Religion & American Law

An advertisement created by a national atheist group was supposed to be displayed on a billboard in an area with a high Jewish and Muslim population. The controversial nature of the advertisement stemmed from the fact that it was written in Hebrew and Arabic stating, "You know it's a myth... and you have a choice." The advertisement was never put on the billboard because the owner of the building was opposed to the advertisement.
    The President of the American Atheists, David Silverman was surprised that the billboard was not being put up. Silverman thought that this was a result of religious bigotry. Silverman, who was raised in the Jewish faith said, "They've been the victims of religious bigotry and now they're the purveyors". The advertisement was moved out of the residential area and place in an area of town that had more visibility. The advertisement ended up getting placed off of a busy highway. Silverman said that it was good that the billboard still went up, but they were specifically targeting this particular Brooklyn neighborhood.
    Silverman argued that they were interested in posting the billboard in the Brooklyn neighborhood because they knew that there were people who were undercover atheists that were afraid to speak up for their beliefs. They wanted to assist those who grew up in the orthodox Jewish faith and converted to atheism to speak up about their true beliefs. Silverman said that he received over a dozen emails from Hasidic atheists that had believed they were alone until they heard about the ad campaign.
    I think that the atheists had the right to put their billboard in the Brooklyn neighborhood, despite the fact that there was an abundant amount of Jewish and Muslim people that lived there. Even though it might be crude to most, the atheists have the right to express their opinion. However, I understand that the advertisement had the potential to offend some of the residents. The intent of the American Atheist group was not malicious in nature. Their intent was to empower those who thought that they were alone in their particular situation. I am also taking into consideration that the building is privately owned and the owner of the building has the authority to decide what goes on the building and what does not.  
    The owner of the building either objected to the content of the advertisement itself or how it would affect his business, or a combination of both. By erecting the sign on the side of his building there might be a chance that he would lose business. There is a high probability that the people looking to rent from him are either Muslim or Jewish because of the neighborhood. It could be possible that the owner of the building was either Jewish or Muslim and could have objected to the advertisement based on his own beliefs. While the atheist have the right to free speech, the building owner's private property rights trump the atheists free speech rights. In the final analysis, the American Atheist's right to free speech was never truly violated, they were just prevented from exercising them at that particular location.

At the end of February, presidential candidate Rick Santorum relayed his nauseated response to President John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech regarding “the absolute separation of church and state.” In this editorial, R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, sides with Santorum that an “absolute” separation is impossible although he states that Santorum “clearly missed some of the careful nuances of Kennedy’s speech.” While President Ronald Reagan’s name has been batted around recently as well I wonder if Santorum is attempting to highlight tensions between himself and fellow Catholic President Kennedy due to scandal brought to light earlier that month with an extensive interview with Mimi Alford.

After expressing his gastrointestinal distress, Santorum proclaimed “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.” This exhibits not only Santorum’s literal, uninformed reading of history but a very narrow view as it appears he can not understand why American citizens of other or no faiths are uncomfortable with this. This completely threatens the separation of church and state which apparently is not as solid and uncontested as believed. Mohler states that it is impossible to have a complete separation of the government and all religious institutions as evidenced by the continuous flow of legal proceedings regarding faith based conflicts. In addition, “Human beings are composite creatures, and there is no way that authentic religious beliefs can be safely isolated from an individual’s total worldview.”

It is in this way that Kennedy diverges from Santorum and Mohler on ideas of church and state. In 1960, then candidate John F. Kennedy was facing a similar problem as Mitt Romney. As a Catholic presidential candidate, Kennedy had to prove to the American public that he would work for and with Americans within the defined secular, American laws and not act as a puppet for the Pope forfeiting American autonomy to Catholic rule. The American people wanted this separation, at least from the Catholic Church. Many of his contemporaries described President Kennedy as able to “compartmentalize his life” in this way, for better or worse, in both the political and personal spheres. I assume, although it is not stated explicitly, that Santorum views this compartmentalization as equally destructive to America as it has been to President Kennedy.

We do need different guidelines to operate in the diverse areas of our world especially the American president, whose decisions have far reaching effects on diverse groups of people. I agree with Mohler that our beliefs, religious or not, are part of who we are and influence our decisions. However, politicians are required to make decisions based on American law not religious doctrine. Kennedy reaffirmed the American ideal of religion as being dependent only on the individual’s conscience and therefore one can not incorporate religion into the government and impose these beliefs, with no legal grounds, on other individuals. Although there is obviously overlap between legal and religious realms in The United States this does not mean we should throw our hands up and stop trying to navigate this grey area and in the process make some Americans vulnerable with the loss of their civil liberties.