The Sun newspaper's story purportedly covering the crèche issue was as imbalanced a report as its editorial was superficial.
The story devoted two paragraphs to Councilman Sebastiani’s arguments, and a full paragraph in agreement with it by a spokesperson for the Knights of Columbus. Exactly one sentence in opposition to the proposal from retired minister David McCracken was quoted, and acknowledgement of the “no” vote cast by Mayor Cohen.
At the council meeting about a dozen people spoke against Sebastiani’s proposal to bring back the crèche, and to open up the Plaza for religious displays. All religions that is – presumably on their major holidays as well. A broad range of objections were voiced at the meeting ranging from the First Amendment’s establishing of what later became known as the separation of church and state, to the unclear meaning and implementation of “content-neutral” used in the proposal, to the many policy implementation questions that were brought up. None of this showed up in the reporter’s story.
The nativity scene editorial praised the council for its “open-mindedness” in deliberating Sebastiani’s proposal, and admired a point brought up maintaining that the crèche is “public art,” and therefore is okay on government property. If a plastic mold representing the manger scene is “art,” then what is the Pieta?
Proponent of having religious displays (for 28 days), Councilman Ken Brown, gets to put his message in the editorial, but not one word of counter argument from the many who spoke in opposition. The editorial makes the claim that “… the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in order to protect religion from government not the other way around.” Is that so? No reference is cited to back this claim.
Even though the intent of the very first sentence of the Constitution regarding religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” has been debated down through the ages, given its historical context, and other writings of Madison and Jefferson, the principal framers of the document, it clearly indicates that there should be no endorsing of religion, or prohibition against any religion on the part of the government. In fact it was so important to establish this fundamental caveat that it was purposely given top billing. The founding fathers sought to create a government based on rational justification for its policies, not theocratic doctrines, biblical or otherwise. “Religion flourishes in greater purity, without, than with, the aid of government.” Those are the words of James Madison, author of the First Amendment.
Then there are administrative policy implementation questions that were never addressed by the council or staff. For example: What will be the nature of the display, i.e., statues or symbols only, or words too? If words are allowed, what words will be allowed or not, and why? Any limitation on size or lighting? If there’s vandalism who bears the cost? Will insurance be required and if so, what type and in what amount? How much will additional use impact Plaza grounds? And suppose a generally disdained radical religious group wants a spot on the Plaza. If such decisions have to be content-neutral, is that okay?
Mr. Sebastiani says that he wants to change the city policy in order to promote freedom of religious expression, and that the current policy stifles that. That’s hard to accept considering that religious speech occurs in myriad religious venues in our country practically every day of the year. Free religious speech is practiced in abundance on radio and TV, and in countless newspapers, books and magazines. There has never been any attempt in this or any other town to bridle or restrict free expression of religion. But it is a completely different matter than having an overtly religious display on city property in front of City Hall for 28 days. That strongly suggests endorsement of religion by government, and in my estimation puts us on the slipperiest of slopes.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
The Creche War- Take Two
On Wednesday the city council will take up again the question of whether to have a nativity scene in the Plaza at Christmas. For years this was a common occurrence until around 1990 when questions came up regarding the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution directing that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", and a vigorous and at times vitriolic debate consumed many in the Sonoma community. The opinions and positions grew so divisive that leaders in the religious community advised having the creche or other iconography relegated to church grounds, and leave the Plaza - local government property - unadorned of any religious symbols. It's commonly agreed that Xmas trees, Santa Claus, plastic reindeer and the like do not solely promote a religious message, and are more in keeping with traditional holiday symbols. In fact a result of the bitter divide among our populace was an establishment of a Plaza Display Policies regulating Plaza use for religious and other purposes.
