Here’s an interesting observation posed by Gordon Winters in one of yesterday’s LJS blog posts about the Boo at the Zoo fury: “
I would hate to be the poor soul who has to draw the line between church and state,” Gordon laments, in regards to the Zoo’s decision not to allow biblical quotes to be handed out at this year’s Boo at the Zoo. He continues, noting that “I think the U.S. Supreme Court’s view on this has become pretty clear on this. Either government has to allow all religions their say in a public place, or none of them.”
Well, that may be correct, but what does that have to do with Boo at the Zoo?
What strikes me about his opinion, and indeed this entire debacle, is how so many people have entirely missed the point that the Zoo has no obligation to draw the line between church and state. The Zoo is not a government department. The Zoo has no obligation to allow religious speech on its property anymore than you or I do, or that DaVinci’s does, or that the gas station down the street does. In short, the establishment clause is NOT the issue here (If there is a first amendment issue here, I would argue that it is the doctrine of being
free of forced speech, and not the establishment clause).
Clearly, there are those in this community who view (and want to view) this entire story through “culture war” lenses. Its an understatement to say that “political discourse” in this day and age doesn’t have its share of hyperbole. Fine. But I do hope that, in the future, discourse can at least revolve around reality.