In one of the first posts at this site, Bradlaugh noted the flap in Washington state about how Gov. Christine Gregoire had supposedly — in Bill O’Reilly’s words — “insulted Christians all over the world” by ordering/allowing the adding of a plaque with an in-your-face atheist message to the holiday decorations (which included a Nativity scene) at a state office building.
Who brought the red tape?
Most of us, including me, took exception in one way or another to the atheist plaque or at least its wording, and I speculated that Gov. Gregoire’s office might have responded to the atheist group’s request in some way more likely to engender peace among all believers and good will toward men at the holiday season (more).
Well, I should have realized at the time that all public controversies are more complicated than Bill O’Reilly makes them sound, and in particular I of all people should have been more alert to ask the question “Who was suing or threatening to sue whom?”
Now I read this from Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars:
The governor has no choice, folks. There is a legal settlement, negotiated by the ADF, that requires that all individuals and groups have equal access. This was done specifically to get access for a nativity scene. This reminds me very much of the school in Virginia, where a Christian group sued the school to be allowed to send fliers home with students. Then the next year, when a humanist group used the same process to advertise a humanist summer camp, they were outraged.* They’ve used equal access arguments to get their foot in the door, then they want to slam that door on others.
The ADF stands for Alliance Defense Fund, one of the hyperlitigious Christian Right lawyer strike forces that I expect to be covering often on this site. And while Gov. Gregoire is a liberal Democrat, the state’s highly regarded Republican attorney general, Rob McKenna, released a joint statement with the governor explaining why the state felt that it had no choice and incidentally making clear who the litigious party was in all this: the ADF.
Americans United also covers the controversy:
The ADF was ecstatic over the settlement, so it seems rather funny that this year, when an atheist group wanted to [avail itself of the settlement’s terms and] display its own sign, that suddenly O’Reilly wants to point his finger at the governor, not his allies who started this mess.
It still seems faintly incredible to me that the ADF could sue to force the insertion of a Nativity scene in a state office building whose managers would have preferred innocuous holly-and-candy-cane displays.** But clearly I should be paying more attention to this area of the law.
*P.S. See comments, in which a commenter notes, and Brayton agrees, that this wording is faulty and should not have identified the group that filed the original school lawsuit as the same group that was outraged over its later implementation.
P.P.S. The settlement indicates that the sequence of events was as follows: 1) Capitol had been allowing “holiday tree” with no apparent sectarian content; 2) in effort to be even-handed, authorities granted request to add menorah; 3) presence of menorah allowed ADF to sue arguing that sectarian symbols were on display so that nativity had to be added too.
Religions seek to grow. Those that didn’t have long since perished, each silently disappearing and forgotten; a natural selection on a cultural scale. It is not so much the focused intention of a motivated individual as it is the sum of its followers, all shaping their lives around a belief system that is so acculturated into their being as to be inseparable, each trying to prevent those around them from falling into sin by steering them down a path to salvation.
By venturing out of the realm of souls and into the real world, religion becomes subject to its rules. It is not free to go to the airport in a veil, to sacrifice heathens upon a mountain top, or to occupy land simply because it is holy. It is a double edged sword. The theology in power gets their god entrusted on our money, their morality made law, and the security of not having another religion in their place, yet they must accept women into their leadership, silence their hate for rival gods, and provide marriage ceremonies for gay couples.
-Cut from my blog post: Why Does Religion Seek Out a Place in Government?
As much as I find the plaque to be rude, I can see that as part of the point. Parody religions like IPU and the Pastafarians seek to turn the routes created by religious pathogens against them. By putting up something offensive using exactly the same route of justification, they aren’t seeking atheist conversions, they are sending the message that government isn’t a free ride for Christian propaganda. When the facts are on your side, you can let entropy do the work.
Didn’t the Governor “force” the issue by accepting a menorah a few years back?
I agree that this issue is not simply what O’Reilly makes it to be, but it seems like another case of a politician not knowing the law, then blaming the citizenry when they call her on it.
Pingback: Nativity-scene litigation
I’m less concerned about the fact of the display than I am the wording of the display. It seemed like a taunt to me. Unfortunately, all of us unbelieving types get smeared with the same broad brush. To Christians, slapping people in the face is just what atheists do.
Not necessarily. Sometimes playing hard-to-get is a better strategy. The most effective way to catch people isn’t always to pursue them.