Councilman Sebastiani has decided he wants to revisit the Plaza Use Policies regarding the holiday display policy, and he'll present his thoughts on the matter at the upcoming city council meeting on the 19th at the Vet's. Building. Early in his nascent career in local politics, Mr. Sebastiani expressed a fervent wish to reinstate the nativity scene on the Plaza at Xmas time, drudging up past feelings that wracked the community 17 years ago, and will probably reoccur this go around. Oddly, Sebastiani, who has steadfastly refused to consider national issues such as the Iraq war or immigration reform despite their having substantial and demonstrable local effects and impacts, is all too willing to take on a Constitutional issue that has been debated practically since its inception. How he has managed in his mind to tease this 1st Amendment directive, which is clearly an overarching issue of national scope, is a puzzle that the councilman will have to unravel for our edification at the meeting.
Here's my thoughts on the matter. First let’s begin with a little history lesson.
The birth of this nation ushered in a fundamental shift as to the purpose and the structure of government. It saw the end of monarchy and the flowering of democracy – a profound and radical departure. Under governance by monarchy or totalitarian dictate the people served the government. In a democracy the people were the government – elected and interchangeable by popular vote. The government became that which served the public interest.
The people who crafted the Constitution that would establish this new and ground-breaking form of government were well aware of the pitfalls of policy set by decree at the whim or pleasure of a single individual – a king or potentate – or policy set by powerful institutions such as the military or predominant religious groups to serve their particular interests. Therefore they constructed a document of laws that focused on individual freedoms, individual human rights, a press free to go wherever it wanted, and no religious restrictions or adoption of any religious belief by the government. They knew this was a key element in forming a union between disparate factions with differing objectives. They knew that church and state must stay separate for the sake of building a coherent though diverse populace, which is what they were then, and what we are now. And it’s a good thing.
A nativity scene crèche honoring the birth of Jesus Christ is Christian iconography of the highest order. It celebrates one religion – one religious point of view among many others. If a particular religion can place its bedrock theological symbol on property owned by our government, and therefore owned in common by the public, it violates the Constitutional separation of church and state. In the words of James Madison, author of the First Amendment, "Religion flourishes in greater purity, without, than with, the aid of Government." From time to time religious groups have tried end-runs around the First Amendment's attempt to keep church and state separate by incorporating other religions symbols in conjunction with Christian ones on government property, in essence saying, "see, this isn't government holding one religion over any other, so it's not really unconstitutional." Nevertheless this is still an attempt to water down the very first directive of the Bill of Rights, wisely telling us to keep government and religion separate; for an intermingling of the two profound influences constructs the slipperiest of all slopes. As was said in one Supreme Court decision: "A union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion."
Contrary to the belief of some we are not a Christian nation. We are a nation comprised of a majority who believe in one form or another of Christianity, but we also have populations of people who think and believe differently, religiously and otherwise. If we impose the sanctity or value of one religion over another then we are in essence no different than Islamic fundamentalists who insist reality must be seen their way. There is no difference between a "Christian" nation or an "Islamic" state except except the divergent world views and ideologies. They are both religious governments based on religious ideals and exclusionary by their very nature. Is this what we envision for our country - to become religiously doctrinaire?
We are not a Christian nation. Our form of government is non-sectarian. Those chosen by the people to govern are of varying religious and even non- religious beliefs, as is our populace. In fact the form of our government borrowed heavily from Greek and Roman predecessors, not the bible. Welcome to the age of reason.
We must retain this basic, fundamental principle of democracy or we will lose that which set us apart at its inception from the other nations on Earth. We must maintain the separation of church and state so that all may choose to worship or not to worship a religious or non-sectarian belief or philosophy as they so wish – without sanction or interference by the government. I firmly believe that this is what the Constitutional framers had in mind, but interpretations have been debated for hundreds of years and obviously will continue. In his zeal to impose his views on the matter, Sebstiani has reopened this kettle of fish, so I expect this battle will rage on. And to what end really? There are plenty of churches in Sonoma and no dearth of creches, etc., adorn their properties. Or is this just more divisive behavior we've come to expect from the Republican religious right-wing who rejoice in driving ideological wedges between those who disagree with their aims? We'll see.
