Freedom and Religion

By   |  December 28, 2009

According to a report by WBBM, the Chicago CBS affiliate, a kerfuffle over religion erupted a few days ago in the Illinois state capitol building in Springfield.

Seems there were a variety of religion-related displays in the capitol. They included a nativity scene, a Christmas tree, a Soldiers’ Angels wreath, a tabletop display from the ACLU defending freedom of religion, a Hanukkah menorah, and an aluminum Festivus pole representing the semi-fictional holiday from the TV series Seinfeld.

There was also a sign put there with the appropriate permit by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which bills itself as an educational group working “…to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.” The group’s sign, located next to the Christmas tree and near the nativity scene, read:

At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

That was just too much for William J. Kelly, a conservative activist and candidate for Illinois Comptroller. He announced his intention to remove the sign, but all he managed to do was turn it face-down before the police detained him and ordered him to leave the building.

Kelly called the sign “hate speech” and said,

I don’t think the State of Illinois has any business denigrating or mocking any religion, and I think that’s what the verbiage on the sign was doing. …

The fact that sign was immediately in front of the tree, I found that to be disturbing because any family and any child would run up to that tree with a smile on their face, and they would immediately see that sign.


The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” That’s understood to mean that there’s a separation between church and state, and Illinois probably shouldn’t be hosting annual religious displays in its capitol building. In any case, I don’t think it’s a big deal and certainly don’t spend time worrying about such things.

However, here comes that pesky First Amendment again, with its “freedom of speech” business. If religious folks are free to put up signs and symbols of their particular religious beliefs, then non-religious folks are equally free to put up signs that state their beliefs. The only other acceptable approach, assuming anyone takes the Constitution seriously, is to ban all religious activity, signs, and symbols from the state capitol and other government establishments.

There are myriad religions and variations on religious belief. Each believer is convinced, of course, of the absolutes of his faith, whether he relies on the Bible, the Torah, the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, or some other holy text. That’s fine. And who knows — some among them may just have it right. But the rub comes when believers insist that everyone else accept and even promote their particular beliefs. That’s what’s happening when people who insist on having a nativity scene in a public building object to non-Christian displays in the same location at the same time.

I also note Kelly’s concern that a child might see the the non-religious group’s sign. Children grow up in a specific religious belief simply as an accident of birth. Catholic parents raise Catholic children, Muslim parents raise Muslim children, and so on. Are those belief systems so fragile that it’s dangerous for children to suffer mere exposure to signs or symbols representing other ways of thinking?

Maybe we should request guidance on the subject from the Chaplain of the U.S. House of Representatives, who is a Catholic priest and a Jesuit, or from the Chaplain of the U.S. Senate, who is a Seventh-day Adventist. If they can’t sort it out for us, we could always go to Reverend Jeremiah Wright, President Obama’s spiritual mentor, who is a … well, whatever.

(This article was also published at Opinion Forum.)

Comments? Leave your intelligent feedback down below or consider following CollegeTimes on Facebook or Twitter to stay updated or to get in touch!

Share This Story:

Page ID #34905  -  Last updated on

Please scroll down to leave a comment.

3 Comments on “Freedom and Religion”  (RSS)

  1. Nate, sorry but you say that the atheist sign is overly crass, try going anywhere in the run up to christmas (the false birthday of jc) or easter (the resurrection that never occured)and not have christianity shoved in your face, it’s everywhere shops, houses, theatres, t.v, billboards, frigging bumper stickers. Seems you want a case of “do as I say, but not as I do”. Note, in regards to my bracketed comments, try reading only the parts of the bible that were written around the time of j.c, not the parts that were written (and indeed out and out altered as admitted by many reputable sources including the church) centuries after his death

  2. Sorry, Nate, but speech that’s slanderous and merely “imposes” itself on another is protected by the First Amendment. If someone feels that he or she has been slandered or imposed upon to some unlawful degree, recourse is available through the courts. Prior restraints on speech, however, are almost always unconstitutional.

    Remember that if you don’t like what a sign says or what you hear someone say, you’re perfectly free to absent yourself from the locations where you’re offended. You’re also free to turn off the TV if you don’t like a show, to not go to a movie you don’t like, and to not read a book that you find offensive.

    Remember also that there is no freedom of speech if even the most offensive speech isn’t protected.
    .-= Tom Carter´s last blog ..The Afghanistan Train Wreck =-.

  3. This article avoids discussing why the atheist sign caused a problem in the first place. Our first ammendment protects the right to free speech, but there are limitations placed upon it. When an individuals right to free speech is slanderous and imposes itself upon another, it ceases to be protected. In this instance, the sign was not simply showing an alternative option, but was specifically attacking the others. One could argue all religion is triumphalistic in nature and tends to trounce all other viewpoints, however there is a subtlety to these displays that is non-intrusive. The Atheist sign, in this instance, was overtly crass.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


Howdy! I'm Jesse, the editor here at CollegeTimes. I hope you find our articles useful, interesting, and inspiring as you make life decisions. Feel free to follow me on Google+, Facebook, or LinkedIn, or get in touch anytime. If you have a unique story tip or article idea for CollegeTimes please email us now at You may remain anonymous and/or off the record. Cheers!