Christmas time is inevitably a time for conflict over whether the government can promote or endorse one religion (Christianity). Many Christians are convinced that government can and should promote their religion, for example by hosting or funding creches and other religious scenes when such privileges are never accorded any other religion.
In Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, the borough has hosted a creche in front of the borough building for 57 years, but that ended this year when one atheist, Megan Hartley, dared object. The council was smart enough to recognize that they didn't have a legal leg to stand on and didn't want to waste money in a pointless court battle, so they immediately moved the creche to private property. Local Christians are outraged, of course, that the creche had to move an entire block away...
Borough Manager Terry Hazlett received a written complaint a week ago from Megan Hartley.
The nativity is "highly disrespectful to the citizens of the borough (who) are not Christians," wrote Hartley, of Canonsburg. She took note of several manger displays outside homes and churches so "we don't need another in front of a government building."
About a dozen people, plus the Mayor David Rhome and members of council, expressed dismay at the manger move at a regularly scheduled agenda-setting session.
"I personally would like to call this lady's bluff," said Councilman A.J. Williams, who identified himself as a "God-fearing Christian" raised in a strict Catholic family.
"Amen," said one audience member, whose response was greeted by a round of applause from those seated nearby.
"The right thing to do is to bring the nativity right back to the borough building."
Source: Observer-Reporter
OK, so not all the government officials in Canonsburg are very smart. Since when has it been "right' for secular, civil governance to privilege one religion over all others?
Borough solicitor Patrick Derrico is a member of the Knights of Columbus chapter that sponsors the manger display. He said he believes if the religious figures remained on borough property, and if a lawsuit were filed over the matter, the borough would not only lose, but that individual members of council could be surcharged for legal fees and more.
"I'm sorry to have to report that," Derrico told council. "For many years I've kept my fingers crossed that nobody would raise that issue."
It sounds an awful lot like Patrick Derrico is admitting that he has known for years that the borough has been engaged in illegal behavior and he has personally facilitated that illegal behavior, but has been hoping that no one would notice and call his bluff. Where did Derrico get his law degree and does Canonsburg really want their solicitor turning a blind eye to illegal behavior on nothing more than the hope that they won't get caught? Just how good and trustworthy can his legal advice ultimately be?
Councilman George Coleman said, "Our nation was founded on Christian beliefs. There is no more Christian time of year than the birth of Christ."
Council President Joseph Milioto said members of council could act as private citizens in exploring various avenues "but if you're going to fight it as a government, that's another thing. Everyone here believes. I'm not trying to demean any religious beliefs."
Councilman Paul Sharkady suggested that citizens stage a live nativity scene, exercising their constitutional freedom of assembly, while Councilman Joseph Graff said, "I can't afford to be surcharged."
George Coleman sounds worse than A.J. Williams -- American government is founded on the Constitution and that not only isn't "Christian," but it explicitly prevents the government from doing exactly what he wants it to do: favor one religion over others. Why do people want to write their religion into the American government? Are they that insecure that they can't bear the thought of losing government backing?
It's hard to escape that conclusion because, if you remember, the creche has only moved about a block away. It's not hidden and not any less visible now than it was before. It's just as public and will be seen by just as many people. The only thing that has changed is that the scene has basically been privatized -- and privatization is usually something conservatives promote, isn't it?
The creche doesn't have the implicit approval and support of the government now; instead, it's backed by nothing more than private action. What's wrong with that?
Robert Clark, a past KOC grand knight in Canonsburg, said he is upset that the 57-year tradition of putting the nativity outside the borough building has been halted.
"I think that we have to show tolerance to one another," said Clark, of Eighty Four. "It's disrespectful to my rights, too."
I hate to break the news to Robert Clark, but none of his rights have been affected in any way here. As a private citizen he continues to have the right to erect a creche on his property -- and if a creche is that important to him, why doesn't he? What Robert Clark does not have a right to is for the government to host and endorse his creche. If he imagines that he has such a right, he needs to go back and read the Constitution.
It's interesting how many Christians comment on this story by whining about being "offended" as if Megan Hartley's objection was based on her being "offended" -- but even a superficial glance at her quoted letter don't mention "offense" at all. The creche had to move because it's illegal for the government to promote any one religion over others; it has nothing to do with whether it offends anyone or not.
So why does nearly every Christian reaction include some reference to "offense"? I think it's yet another example of conservative Christians operating from a standard playbook where arguments and responses are little more than scripts. These responses certainly don't reflect any sort of understanding of what others have said or any engagement with the actual issues at hand. Parroting the nonsense in a playbook is nothing more than a way to avoid thinking too hard and avoid risking a confrontation with inconvenient facts.