Councilman Sebastiani has decided he wants to revisit the Plaza Use Policies regarding the holiday display policy, and he'll present his thoughts on the matter at the upcoming city council meeting on the 19th at the Vet's. Building. Early in his nascent career in local politics, Mr. Sebastiani expressed a fervent wish to reinstate the nativity scene on the Plaza at Xmas time, drudging up past feelings that wracked the community 17 years ago, and will probably reoccur this go around. Oddly, Sebastiani, who has steadfastly refused to consider national issues such as the Iraq war or immigration reform despite their having substantial and demonstrable local effects and impacts, is all too willing to take on a Constitutional issue that has been debated practically since its inception. How he has managed in his mind to tease this 1st Amendment directive, which is clearly an overarching issue of national scope, is a puzzle that the councilman will have to unravel for our edification at the meeting.
Here's my thoughts on the matter. First let’s begin with a little history lesson.
The birth of this nation ushered in a fundamental shift as to the purpose and the structure of government. It saw the end of monarchy and the flowering of democracy – a profound and radical departure. Under governance by monarchy or totalitarian dictate the people served the government. In a democracy the people were the government – elected and interchangeable by popular vote. The government became that which served the public interest.
The people who crafted the Constitution that would establish this new and ground-breaking form of government were well aware of the pitfalls of policy set by decree at the whim or pleasure of a single individual – a king or potentate – or policy set by powerful institutions such as the military or predominant religious groups to serve their particular interests. Therefore they constructed a document of laws that focused on individual freedoms, individual human rights, a press free to go wherever it wanted, and no religious restrictions or adoption of any religious belief by the government. They knew this was a key element in forming a union between disparate factions with differing objectives. They knew that church and state must stay separate for the sake of building a coherent though diverse populace, which is what they were then, and what we are now. And it’s a good thing.
A nativity scene crèche honoring the birth of Jesus Christ is Christian iconography of the highest order. It celebrates one religion – one religious point of view among many others. If a particular religion can place its bedrock theological symbol on property owned by our government, and therefore owned in common by the public, it violates the Constitutional separation of church and state. In the words of James Madison, author of the First Amendment, "Religion flourishes in greater purity, without, than with, the aid of Government." From time to time religious groups have tried end-runs around the First Amendment's attempt to keep church and state separate by incorporating other religions symbols in conjunction with Christian ones on government property, in essence saying, "see, this isn't government holding one religion over any other, so it's not really unconstitutional." Nevertheless this is still an attempt to water down the very first directive of the Bill of Rights, wisely telling us to keep government and religion separate; for an intermingling of the two profound influences constructs the slipperiest of all slopes. As was said in one Supreme Court decision: "A union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion."
Contrary to the belief of some we are not a Christian nation. We are a nation comprised of a majority who believe in one form or another of Christianity, but we also have populations of people who think and believe differently, religiously and otherwise. If we impose the sanctity or value of one religion over another then we are in essence no different than Islamic fundamentalists who insist reality must be seen their way. There is no difference between a "Christian" nation or an "Islamic" state except except the divergent world views and ideologies. They are both religious governments based on religious ideals and exclusionary by their very nature. Is this what we envision for our country - to become religiously doctrinaire?
We are not a Christian nation. Our form of government is non-sectarian. Those chosen by the people to govern are of varying religious and even non- religious beliefs, as is our populace. In fact the form of our government borrowed heavily from Greek and Roman predecessors, not the bible. Welcome to the age of reason.
We must retain this basic, fundamental principle of democracy or we will lose that which set us apart at its inception from the other nations on Earth. We must maintain the separation of church and state so that all may choose to worship or not to worship a religious or non-sectarian belief or philosophy as they so wish – without sanction or interference by the government. I firmly believe that this is what the Constitutional framers had in mind, but interpretations have been debated for hundreds of years and obviously will continue. In his zeal to impose his views on the matter, Sebstiani has reopened this kettle of fish, so I expect this battle will rage on. And to what end really? There are plenty of churches in Sonoma and no dearth of creches, etc., adorn their properties. Or is this just more divisive behavior we've come to expect from the Republican religious right-wing who rejoice in driving ideological wedges between those who disagree with their aims? We'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
