Interesting, but irrelevant to my point.
I will comment on it briefly on its own merits....Religion is a part of culture, and cannot, I think, be expected to be hidden in the attic, like some crazy aunt, rather than displayed publicly as affecting other aspects of cultural life. Thus, even if there is strict disentanglement of government, the public square will not, in fact, be naked, but will be full of creches and tv stations saying Happy Hannukah! and parades in Little Italy for the Feast of San Gennaro and parades in Chinatown for the Lunar New Year, and so forth. But, of course, there is never likely to be strict disentanglement. For example, the National Cathedral is likely to remain for sometime our quasi- non- denominational church for memorial services and other events surrounding national disasters or the demise of the great. The Armed Forces will continue to provide chaplins. Presidents will still refer to the importance of faith in their lives. And so on. Thus, its seems that the only question is when the entanglement is too much, not whether there is some. I would say that the favoritism shown has to be egregious for it to be worth a court case, and that as long as there is even- handed treatment, there is no beef. My preferred solution, then, is one where the various religions are treated fairly, but not in an exclusionary manner, more like by inclusion, relative to factors like the proportion of people likely to affected or the importance of the holiday......... |
