The Folly of the Anti-religious

Oh ye of little...lack of faith? How else might we address the latest trampling of religious free speech rights? It seems that an Ohio school district has voted to keep a portrait of Jesus on display despite a lawsuit seeking to have it removed. The ACLU and the Freedom from Religion Foundation insist that it must go, as it promotes one religion. The District asserts that the portrait belongs to the student group which put it up, and as as such, is a reflection of their right to freedom of speech.

We've never understood the threat to anyone's core beliefs based on the display of symbols on public property. We don't pass mosques or temples on private property adorned with Islamic or Jewish symbols and immediately begin to question our Christianity. But we should, shouldn't we, if a simple symbol might shatter our beliefs? Quite frankly, if a religious symbol or icon in a public place should be such a threat to any given person's world view, then it should be a relatively equal threat anywhere. It makes more sense to be against all religious symbols displayed anywhere at any time than to be so vehemently opposed to them merely because they are on a school or courthouse wall.

To be fair, symbols can be very powerful things, particularly religious ones. That's why Christians like portraits of Christ in the first place. Ye even then the meaning sort of pre-dates the symbol; it's infused into the symbol based on beliefs already extant. Why should we thus expect that a non-Christian would automatically and inevitably become drawn towards the creed it represents, beyond his own free will to accept it? It simply doesn't wash. Symbols, though powerful, aren't catch all be alls. Few people become Chicago Cubs fans merely because of the cute little bear symbols the club at times might display.

Still, it will of course be argued that religious symbols on public property constitute an establishment of religion. Even taking that as a given, which we don't, but, for the sake of argument will this moment only, what does this matter say about freedom of speech and expression? Shouldn't we be able to openly express our sentiments on public grounds more so than anywhere else, if freedom of speech is to be truly prized? Especially when we consider that freedom of expression is so often covered by 0ur tax dollars, and in ways which vary from the merely insipid to the truly degrading, why can our tax dollars not support a simple portrait of Christ in a public school hallway?

So we have a clash of rights. The question then becomes: which is the more important right? Freedom of speech or the so called freedom from religion? All else being perhaps equal, it is better to support a positive right than a negative one. Our vote is for freedom of speech, even if causes someone to cower at an image of Jesus Christ.