The ACLU attacks a West Virginian community

[jackofallgeeks]

This is a (small instance of a larger) hot topic, though I have to confess that I'm really sure why. Particularly in West Virginia. I can maybe acknowledge certain concerns in similar cases elsewhere (though I think they're all rather ridiculous when it comes down to it, my own religious affiliation and thoughts on current interpretation of "separation of Church and State" as far aside as I can consciously put them). But especially in this case, where they were able to raise a couple hundred thousand dollars of private money from the community the school serves in order to fight the suit (with over 6,000 coming from the students themselves)... It seems to me the only one being offended here is the ACLU, who should really leave well enough alone a situation they have no part in.

Comments

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

Re: the ACLU. Your comments seemed to imply that they were cynically pursuing a hidden agenda - I only meant to point out that their agenda seemed to be pretty much what they said it was.

Re: The picture of Krishna. Like I said, I think a lot depends on circumstances. I'd be concerned about a picture of Krishna, too. If the situation really was, "everyone can put up a picture of whoever they like," then I think it should be regarded as fine, 1st-amendment-wise.

The problem is that things aren't usually that clear-cut, in the real world. To return to Phelps for a second - his "church" wanted to put up a sort of monument in the park where Matthew Sheppard was killed saying something to the effect of "On [DATE], Matthew Sheppard descended into hell on this spot." Of course, people were appalled. The problem was that the park had a number of other religious items around, and had previously had a policy of, basically, "anyone who wants to put up a religious marker can." Their solution was to take down *all* the religious markers, because they couldn't bar Phelps on any grounds other than that they didn't like *his* religious views.

That's of course more extreme than a Jesus portrait. But I can't usually hang up whatever I like in the school halls. So it would be very easy, e.g., for my Hare Krishna principal to make it very difficult for me to get my Jesus picture up, by stonewalling me, saying there was no room, etc. Meanwhile, Krishna smiles beatifically from every wall (cf., try to get a Church built in Turkey. Now try to get a mosque built. They'll *tell* you it's about building codes, etc...). A court faced with trying to figure out if I couldn't get Jesus hung because of discrimination or because of legitimate administrative reasons is going to have a tough time. As is one trying to decide if Krishna is hanging up there because the school wants to push Hare Krishna on me, or whether it's up there because there's a committment to showing the sweep of great human religions (cf. all those cases where the ten commandments are hung next to, say, Hammurabi's code, and the courts have to worry about whether there's a "religious intent."). Not letting a state agent engage in *any* sort of religious expression is often just a clearer standard to apply. Having no religious art on the walls is also less cluttered-looking than having *everyone's*...

Re: the grey area. I think, e.g., the abortion issue shows exactly what I mean about the difficulty. Sure, it's in some sense about personhood. But there's a lot of religious stuff involved. Should your views on personhood not count because they're explicitly based on religion (some political theorists, like Rawls, have suggested as much)? That seems unfair, but at the same time, you're making arguments that I can't even accept the premises of, and it seems unfair that you should get to define "person" using religious arguments, with consequences for me, yet still say I have freedom of religious conscience. The arguments for and against allowing abortion are a largely inseparable mixture of explicitly religious and non-religious ones, and it's hard to say when they get "too" religious.

Re: the majority. Sure, there should be some balancing of rights going on. And it's hard to argue that we should really come down hard on such a trivial case. But at the same time, it's not as if Christians in West Virginia must practice their dark religion in secret. I don't think either preventing a Jesus picture from being put up in a public place (when there are still plenty of private opportunities) is a grave violation of Christians' rights nor is allowing a Jesus picture a grave violation of non-Christians'. I have trouble balancing two such frivolous concerns against each other. :)

Though, as a non-Christian, I would point out that I think sometimes Christians don't fully appreciate the way these low-level things can get grating. You'll notice that it's really rarely anyone is fighting about those pictures of Krishna hanging about everywhere...