Nice try.  But, you’re not going to convince me that displaying our national motto or the words from the Pledge of Allegiance somehow constitute a government-sponsored religion. To the contrary, inclusion of these words in the Capitol Visitor Center in Washington simply reflects our Judeo-Christian heritage and does not represent “inaccurate history” as you suggest.


The fact is that while the First Amendment affords atheists complete freedom to disbelieve, it does not compel the federal judiciary to redact religious references in every area of public life in order to suit atheistic sensibilities. 


And, it seems those atheistic sensibilities are offended very easily when Christians celebrate Christmas.  Yes, it’s the time of year when many religions celebrate important beliefs and traditions.  But it always seems that “Christmas” is the crosshairs.  Don’t say “Merry Christmas” – it’s “Happy Holidays” – even though most Americans (72%) prefer the greeting “Merry Christmas.” 

Actually, it appears those who want to make a federal case out of acknowledging our nation’s history and heritage are having no problem articulating their own “message” this Christmas season.


The American Humanist Association has launched its atheist campaign in the nation’s capitol. The United Coalition of Reason is putting up billboard messages around the country.  And, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), which filed the lawsuit challenging the displays at the Capitol Visitor Center, is finding out that not everyone wants to see their message – even those who usually side with them on these issues. 


FFRF said it was “floored” by the negative response it received from an advertisement it placed in the usually atheist-friendly Unitarian Universalist Association’s quarterly magazine.  The ad quoted six famous people on religion – including a quote from Clarence Darrow: “I don’t believe in God because I don’t believe in Mother Goose.”  Acknowledging the ad “seemed to mock all religion” – the magazine issued an apology, saying it was “polarizing” and should not have run.   Hmmm.


To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click here.   



More from Beliefnet and our partners
Close Ad