Wasn’t it the, rather medieval style, “Knights of Columbus” who were a powerful influence regarding the addition of “under God” to the…IMO, rather dumb, but perfectly fine without it…”Pledge of Allegiance”?
Regarding that…if you’ll pardon a somewhat tangential diversion? It’s related, I think, because the whole rather habitual basis of false notions commonly applied to subjects like the creche, mainly by Christians, is reinforced by their ignorance of just when and where these unconstitutional ideas originated; especially those too young to remember.
Quote:
“The Knights of Columbus had apparently in 1951 instituted their own version of the Pledge of Allegiance for use at their meetings that contained the words “under God.” Seeing that the time was right, they enlisted the cooperation of the American Legion in lobbying the Executive branch and the Congress to add “under God” to the pledge. Ignoring the Constitution and caving in to the expediency of the moment, President Eisenhower expressed support for the measure, and it was passed on Flag Day, June 14, 1954.”
Almost on the heels of that stupidity, there followed the other, IMO, blatantly unconstitutional outrage…
Also:
“Introduced amidst the Cold War hysteria of the 1950s, this (1955) bill (H.R. 619) was rapidly approved by the House and shortly thereafter by the Senate with little debate. The words “In God We Trust” have appeared on all United States currency issued after October 1, 1957.
Here’s the link to a rather detailed article on that whole subject [Yeah...and that old, oft repeated, lie about this nation being founded on Christian principles...i.e...the Bible (or...Babble?)!]:
http://candst.tripod.com/ingodwe.htm
(Continuing)…
OK, back to the subject at hand?…
Reading the rather, IMO, lame and downright ignorant comments by all those reluctant believers, adds fuel to a personal, albeit speculative, opinion of mine that the…all too familiar to us atheists…concept of “Rational, Critical, Thinking” is quite foreign to most, if not all, believers.
In my longtime observation of various “lifetime godbothering” relatives and friends, it may be that “RCT”, for the overwhelming number of childhood indoctrinated humans (Bonobos?), is all too permanently disabled, if not totally shut down…OR…is completely missing in their ‘DNA potential’.
Just a frequently (especially THESE days) recurring, speculative thought, of course!
At least the lawyer was smart enough to recognize that they would go down in flames if any legal challenge was made, and smart enough to understand that one would be made.
It is amusing, at least to me, that the badges that Austin mentioned in the article about “new atheist” that are all considered as negative when applied to atheist but are considered an honor when applies to believers.
These counsel members want to be all of these things;
• Militant
• Fundamentalist
• Rude
• Intolerant
• Dogmatic
• Narrow-Minded
• Confrontational
when it is on their side of the plate while condemning others for them.
I hope that Megan Hartley is a strong woman because the townspeople will probably try to make her life hell for shooting them down.
I would like to ask why you atheist never go after the Muslim or Jewish religion? If you have gone after other religions I would love to read any article, because I never came across one. Im neither an atheist nor a Bible Thumper and feel the atheist act more like little brats then anybody. Atheists seem to only promote hate towards Christians and everything they do is always negative toward Christians and for society. Did any of you ever hear of the plastic reindeer rule? The Creche is allowed to be on the property as long as it didnt have the angel. The courts feel the angel is endorsing a patently Christian message: Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ, Where as the Menorah and Christmas tree didn’t. The ACLJ even said they would try to work out a compromise for everybody. Plus today they announced the Creche Coming Back to Canonsburg Borough Building.
We do criticize other religions.
Have you looked? A simple search of “Islam” or “Judaism” on any atheism site will produce results.
OK, how?
Prove it.
That’s not the plastic reindeer rule.
Actually, it’s the entire creche that sends a Christian message, not just the angel. And the courts are right in reaching that conclusion.
When was the last time they succeeded in doing that?
Yes, they did, by following the actual plastic reindeer rule.
I was at the american athiest and it was all about christians.
It also said :To attack the myth that Christianity owns the solstice season “about the billboard”
The angel info I used was from the County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (No. 87-2050)
But Im pretty sure they where following the actual plastic reindeer rule I think had a Christmas tree and a Santa
Did you do a search? Did you do one here?
And do you object to this?
Then you must know that it wasn’t merely an angel who happened to be present, but an angel carrying a banner with a Christian message. What’s more, the court didn’t rule that the angel alone made the display religious – the angel merely made the religious message more obvious.
So you admit now that removing an angel isn’t the plastic reindeer rule?
Why should I have to do a search? All the Christian info is being bad mouthed all over the front of their website. Why dont they have any other religions on the front of their website? Maybe you guys are all just cowards that sit behind a computer and blog all day? Do you guys ever volunteer your time or help the poor? I see more Christian groups giving and donating their time. i dont really care either way if they display the creche. I just like to see little brats wine and cry about it.
