Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Religious Discrimination or Protecting the Homeland?
There seems to be no end to the government’s infringement on our freedom of speech and religion. And now the latest excuse is that the Catholic diocese is threatening the safety of our citizens with their advertisements. An article in The Federalist explained the problem.
On October 24, the archdiocese submitted advertisements to be displayed in the DC Metro. In response, the Metro explained that the ads were not in compliance with Metro guidelines and therefore couldn’t be posted. Under those guidelines, “advertisements that promote or oppose any religion, religious practice or belief” were not permitted. They further explained that the religious scene in the ad promoted religion.
After unsuccessfully appealing to Metro officials, the diocese sued:
On Tuesday, the archdiocese filed a five-count complaint against Metro in a federal district court in Washington DC. The lawsuit alleged violations of the archdiocese’s constitutional rights to free speech and free exercise of religion, as well as a denial of equal protection and due process. A final count charged Metro violated the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The archdiocese was denied a restraining order and preliminary injunction. Federal district court judge Amy Berman Jackson explained her rationale:
The [Metro] Assistant General Manager for Customer Service, Communications, and Marketing also averred that she heard from the Metro Transit Police Department and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that running certain issue-oriented ads could pose security risks on trains and buses. One of the factors that spurred [Metro] to close its advertising forum was the submission of an ad featuring a cartoon depiction of the Prophet Mohammad. Drawing the Prophet Mohammed is highly offensive to Muslims, and [Metro] was aware that the ad was drawn at a contest where two gunmen were killed in an attempt to prevent the event.
Apparently, a government agency can limit advertising access, “…as long as the lines drawn are reasonable given the purpose of the forum involved, they do not favor one viewpoint over another and they are consistently applied.” I wonder how the Metro will explain their allowing yoga ads but not Christian ads?
But now we learn that the latest attempted terrorist attacker chose the location “…because of its Christmas themed posters,” as well as US airstrikes against ISIS.
Again, we acquiesce to terrorists even when they aren’t successful.
Was this decision against the diocese reasonable? Do you believe anti-religion forces are at work? Do you think that religiously themed posters are a problem? Do you think that all Christmas ads should be banned, including those for department stores and other retail outlets to protect our country?
Published in General
I suspect the courts would require it. Therefore, the no religion policy, either pro or anti.
There are so many gems in this one paragraph, Marci. Thank you.
And the bolded sentence may really be asking too much of them, particularly the thinking part. [sarcasm off]
Most book publishers are not run by the government, though. I think the argument is that, if the government accepts religious ads, it has to accept all religious ads and it can’t discriminate as to the religious content that’s acceptable. Even if the religious content is effectively anti-religious or otherwise offensive.
I understand that point and I understand that’s what they will say. It will work. End of case. You are correct on this point.
I’m just saying the laws are not that simple in this matter, and by not exploring their legal options more carefully, which admittedly will take some work, they are effectively using this oversimplified understanding as one more instance of driving religion from the public square. Let’s face it. This is working. Schools are terrified of any of their teachers’ saying “Merry Christmas” to someone.
The conduct of our government agencies was not a big deal when federal, state, and local government was much smaller and not running bus services. The government’s ability to affect our private society was minimal. But now that the government has seeped into every single area of human life in the United States, their policies are making a big impact. Then they step back from the damage and say, “Who me? I’m just the nameless faceless government.” But today, the government’s hiding behind this stance is having a negative impact on the country in that religion is going into hiding because of it.
Working with and around the discrimination laws is a woeful fact of life in the private sector. That’s why this is frustrating to me. Thomas Nelson has had to figure out a way to sell Bibles but not Satan’s Guide to Whatever. If ever there were a landmine business where our billion laws come into play and conflict, it’s in Bible publishing.
I would want the government bus department to go the other way and accept advertising from all IRS-recognized religions. First come, first served in selling advertising. That’s why we spend so much money on education and public libraries. Thomas Jefferson was asked one time if he could only have one, would he have public schools or public libraries. He said it would pain him greatly to have to choose, but if he could only have one, it would be public libraries. This man put his faith first in God, then in us. We need to live up to that confidence.
Trust the people riding the bus to figure out which church they want to go to.
YET!
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission has not been decided. Yet.
Double Like!
Thank you. This is what is bothering me. When the right to free religious expression collides with right to live in a country that does not have a state-supported single church, religion will usually lose. Not because it should or must but because it’s complicated and we do not want to bother to work it out intellectually.
We are headed for trouble here, and we will end up going the route of Western Europe, and the end of the story will be a completely secular society in which the nation’s children will be lost to us as they drink and do drugs because they have absolutely no purpose or direction in their life.
It doesn’t have to end this way, although I know it will. We need to promote a new understanding, a sophisticated nuanced understanding, of the relationship between church and state. An understanding that results in our encouraging religious expression, not driving it underground.
This laziness is threatening many of our freedoms, Marci. You are so right to be worried. Thank you for expressing the concerns of many of us.
I’m not sure I want the IRS in the business of recognizing the validity of religions, but I agree that the WMATA (Metro) decision to refuse the ads from the Archdiocese was wrong. Here’s an article discussing the issue. Unfortunately, the court agreed with WMATA.
For religious people, I think the choice is as follows: are you willing to accept offensive anti-religious ads as a condition of seeing pro-religious ads. WAMATA bureaucrats think the answer will be “no.” And so they ban the latter in order to avoid dealing with the blowback from the former.
Agreed, but their nonprofit, tax-exemption-qualifying division does it already.
As I’ve said, organized religion is a thread that runs everywhere.
Thank you.
You are very kind. :) :)
Prof. Phillip Hamburger’s SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE is a great, dense work demonstrating that our Supreme Court got it wrong “in the beginning”–and has built on that erroneous un-constitutional foundation ever since. Most of the “cobbling” has been done in my life-time, but I’m old. The secular design for such “cobbles” were drawn by SCOTUS before my sentience.