Sun's Coverage of Creche Issue Sloppy and Misleading

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.