By Carter Bundy
Last week I criticized Hawaii for declaring “Islam Day.” But despite the assault on the wall separating church and state from all directions, the United States is still the world’s leader in the area of free speech, free thought and freedom of religion.
We’re not that way by accident. Advocates stand vigilant every day to ensure we remain the freest country in the world. To do that, we can’t pick and choose when to support free speech or separation of church and state. It has to be a consistent, all-the-time watch.
Subsidizing religion
Some Americans who railed against Hawaii’s Islam day don’t mind government support of religion as long as it’s their religion. That doesn’t work.
Thomas Jefferson, in his Virginia Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, noted that intertwining of government and religion “tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage… the opinions of men are not the object of civil government.”
Not only is government sponsorship of religion tyrannical (Jefferson’s word), it’s bad for the religion itself. Look at Europe, which has historically had some of the closest ties between church and state. Over time, the church became merely another appendage of the state. Not even cabinet-level, really.
Insisting the government support any particular religion, or even religion generally, is a sign of weakness of religion. Any religion with something important to say is stronger than that.
For a great read on the durability of religion in the face of even a hostile government, nothing beats Graham Greene’s The Power and the Glory. Despite a Mexican government bent on eliminating the Catholic Church, and a flawed “whisky priest,” Catholicism survives and eventually thrives.
Imagine how much better religion can do in a country like America, where government merely stays out of the way of religion. By avoiding Europe’s mistake of propping up religion, and old Mexico’s mistake of suppressing it, we allow religions to thrive as much as their adherents and our citizens want them to.
Since when did real faith need a government bailout anyhow?
Political protest done right
It’s pretty rare, but there are times when speech should be limited. When there’s an event that others have planned, it’s not really the place of any of us to interfere with others’ speech. That’s why it’s OK to remove an anti-Obama heckler at Notre Dame, or to kick anti-war protesters out of a Bush event.
Still, there shouldn’t be punishment other than removal from the facility, and there should be as unrestrained freedom of protest right outside the event as is practical. One of the kindest columns I ever wrote about President Bush was in praise of his response to a heckler at an immigration swearing-in ceremony in Charlottesville, Virginia.
C’ville, as it’s known, is home to Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello, the University of Virginia and the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression.
As the heckler was removed, the president told the new citizens that they were seeing the beauty of a free country at work, where even the most powerful man in the country is subject to criticism. For a president who often, to be kind, skirted the constitution…well, maybe the ghost of Jefferson moved him. It was a class act by W.
I liked the way Obama handled Notre Dame, too — he calmly told everyone that the protest was OK, and went on to discuss the importance of a vibrant debate on even the most controversial of issues. Sometimes leaders in both parties get it right.
Of course, as shown by the shameful confined protest areas far away from both DNC and RNC convention sites, sometimes both parties get it wrong. The Democratic and Republican parties should follow the presidents’ example and learn to live with disagreeable speech.
Stifling some ‘speech’
Santa Fe occupies the loftiest perch, arguably in the entire world, when it comes to small-town arts. It’s not just that our capital is in a virtual three-way tie for art sales with L.A. and San Francisco, behind only New York. It’s that art permeates everything from architecture to sidewalk sales to conversation to hobbies to formal education.
On the latter front, Santa Fe Community College does a terrific job of offering locals the opportunity to explore the performing arts. At a recent end-of-semester recital, outstanding student performances were turned in, in fields as diverse as drama, hip hop dance, flamenco, singing and even belly-dancing.
But about eight Santa Feans unintentionally spoiled the drama performances by bringing screaming babies — and keeping them through the whole recital.
There’s a difference between protesters temporarily disrupting a political event to make a political point and bringing disruptive babies to an apolitical artistic event. Our First Amendment does not cover lack of courtesy to get a babysitter (or neighbor, or relative, or friend, or co-worker, or teen of any of the above).
SFCC should show respect for its students and teachers by politely turning away adults who don’t have the common sense to make other arrangements for kids under four. Alternatively, they can provide on-site child care next semester.
Best of all, neither solution runs afoul of the First Amendment.
Bundy is the political and legislative director for AFSCME in New Mexico. The opinions in his column are personal and do not necessarily reflect any official AFSCME position. You can learn more about him by clicking here. Contact him at carterbundy@yahoo.com.