I agree this is stupid – but I suspect ignorance is at work, just as it’s ignorance at work when people think putting, “In God we Trust” on our money is copacetic.
The government needs to be religiously neutral. A government podium, loudspeaker, etc. should never be used to deliver a message that takes a religious viewpoint, whether atheist, Pentecostal, Hindu, or Satanist. Government resources should nto be used to deliver religious viewpoints.
However, this was a fundraising drive. It shoulda been okay.
And yet – would it have been okay for someone to put down $11,700 toward the park, toward the purchase of 117 bricks, and spell out the large message,
“SINGLE MOTHERS ARE WHORES IN THE EYES OF GOD! JEWS WILL BURN IN HELL! GOD HATES HOMOSEXUALS! I AM BETTER THAN YOU!”
such that the message took up the entire fundraising square, one letter (or space or punctuation mark) per brick? Why or why not?
As one little old lady dipping snuff in church said to the other, “Now, he’s stopped preaching and gone to meddling.”
Hijacking a fundraising drive to preach a hate message is an altogether different situation from placing an innocuous and in all likelihood barely visible three-word religious sentiment.
Government must be neutral with respect to relgion, but it must not be intolerant. During my college years, I worked summers in Yellowstone National Park and got involved with A Christian Ministry in the National Parks (the actual name-ACMNP). It was a volunteer group that worked with the park concessioners to get jobs for ministry workers in the park who conducted worship services and led Bible studies for park employees. Does SOCAS demand that religious worship should be banned from the state and national parks?
The parks employees were trying to avoid running afoul of a very complicated area of law. But they shouldn’t have unilaterally decided how to accomplish that, they should have talked to their lawyers about it, in order to determine whether it really was a problem and, if so, how best to handle it.
Because even if the message had presented a constitutional problem in that it violated the First Amendment provision on the separation of church and state, simply changinig the brick is not the right approach. The people essentially bought the brick with the understanding that it would have a specific message on it; if they were not going to receive what they expected to receive, for whatever reason, they should have been given a chance to pick another message or given their money back.
I’m not saying whether the placement of a permanent sign apparently endorsing religion in a government owned park is or is not a good idea, because I don’t know. But it’s not something the parks department should have been deciding.
When I was a senior in high school I wrote down as my goal in the year book: “I seek the Holy Grail.”
But the very Christian editor of the year book decided that was blasphemous and just didn’t put anything in under my picture as a goal. And look where that’s got me. I’m goal-less!
On the other hand, that is pretty stupid. I’d be curious to see what other messages were on the bricks that didn’t get “edited.”
After I posted here, one thought did cross my mind. My boss and I in the fundraising office just so happened to be moving a large (about 60-pound) dedication stone the other day. We flipped it over to protect the inscription on the front…and found that there was a second, totally unrelated, inscription with an egregious spelling error on the back of the stone. The boss says the company told him quite honestly that the stone was intended for another school but they goofed in making the inscription. So they just flipped it over and put our inscription on the other side. Since the stone will be partly buried in the ground, no one will ever see the “wrong” inscription.
So, I’m wondering…did the brickmaking company (and, having seen the picture, I know who they are) goof in leaving out the couple’s inscription, and is the park service just trying to cover for them?
Even as a Christian, I don’t understand the need to ascribe my appreciation to my wonderful Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (hey, is it okay to post this plug in the pit?) on a silly little brick, but for crying out loud, how can anybody be offended??? This censure is fuckin ridiculous! Praise Allah, praise Buddha, praise Thor on even bigger bricks, and it wouldn’t bother me one iota. All that has been accomplished here is supplying fodder for the paranoid fundamentalist preaching contingent next Sunday.
I don’t think this is the first time controversy has erupted over messages on donated bricks. Apparently at the Redmond Library last year they had a similar buy-a-brick program, and after several “Jesus Saves” -type bricks, there was an anti-religious backlash and bricks began appearing that said things like “God Kills Babies”. The program was discontinued – what a surprise.
We may be moving toward a trend of allowing only names on donated bricks and such. Poor Coleen Ponto has already realized this: from the City of Kenmore website :
(emphasis mine)
I have a feeling Coleen Ponto is wishing she’d never thought of inscribed bricks in the first place.
By the way, Jodi, the Buchanans were offered their money back. They don’t want the money, they want their darn brick, of course.
As a general note, I also find it ridiculous that the State of Washington is trying to wash their hands of the matter by putting it all on the Kenmore volunteer group headed by Ponto. They don’t get to abdicate responsibility; it’s still a state park!
