SDNR Commentary

On Thursday, Nov. 12, I was interviewed by The San Diego Union-Tribune for the purpose of responding to an atheist-sponsored billboard, but the controversy it generated is taking on a life of its own.  Here is a brief excerpt from their article:

“Don’t Believe in God?” the billboard asks atop a background of blue sky and white clouds. “You are not alone.”

We hope the message will get everyone thinking,” said Debbie Allen Skomer, coordinator of the San Diego Coalition of Reason, an umbrella organization for nine groups of nonbelievers. “Some people will have a negative reaction to the sign and others will be inspired to check us out.”

And here is the part of the article where I enter the scene:

Bob Siegel, a member of Skyline Church in La Mesa and a self-described “Christian apologist,” said he doesn’t find the billboard offensive.

“But I do see a double standard from the atheists,” he said. “They can put up a sign like that, but during Christmas, if a manger goes on public land, they act like their civil liberties are being taken away.”

Siegel added: “It’s not unreasonable to believe in God, and it’s a myth that people who do are guided by blind faith. There are many good reasons to believe.”

The response ranged from letters to the editor, Union-Tribune website comments, to new articles on atheist blog sites around the country. Most comments said the same thing one way or the other, seeking to remind us of the difference between a privately sponsored ad and public tax dollars going toward religious symbols. Some accused me of deliberately avoiding the real issue. Others lectured me as if I did not already understand the whole “tax argument.” This letter from Jim (I’m withholding his last name) serves as an example:

“Please tell Bob Siegel he is missing the point, or, more likely, intentionally ignoring it, when he compares the San Diego Coalition of Reason billboard to a nativity scene. I have yet to hear of anyone seriously protesting the holiday billboards that remind people that Christmas began as a religious holiday. What some people do find objectionable is the placement of religious images on property supported by public tax money, since the government is not supposed to support any particular religious belief.”

Actually, I am not missing the point at all.  The Establishment Clause merely protects you from mandated religion. Nobody is forcing you to become a Christian by putting up a symbol. In the days of our forefathers, religious symbols were on public property frequently, so we can see rather clearly how they interpreted their own First Amendment.

What the constitution meant to them is what the constitution means, period.

As for tax dollars, I am sympathetic to your position. I really am. But consider this: Our tax dollars go for many things and none of us are happy about all of the distributions. My tax dollars—for instance—fund public schools and some public universities, where the teachings are incompatible with Christianity at the very least and are hostile to Christianity at the very most. Interesting how this “separation between church and state” never cuts both ways, isn’t it?  On the other hand, should a school put up Christmas decorations or a county build a manger scene, your taxes do not go up, but remain the same.

Besides (although there are always exceptions) I have seen vast evidence that this goes beyond the issue of taxes in the minds of many atheists. Take a look at the decades old controversy surrounding Mt. Soledad’s cross. This was built as a World War II memorial. Everybody knows that. Yes, it includes a cross because in the aftermath of WWII, most people and many veterans were buried with a cross or had a cross as part of the memorial. Atheists knew full well that this was not any kind of government mandate toward a particular religion and they still wanted to take the cross down. While debating an atheist on my own radio show, I asked him what harm the cross was causing inasmuch as he can merely turn away if he does not want to look at it.

He replied, “That cross might make people think we have a national religion.”

See my point? Now they want to pass laws based upon what people might think. Add the fact that some have attempted to purchase Mt. Soledad, so that it could become private property, instead of public property, and were still met with resistance.

Finally, I have heard many atheists use as their ultimate reason, “I find these symbols offensive.”

Well, guess what? Free speech offends. Why did the constitution bother to protect free speech if speech was always going to be benign, and not rattle anyone’s cage?

Bob Siegel is a weekend radio talk show host on KCBQ and columnist. His show can be heard at www.bobsiegel.net

                                        

Set as favorite

Email This

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (1)

...

As a non-believer, I support your rational and reasonable argument. While I identify myself as an Atheist to others, I make sure and point out that means that I am "without religion", not against religion or spirituality. I suspect the anti-religion folks are up in arms due to the theists regular attempts to influence law and policy to reflect their spiritual views. While I too might find that to be a moderate threat to my liberties and freedoms, I think that is a separate issue all together. I say keep the cross on Mt. Solidad and allow all religious scenes on public property during the holiday season.

San Diego County Citizen , December 04, 2009

Write comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.