The Lincoln Children's Zoo stirred up a real bruhaha when it told daVinci's, Champions, and First Evangelical Covenant Church they can't put a Bible story on the back of coupons they planned to hand out at the Zoo's annual Boo at the Zoo event. As a result, the three groups have pulled out of the event.
The zoo is of course free to have whatever policy it likes regarding religious expression. As part of their "human diversity" policy they bar religious verses and references. I don't have a problem with that. The diversity the zoo seeks is relatively shallow, yes, but there's not necessarily anything wrong with that at a facility intended for children. They want to keep things simple.
That's not to say I would have made the same decision. Whether truth or fable, the story of Noah and his ark is harmless. As if to prove the point, the zoo would still permit a Noah-themed display at the event; the only problem is the printed story on the coupons. The logic in that inconsistency escapes me.
This will be held up as an example of persecution against Christians. Perhaps it is, though I don't think so. But let's not pretend for a moment there wouldn't have been a huge outcry if an organization of Wiccans, Muslims, or some other non-Christian religious group had printed a similar message on an item to be handed out to the kids. I point that out not as a justification, but as a simple reminder to keep things in perspective. Glass houses and all that. Consider daVinci's own Kelly Knudson on that very topic:
Asked how he would he feel if all religions — including non-Christian ones — were allowed to hand out materials quoting verses and stories, Knudson wasn’t sure.
“It would depend on what they were doing,” he said.
In the end I don't disagree with the zoo, though I do think their execution was terrible. They waited far too long to make their policy known, and the policy itself is awfully flimsy. This "controversy", such as it is, is their own fault. Worse still, because of their mistakes they have set themselves up for troubles next year as well.
As for daVinci's et al., well, more power to them. Dropping out of the event is exactly what they should do if that's what their principles guide them to do. If they're smart, they'll milk this PR opportunity for all it's worth. For example, "Bring in your ticket stub from Boo at the Zoo and receive a free Noah's ark-shaped mini pizza!".
Oh, and one last thing: the Lincoln Children's Zoo is private. It is not a government entity. The First Amendment does not apply to the zoo any more than it applies to the Zoo Bar.
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
It was absolutely the right move for the Zoo. If some group was handing out materials with religious quotes from the Quran or Tom Cruise, people would be calling for Chapo’s head. If DaVinci’s wants to prosletyze, they can do it at DaVincis.
“It would depend on what they were doing” = “It really depends on how much their religious beliefs differ from that of my own…”
The Zoo really should draw a hard line with a policy like this. No coupons with bible stories are acceptable, but a bible themed display is?
Well, the archetype of Noah’s ark appears all over the place in children’s literature and stories, and in many cultures, even without the biblical trappings. The kids would have seen it and would be familiar with it, but it is NOT exclusively a Christian story. The bible verses represent establishing ownership of the image as a Christian one, and it is not.
Nothing to add. Well put.
I hate it when people persecute cheesesteak sandwich makers. :(
The US Supreme Court has examined cases like this before, and they have made a distinction between A) imagery that may have an association with a religion but no visceral, overtly religious implications, versus B) more explicit forms of religious endorsement.
For example, a city government can have a christmas tree up on city property - because even though it may have an association with religion, its more or less devolved into a symbol of holiday celebration - but can’t have a plaque of the ten commandments on city property.
I wasn’t aware the Zoo was going to leave up a Noah’s ark-themed display. That does show they really didn’t think things through.
This was much more informative than Kelly Knudson’s indignant letter to the editor in today’s LJS. Thanks for this post.
Absolutely. Used to live in Broken Bow, NE, and they had some problems with the ACLU and the annual manger scene in the city square. Nothing ever came of it - and I think that’s fine. It’s Christmas, after all, and it’s really all about the presents, right 😉
First off, I want to thank everyone in this forum for having an intelligent conversation about this issue. After reading the article and comments in the LJS this morning, I was quite disturbed at the number of people outwardly accusing the Zoo of discriminating against Christians.
That being said, I completely agree that the execution of this could have been handled in a completely different manner. Obviously, the timing was bad and the outcome was highly predictable.
I myself had questioned what might have happened in a situation where a Wiccan group wanted to hand out flyers with Wiccan quotes, or, Atheist or Muslim for that matter. Would it be so far fetched to suspect that the same people so enraged by this situation might have accused the Zoo of “terrorist” activity? That may be a little extreme, I know, but not far from reality these days.
Undoubtedly, this situation should have been handled much differently. Hopefully this won’t cause too many people to pass on the Zoo this year, as I know it is a special Lincoln tradition.
“Would it be so far fetched to suspect that the same people so enraged by this situation might have accused the Zoo of
I think they may have mis-construed the use of the word Diversity, as has been pointed out a few times in the comments. Diversity connotes inclusiveness. The Zoo just doesn’t want to deal with the hassle period-a laudable idea and perfectly within their rights to do so. They might have done better had they not put it under their diversity heading, but created another subsection to put it in.
Does anyone else find it ironic that this is all about spreading Christian literature at a Pagan holiday celebration?
Would it kill them to nix the Bible verses and just give the times of their programs? If so then they were right to drop out, I’m with the zoo on this issue though.
I thought the irony was delicious, especially in several LJS comments when posters were trying to claim that it was a Christian holiday. Nov 1st, maybe, but even that was created on the liturgical calendar to act as a counter to All Hallow’s Eve and the various harvest festivals that abounded in Middle Age Europe at the time.
“Jesus wept.”
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.