So, the answer depends on who has the authority to set policy in state and national parks. If it comes down to it being under the jurisdidction of Congress, whether by specifc law or by appointment of officials, then I say no. They should’ve let the “Jesus” live. (I would like to see a list of other deleted messages.)
If the Dept of Interior doesn’t look to Congress for funding, policy, or its mere existence, then they can do whatever they please, it seems.
I’m having a hard time finding out who or what set up the Parks in the first place.
So, the answer depends on who has the authority to set policy in state and national parks. If it comes down to it being under the jurisdidction of Congress, whether by specifc law or by appointment of officials, then I say no. They should’ve let the “Jesus” live. (I would like to see a list of other deleted messages.)
If the Dept of Interior doesn’t look to Congress for funding, policy, or its mere existence, then they can do whatever they please, it seems.
I’m having a hard time finding out who or what set up the Parks in the first place.
Wait a sec: No Clue Boy, are you saying that SOCAS demands that religious services must be banned from national and state parks, even if they are organized by a private group? The First Amendment certainly prohibits government funding of religion, but
active prohibition of religious activity by private parties on government grounds is something else. The bricks were paid for by private funds for a playground built by private interests on state-owned ground. A brick with the word “Jesus” on it is not a violation of the Establishment Clause if it is not endoresed or paid for by government funds. I’ve seen Bibles and cheap religious bric a brac sold in gift shops in national parks–should those be banned? Should concessioner employees not be allowed to own Bibles or have church services merely because they live and work on government property, even though they are not government employees?
FYI, Congress established the Department of the Interior in 1849 and transferred authority over national parks to Interior in 1872 when Yellowstone became the world’s first national park.
I’m not No Clue Boy, and you didn’t ask for MHO, but [sub]when did that ever stop me?[/sub] IMHO any religious activity should be kept independent and otherwise separate from the US/state/local government(s) inasmuch as it is possible. If you think about it, it really makes sense (again, IMHO:)). That way no Church can tell the government what to do (or similarly try), and the government doesn’t have to try to (or worry about succeeding in) tell a Church what to do. At least as far as “This should (not) happen on our property” goes, anyway. That only applies to stuff happening on government (or church) property, of course.
Gobear, you leaped the wrong way with what I said.
If Congress established the parks system, then the separation demands that they allow the brick. “Congress shall make no law…”
In rereading my post, I don’t see how you came to the conclusion you must have made in order ask that.
Question quoted in my post: Does SOCAS demand that religious worship should be banned from the state and national parks?
My answer (edited for increased clarity): depends on who has the authority… If Congress,… I say no.
Now, if the parks system was private, and had nothing to do with Congress, then they could enact any policy they want. Since they aren’t, tho, SOCAS applies.
Basically, gobear, I’m on your side in regards to this issue.
Of course, I am not a Constitutional lawyer. And, I consider myself Christian. So my take on whole Q of SOCAS may be somewhat skewed.
But, the way I see it: If Congress cannot force me into or out of any religion, then it also cannot (within reason) prohibit me from worshiping as I choose. Free speech applies, too (IMHO). The brick should’ve been allowed.
“Within reason” means that some things, like child sacrifice, disturbance of the peace, dangerous activity, can be legislated against. Freedom of religion in those cases must be relative. (I’m pretty sure The Court has already dealt with that, though. What, about a hundred years ago?
Thanks for the clarification, NCB. I misunderstood your position.
I think everyone in this thread (including me, that raging atheist) supports SOCAS. My question is at what point does noninterference become active hostility. If the Buchanans were not told that they could no write a message respecting a specific faith on their brick, then banning “Jesus” while allowing the more general “God” is, IMO, discriminatory.
Just for kicks I took the old Beetle out for a spin and drove up to St. Edward’s State Park. (Speaking of SOCAS, since when are state parks named after saints? :eek: ) (j/k; I’m pretty sure the park took its name from the former seminary whose grounds became the park.)
Anyway, saw the sanitized Buchanan brick, browsed through the other bricks (very largely corporate-sponsored, things like Pizza Hut of Kirkland) and came across one that was slightly interesting. “Ring On Solstice Bells, June 21, 2003.” Now isn’t that kinda-sorta a Neo-Pagan message?
To clarify my position, if I need to have one and if anyone cares: (a) of course religious messages on privately-paid-for bricks do not constitute government endorsement of religion; (b) since everyone on all sides is likely to kick up some sort of litigious fuss – that goes without saying these days – I can’t blame the organizers of this sort of thing for prohibiting ALL messages except names. But it’s too bad.