Can you give me an example?
The nativity scene symbolizes Christianity, but the plaque does not symbolize atheism, it’s a critique of religion. An appropriate atheist display would be a Corbusier chair with an empty glass jar placed upon it.
Right, although that is an issue of the tactics of atheists, and not the legality of the message itself. I may disagree with the likely efficacy of such an in-your-face approach, but I have no doubt that it should be allowed.
(And frankly, I doubt the sign, and thus this issue, would be getting the attention it is if the message were not so “strident”, so in terms of a long-range strategy it actually may be effective.)
The Druze.
http://i-cias.com/e.o/druze.htm
Perhaps not the best example because they don’t really want conversions (so they would only “grow” as in-group birth rates rise), but….they are a good example or a religion that has been around a long time without seeking to “grow” in the first place.
The odd thing about them, especially for a middle-eastern religion, is that they do NOT seek more “market share” so to speak. In fact, they seem to keep their own precepts shrouded in mystery, even to some of their own members (to a degree) for what seems like largely defensive reasons.
Atheists making use of laws designed for religionists reminds me of the question: is atheism a type of religion, or is religion just another type of philosophy?
Thanks A-Bax, that is fascinating. I admit my knowledge of obscure religions is about as deep as my knowledge about obscure cheeses; This one stinks, that one isn’t too bad…
I note that they do breed and convert their children (or are they born with it?), and that line about ‘no conversion is allowed, neither out of, or into, the religion’ is a bit foreboding. What do they do to deserters?
But, point taken.
The odd thing about them, especially for a middle-eastern religion, is that they do NOT seek more “market share” so to speak. In fact, they seem to keep their own precepts shrouded in mystery, even to some of their own members (to a degree) for what seems like largely defensive reasons.
There are plenty of ethno-religious sects in the Middle East besides the Druze. Alawites, Yezidis and Mandaeans come to mind. The Ismailis of Yemen also don’t engage in much outreach from what I know. The reason they do not accept converts is pretty straightforward: the Sunni powers that be would come down on them harder if they engaged in too much outreach. The Muslim derived groups emerged in the period when Sunni-Shia differences had not crystallized and there was still more fluidity in religious identity and what it meant to be Muslim. This is a major reason why religions turn into ethno-religions which don’t proselytize, threats from the majority. It happened to Judaism very formally in both the Islamic and Christian world, but many Eastern Christian groups in the Middle East are the same. It also happened to Parsis in Gujarat, and to a lesser extent to Syrian Christians in Kerala.
Good point (thanks for extra info on other ethno-religious sects, btw). I always wondered what made middle-eastern religions so “hyper-competitive”. I mean, within Judaism and Christianity, the very first commandment is one of fealty to the preferred god over (presumably) other viable candidates. Islam is surely a *jealous* religion. And here you have Hume pointing out how other permutations on the familiar Abrahamic themes (Druze tenets/traditions, Alawite tenets/traditions, etc.) basically have taken defensive crouches over the years to as to not incur the wrath of the more successful local religions.
Is this feature more pronounced in the middle-east than elsewhere? For some vague reason, I always thought it was. I could be wrong (obviously), but I always had the sense that the far-eastern religions of Buddhism, Taoism, and the various strains of Hinduism weren’t as concerned with the worship of “false idols”, so to speak, as the Abrahamic faiths.
Is that so? If yes, any ideas why? Thanks all.
Best,
Is this feature more pronounced in the middle-east than elsewhere?
Yes. I think it is.
but I always had the sense that the far-eastern religions of Buddhism, Taoism, and the various strains of Hinduism weren’t as concerned with the worship of “false idols”, so to speak, as the Abrahamic faiths.
I think this is true. Three points though:
1) The Abrahamic influence across the world has led to a reconstruction of Dharmic religious sects and an integration of the norms of jealousy and exclusivism. The most explicit and obvious case of this to my mind was the Buddhist reform movements in 19th century Sri Lanka. They turned Buddhism into a vehicle for Sinhala national identity, and Protestantized its outlook. In Sri Lanka most of the Protestant Sinhalese re-converted back to Buddhism over the past few centuries. In India Hindutva ideologues have clearly been influenced Abrahamic religions, though of course they might not know it is Abrahamic influence, some would assert that they are actually going back to the original Vedic Hinduism which existed before the rise of “Puranic” Hinduism.
