One of the things to take into account is that the incorporation doctrine, though embraced in the 19th century, was "filled in" during the 20th century, and therefore was not quite mature until the 1960s, as the implications were drawn out. Another is that for a long time most of the contrary belonged to a Christian denomination, was Jewish, or was content to respect the symbols of Christian belief, as, for example, the deists, with the sense that religious belief had a powerful civilizing function. Therefore, favoritism came to be interpreted as benefiting a particular sect. Thus, for a long time, the symbols of "Judaeo- Christianity" were safe from challenge. Now we have substantial minorities of Muslims, Hindus, and so forth, as well as a number of self- identified "seculars". In the new climate, favoring "Judaeo- Christianity" or, for that matter, religion in general, is considered going to far.
The counter- argument has been made that secularizing the "public square" favors "secular humanism" too much. The problem is that reticence does not equal promotion; there are exceptions that show reverence that have so far survived challenge; and the public square is not really naked, insofar as there are non- governmental public displays. The area I agree with is when there is an attempt to drive out innocuous customs by permitting a veto power to the disaffected that is bound to seem as if it is hostile to any religious expression......... |
