2008 Woodie Awards
Illini Media
WPGU
buzz
Illio
TechnographColumn: Free expression under fire
By John Bambenek
Posted: 3/8/06 Section: Opinions
On Feb. 15, 2005, Representative David Sater introduced into the Missouri General Assembly a bill that would recognize the right of the majority to express their Christian faith in public. Much hilarity ensued. The left-wing regressives and the anti-religion crowd immediately erupted into hysterics on how the Holy American Christian Theocracy was coming. You'd think that the law required burning religious minorities at the stake.
Critics of the law said that it establishes Christianity as the state's official religion and offers no protection for religious minorities. They decry the tyranny of the majority. Finding this extreme, I read the law. Not only does it establish nothing, it very clearly indicates respect should be given to religious minorities. Those who have taken recourse to the phrase "tyranny of the majority," most often wish to supplant it with the tyranny of the minority.
The law simply reinforces what should already be self-evident - people have a right to free expression of religious sentiment. It also contradicts the notion that separation of church and state requires only anti-religious speech be allowed. What is required is that the institutions of religion and the institutions of government be separate. There is a reason it is called separation of church and state, and not separation of religion and state. It certainly does not require suppression of free expression.
There are those who react to any utterance of Christianity on or near a public facility as the establishment of Christianity as the official state religion. There's only one question I have for those people:
There are Roman Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, Evangelicals, Unitarians, and so on. There are roughly 50,000 different Christian churches in the United States with different interpretations. Exactly which church is being set up as the national church?
In the infamous Pledge case, filed by Michael Newdow, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Pledge established a religious orthodoxy of monotheism as the official state religion. Let's skip past the absurdity of monotheism being a religion for a moment and point out that while there is a problem with establishing an orthodoxy of monotheism, there seems to be no problem of establishing a religious orthodoxy of gay marriage or the legitimacy of abortion. The difference in the later case is that it is a requirement with legal penalties, as opposed to saying the Pledge, which is voluntary.
Critics of the law said that it establishes Christianity as the state's official religion and offers no protection for religious minorities. They decry the tyranny of the majority. Finding this extreme, I read the law. Not only does it establish nothing, it very clearly indicates respect should be given to religious minorities. Those who have taken recourse to the phrase "tyranny of the majority," most often wish to supplant it with the tyranny of the minority.
The law simply reinforces what should already be self-evident - people have a right to free expression of religious sentiment. It also contradicts the notion that separation of church and state requires only anti-religious speech be allowed. What is required is that the institutions of religion and the institutions of government be separate. There is a reason it is called separation of church and state, and not separation of religion and state. It certainly does not require suppression of free expression.
There are those who react to any utterance of Christianity on or near a public facility as the establishment of Christianity as the official state religion. There's only one question I have for those people:
There are Roman Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, Evangelicals, Unitarians, and so on. There are roughly 50,000 different Christian churches in the United States with different interpretations. Exactly which church is being set up as the national church?
In the infamous Pledge case, filed by Michael Newdow, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Pledge established a religious orthodoxy of monotheism as the official state religion. Let's skip past the absurdity of monotheism being a religion for a moment and point out that while there is a problem with establishing an orthodoxy of monotheism, there seems to be no problem of establishing a religious orthodoxy of gay marriage or the legitimacy of abortion. The difference in the later case is that it is a requirement with legal penalties, as opposed to saying the Pledge, which is voluntary.
The Daily Illini encourages on-topic discussion through article commenting on its articles and blogs. It is our policy not to delete any comments based upon political or ideological point of view. However, we reserve the right to remove comments that are abusive, off-topic or use excessive foul language.
The posting of copyrighted material, including any and all content for which you are not the author, is illegal under Federal intellectual property laws. Such activity will not be tolerated. Comments containing copyrighted material will be removed, and continued violation of copyright law is grounds for being banned completely from commenting on DailyIllini.com.
If you feel any post meets these conditions or merits review, please e-mail our editors at meonline@dailyillini.com.