2) I would modulate #1, noting that the first missionary religion in the world was Dharmic, Buddhism. There are in fact conjectures by some intellectual historians that aspects of Buddhist organization, such as monasticism, influenced Abrahamic religion (specifically, the Essene sects as well as Christianity). Buddhism’s rise in India and East Asia was met with some religious conflict. There was an anti-Buddhist reaction in Tibet which is not so dissimilar from what we know of pagan counter-reactions to Christianization in Europe. Similarly, there was an anti-Buddhist reaction by conservatives in Japan in the wake of the innovations of prince Shotoku. In China, there was a major clampdown on “foreign religions,” which included Buddhism, in the 9th century. And so forth. Qualitatively religious conflict like this seems different that the monopolistic power-grabs attempted by Islam and Christianity. Buddhism in Tibet, China and Japan absorbed the local religious substrate within its own structure (the Dalai Lama is on good terms with leaders of the indigenous Bon religion, though there is some evidence that Bon itself might have been a local Tibetan synthesis derived from Zoroastrianism). One could argue that Christianity and Islam did not do this. But one could then point out the integration of local pagan gods into Christianity through the emergence of an enormous constellation of saints (e.g., St. Brigid), and the integration into Christianity of various pagan motifs (virgin birth), structures (the early “cell” organization might have been modeled on Epicurean cells) and ideas (the influence of Neoplatonism and the education of various Church Fathers in Greek philosophy). One could make the same case for aspects of Islam and Judaism.
3) There are instances of explicit interreligious conflict which is very familiar to Westerners. In South India there were wars between Jain and conventional Hindu kings (conventional because many Hindus consider Jainism a sect of Hinduism, the Shramana movement), and Jainism was to a large extent extirpated due to the eventual victory of Hindu potentates (though a rump do remain do remain in Karnataka). In India the decline of Buddhism seems to be analogous to what happened to Greco-Roman paganism, once the elites stopped patronizing the religion it slowly went into a gradual decline. The Pala dynasty of Bengal in the 10th century were the last great Buddhist patrons, and Bengal was not surprisingly the last region of mainland South Asia where Buddhist intellectual activity was robust (some Buddhists from Bengal ended up influencing Tibetan Buddhism).
I wish there was a way to quantitize these observations….
Taoists, certain types of Judaism… depending on how we define ‘growth’, even the Amish. (You may feel that their extraordinarily high birthrates disqualify them.)
If we shift the discussion to perpetuation, rather than growth or evangelism, I think things would be clearer. Different religions clearly adopt varying strategies for persistance: some are r-type, some k-type. Some actively seek new members from outside, others encourage internal reproduction of members, some seek wide appeal, others specialized in few but dedicated members, etc.
I touched on this controversy in a blog post on my site a few days ago. Bottom line is that most of us in Washington are embarrassed by this unnecessary drama.
“The nativity scene symbolizes Christianity, but the plaque does not symbolize atheism, it’s a critique of religion. An appropriate atheist display would be a Corbusier chair with an empty glass jar placed upon it.”
Who says that the Christians get to establish what is, or is not, appropriate, by virtue of what they chose to promote.
You quoted Brayton’s claim that a Christian group” sued for the right to send home Christian flyers and the next year “they” (that is, the same group)opposed sending home atheist flyers. I did some quick research online and could find nothing other than reports that individual teachers raised concerns about the atheist flyers. Can you provide me with a link or citation that supports Brayton, or does he not have to meet the same standards as O’Reilly?
The commenter above is correct. It was Liberty Counsel that sued on behalf of a Christian group in Virginia, but they were not the same group that wanted the flier distribution ended when a humanist group wanted to do the same thing. It was local churches, parents and teachers who wanted an end to the flier distribution. My use of pronouns was careless as I only intended “they” to mean the larger conservative Christian community rather than the particular organization that sued. I should have been more specific, as I was elsewhere in the post when I pointed out that the ADF, which sued to get access for the nativity scene in Washington, was not complaining about the inclusion of the atheist sign but that it was others who were doing so. Neither the ADF nor Liberty Counsel (which I regard as considerably less credible than the ADF) are responsible for the hypocrisy of those who undoubtedly cheered their victories on behalf of equal access and then decided that such equal access should, in fact, be unequal.
Mr. Brayton – Thank you for your gracious correction.