SIVACRACY.NET

This is satire.

From Apropos of Something.

An article (excerpted from a book) in today's NYT Magazine by Noah Feldman, entitled "A Church-State Solution," on the other hand, is apparently not satire, despite the visuals accompanying the online version of the article, which I have reposted below. After framing the issue, Feldman writes:

"Despite the gravity of the problem, I believe there is an answer. Put simply, it is this: offer greater latitude for religious speech and symbols in public debate, but also impose a stricter ban on state financing of religious institutions and activities."

I read this to mean, "it's all about money." He later explains:

"From this logic, it follows that a moment of silence to begin the school day should not be invalidated just because it is intended to let children pray if they wish. Though it will never be easy to determine when schoolchildren are being coerced by peer pressure, at least some older students at optional events like a Friday-night football game surely are not being forced to pray when others are doing so voluntarily. Intelligent-design theory, itself a product of the ill-advised demand that religion disguise itself in secular garb, should be opposed on the educational ground that it is poor science, not on the constitutional reasoning, which some secularists have advanced, that it is a cover for religious creationism. If its advocates can persuade a local school board to put it in the curriculum, the courts need not strike it down as an establishment of religion."

So if I am understanding this correctly, under his view, religious symbols may appear, indeed proliferate, in public spaces as long as they are privately funded. So, displaying bible verses that endose slavery (see e.g. Leviticus 25:44 in the King James Bible) in schools and government buildings would be constitutional (at least with respect to the First Amendment) as long as, say, one of the white supremacist Christian churches paid for the posters. And all you have to do to get Intelligent Design into a public school curriculum is convince the school board that it is good science.

Feldman also writes:

"Most Americans are still Christians who celebrate Christmas, and the state acknowledges that fact, just as the culture does through the songs on the radio and the merchandise in the stores. The celebration may not always be deeply religious, but the atmosphere corresponds to the realities of the Christian majority. Just what is threatening to religious minorities about Christians celebrating the holiday or singing carols in school? What, exactly, is the harm in being wished Merry Christmas even if you're not celebrating? The state has not made Christianity relevant to citizenship nor has it spent taxpayers' money to advance the cause of the church. It has simply acknowledged the preferences of a majority."

If governments close schools and offices and suspend most governmental services on Christmas Day, I'm having a hard time understanding how observing Christmas could NOT "make Christianity relevant to citizenship," and represent an expenditure of "taxpayers money." His larger point seems to be that the majority should prevail on this issue. So I'm thinking mandatory school prayer, not much of a jump from some of the Christmas carols that get sung currently, is also a "majority rules" proposition, in contravention of fifty years or so of Supreme Court decisions that are mostly to the contrary. And hey, if a school board can be convinced that studies touting the beneficial effects of prayer are "good science" we can look forward to their incorporation into the curriculum as well.

In his conclusion Feldman states:

"If we could be more tolerant of sincere religious people drawing on their beliefs and practices to inform their choices in the public realm, and at the same time be more vigilant about preserving our legacy of institutional separation between government and organized religion, the shift would redirect us to the uniqueness of the American experiment with church and state."

I don't know who Feldman means by "we" but a vision of what South Carolina might look like if the courts embraced his reasoning is truly frightening. There is already PLENTY of overt religion in the "public realm" around these here parts and most of us are quite "tolerant" because we don't have the time, energy, or fortitude to endure the censure, opprobrium, and death threats that any complaint is sure to evoke. (Update: See also.)

Now here are the "photomontages" (as the NYT calls them) that accompany the article:

Is someone at the NYT gently mocking Feldman's piece?