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.
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
There was some comment on LJS along the lines of “why do we have to prevent christians from promoting their views in the interest of diversity instead of just encouraging other views to be promoted as well?”
When I read it I laughed. Honestly, this would be the scandal of the century if the Lincoln zoo actually encouraged Muslims, Hindus, etc. to come and promote their ideas to children.
I think the answer to this is that we keep religion out of the public sphere period. Have your religious beliefs, and live by your religious values at home and at church. I think everyone can agree that’s fair. I think people just want to turn this kind of thing into a persecution of christians argument.
I think more than anything, we are just dealing with a bored and frustrated population who needs an excuse to complain about something. In Nebraska the election is a non-issue as this state has voted red for a long time and will continue to do so. The failing economy hasn’t hit Lincoln particularly hard yet, and probably will cause problems elsewhere before we have to deal with it, and people just feel like they need some attention or something.
The only thing good about this is peoples threats to boycott the zoo and to patronize da vinci’s etc more often. If people actually did that in all aspects of our economy we’d have better businesses. But I am suspicious that anyone will keep up with their boycott claims. As soon as gas goes back up, they will say they can’t afford to go to Omaha, and will again be at the Children’s zoo.
I believe in voicing your opinion with your money, and that’s why I have never once set foot inside of a walmart store, and never plan to.
Seperation of church and state has worked very well for 230 plus years of our nations history but what the heck, let’s throw that all out and be one of THOSE countries. Jeez what a death spiral.
The zoo’s deal has nothing to do with the separation of church and state.
I don’t think something on the back of a coupon is considered “promoting” any more than “In God We Trust” on money is pushing religion. Doesn’t a national company put “sayings” of some type on every page of their circulars?
There are many odd religious (so-called) people, but I’ll always believe there’s a lot of fabulous good that comes from many churches.
Actually, the Supreme Court has asked that very question as well, and determined that the “In God We Trust” logo is a form of “ceremonial deism” that does not constitute the type of activity that implicates the establishment clause.
In other words, its considered language that is so innocuous that it doesn’t have any overt religious impact. The Court distinguishes that from language and activity that has potential proselytizing effects. The Court also tends to heighten its level of scrutiny when such language or activity is directed at or used in an environment with young kids, who may be susceptible to proselytizing (like a school, a day camp, or….a children’s zoo!).
But again, the Lincoln Children’s Zoo is not a government entity so there is no establishment clause implication in this scenario. This is simply a case of one private party (Kelly Knudsen et al) getting pissed because they can’t do what they want on the property of another private party (the Zoo).
Boo-hoo-hoo for you Knudsen. Do what you want to do in your own damn house and not mine. And if you have a problem with that, go jump in a lake.
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.