen can impose his will on every other citizen in an entire county of the populous state of California without a hearing, review, or a vote.
To be fair, Sutley claims that the religious symbols on the Christmas trees violate a 1989 Supreme Court ruling stating that such displays constitute an illegal endorsement of Christian doctrine. Even if the Supreme Court has ruled as Sutley says, the assertion is utter nonsense, no matter who is making it. If putting religious symbols on a Christmas tree is government endorsement of the Christian religion, then demanding their removal amounts to government endorsement of the atheist religion. Mr. Sutley’s worldview is clearly influencing his interpretation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The only way that Mr. Sutley can claim that the First Amendment applies to the presence of Christian (or Buddhist or Judaist or “anything of a religious nature”, as he says he opposes in the article) symbols and not their government-mandated absence is to assume first of all that atheism is not a religion or belief system (which, of course, it is), and second of all that the government enforcing removal of such religious symbols does not in any way prohibit the free exercise of religion by those citizens who are not atheists (which, of course, it does). It appears that none of the Sonoma County officials involved in this incident have bothered to examine these claims for logical consistency. Instead, they simply bowed to the wishes of a single man who said the symbols were “extremely offensive” and part of the “cult” of Christianity.
I just don’t believe government has the right to intrude on anyone and force them into sectarian behavior. – Irv Sutley
There are several questions I would like to ask about this statement.
- Does the fact that Mr. Sutley does not believe the government has a particular right mean that it, in fact, does not have that right?
- From whence does the government actually derive its “rights”, or more accurately, its powers and authorities? Realize, gentle reader, that any answer to this question other than “Irv Sutley and/or those who believe like him” causes his argument to fall apart.
- Assuming Mr. Sutley is correct, and the government does not have the right to intrude on anyone and force them into sectarian behavior, what constitutes sectarian behavior? The Random House Dictionary defines sectarian as “narrowly confided or limited in interest, purpose, scope, etc.” Is it not obvious that Mr. Sutley’s statement is completely arbitrary? One could just as easily say that prohibiting the display of Christian symbols on a Christmas tree intrudes on Christians and forces them into sectarian behavior, namely, that behavior limited to the interest, purpose, and scope of the atheist. Mr. Sutley’s statement is self-refuting and hypocritical, for in making the claim he is doing the very thing he claims to oppose.
The Sonoma County government’s response to Mr. Sutley’s complaint is equally irrational.
To avoid any controversy and to satisfy this gentlemen’s concerns, the ornaments were removed. – Jim Toomey
The second part of this response makes sense. The ornaments were removed to satisfy Irv Sutley’s concerns. However, the first part can be true only if the atheist position is exclusively non-controversial. This can hardly be the case. The Sonoma County government has simply traded one controversy for another, favoring one worldview over another. I wonder if a single Christian were to respond with the complaint I have outlined here, namely, that prohibiting the display of Christian symbols is an illegal prohibition of the free exercise of religion, if the Sonoma County Administrator’s Office would respond as quickly and easily by replacing the symbols. If the answer is “no”, and it likely is, then the government, be it the local government of Sonoma County, the U.S. Supreme Court, or both have taken a position of favoritism toward atheism and prejudice against Christianity.
It is not clear from the article whether Mr. Sutley presumes that his position is somehow “neutral”, so I will not assume that he is claiming neutrality without sufficient knowledge. I will, however, remind the reader that Mr. Sutley’s position is not neutral. Neutrality when it comes to worldviews (belief systems or religions – whatever term you prefer) is impossible. The very nature of Christianity demands that everyone choose a side. “He who is not with me is against me,” Jesus said (Matthew 12:30). Perhaps the most important thing we believers in Christ should take away from this is the fact that the easiest way for a local government to avoid controversy is to endorse atheism. What does that say about our efforts to be salt and light in our world?
No comments yet.
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
