Feed on

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments about whether the mere presence of a cross within a 1.6 million acre national preserve runs afoul of the Constitution, because it is effectively a religious symbol. I hope it upholds the ban. Not because I am anti-religion, but because I hope it paves the way for a broadening of how we think about religion.

Religion is generally a system of beliefs held on belief and faith. If we find that these symbols are offensive, then I can hope for two things:

  1. Those folks that truly believe in the importance of religion will push harder to remove religion from the claws of government. For example, what the heck is government in the business of defining marriage for? I know that there are important legal and property reasons for it … but that should be a separate matter from recognizing a union in the view of a church. Furthermore, one reason I am aghast at going to the Catholic church these days is that they have bought into the government as a way to advance their agenda. And further, for all the haranguing that Catholics do about declining numbers and failing churches, I have not seen too many Catholics fight the public schooling bureaucracy and public education religion that has destroyed the Catholic schooling movement.
  2. That much of what is non-church related religion will be as scrutinized as church-based religion seems to be. And if that happens, then perhaps we can move to a freer world where Environmental Religion and Governmental Religion are treated with equal disrespect.

Leave a Reply