Hey Austin Im just trying to see your side of the arugement. I want to find an educated Atheists to explain what they are about. Im just giving you my opinion, Instead of always fighting everybody you guys need to explain more.
You don’t. It’s just that when you don’t, you reveal that you don’t actually care about the answer to your question.
You mean, there is material about Christianity on their front page today. So you conclude after a few minutes from a single day that there is nothing else anywhere on that site.
And you consider this well reasoned and reasoanble?
Maybe there aren’t any relevant news stories or issues this week.
Right, it’s “cowardice” to sometimes focus on Christianity in a nation where Christianity is the most common religion.
Well, since you don’t even care enough to do a simple search on a web site, we can’t expect you to ever look around closely enough to learn what atheists are doing with their time. Apparently, if something isn’t screaming right in your face, it doesn’t exist.
And that tells us all we need to know about your character: you take pleasure in the distress, real or imagined, you perceive in others.
Given that Christianity produces people like you, why would it be any wonder that atheists focus their time on critiquing Christianity?
No, you’re not. If you were then you’d ask serious, sincere questions. You’d demonstrate a genuine interest in the issues.
No, you want to find people you think are crying so that you can take pleasure in their distress.
There are lots of explanations here, available for anyone who wants to look. But, in your own words, you don’t see any reason why you should look.
Forgive the lateness of my contribution here, but I only stumbled on this blog last night. I want to start out by stating that I am an atheist. I am a scientist. Canonsburg is where I was born and raised, though I have not lived there for more than 30 years.
I am bothered by one aspect of this posting. To comment on the personalities and competencies of the individuals mentioned in the O-R article without knowing them is to do them a grave injustice. To imply that Patrick Derrico is an incompetent solicitor and untrustworthy is a terrible insult to the man.
Canonsburg is a very small town in western PA with an older population and a sense of traditions that has become a part of the town’s culture. Until recently, Canonsburg has been a liberal bastion among some of the more conservative farming communities of the area. Among those who helped keep as many liberals in local government was Patrick Derrico. He and my mother, who once was the president of the local chapter of Democratic Women, worked tirelessly to keep liberalism alive amid the growing conservative wave that came with Reagan in 1980.
One of the things that helped fight that wave was making sure that tradition could be balanced with law. Mr. Derrico, to his credit, actually admitted that he knew that the creche tradition would not hold up in court. If he was the least bit incompetent, he would have stated that they should fight to keep the creche on town property. “Keeping his fingers crossed” was his way of saying that if he tried to get the council to remove it before it had been contested, he would hand conservatives a political fight that would be difficult to win.
Then perhaps you can offer some alternative to him admitting that he knew the display was illegal and turned a blind eye, hoping that no one else would notice or have the guts to object? Just how “good and trustworthy” can a person’s legal advice be when they admit to turning a blind eye to illegal activity?
Maintaining an ideology in the face of political reality can be the worst thing a politician can do. Despite the shrill arguments that arise from the political right, the person who keeps a cool head is the person who makes a good leader. Trying to work with both sides of an issue is difficult, but the reality is that in a small town, everyone knows each other and they all need to get along.
The demonization of Megan Hartley in this argument by the members of the Council and the people of the town shows how deeply entrenched in politics Christianity is within the town. As a young child in the early 1960’s, I recall the same discussions regarding Madalyn Murray O’Hair and the Supreme Court ruling about prayer in school. Once prayer was removed, the complaints continued among adults, but the kids of my generation never cared and grew up to be (mostly) reasonable citizens. The same thing will happen with the creche.
It becomes easy to criticize the culture of a town, but it takes time to get the culture to change. Forcing a change through litigation breeds resentment and resistance and little progress can be made. To do what the council did, move the creche to private property, shows that there was a measure of political compromise that put the town on the right track. For that, they should be commended.
It becomes easy to criticize the culture of a town, but it takes time to get the culture to change. Forcing a change through litigation breeds resentment and resistance and little progress can be made. To do what the council did, move the creche to private property, shows that there was a measure of political compromise that put the town on the right track. For that, they should be commended.
Though I understand the thrust of this blog is about understanding atheism, it becomes important to remember that “Belief” is, in it’s purest form, purely subjective. Belief is not empirical. No one person actually holds beliefs to the same extent as any other. The individual, being the basic functional unit of our society, must be respected as such. To force one person to “believe” in anything is to remove the importance of that one individual. To say that the town must maintain a religious symbol because most citizens believe in it is to disrespect those who do not hold those beliefs, whether they be Atheist, Jew or Muslim. A government that must, in effect, represent the entire citizenry must remain as secular as possible in its representation of the people. As an individual, you may practice your belief as you see fit, but the government cannot show deference to only one religion.