Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Half Mast
I admit I was a bit surprised last week to see so many flags on government buildings at half-mast. They were lowered in honor of the pope, and frankly I didn't think that such a blue state as Massachusetts would allow such a blatant establishment of religion.
I wonder why the ACLU wasn't all over this one. Why are the government flags lowered when the leader of the Catholic church dies, but not when the leader of the Mormon church, or the Baptist church, or the Lukumi Babalu church dies? It gives the impression of government endorsement of one particular religion, which is very much unconstitutional.
OK, many major religions don't have a single head like the pope or the prophet (who's the head of Judaism, or Islam, or Hinduism?). But you would think that if they honor the death of the Catholic leader, they would be required to honor the death of another religious leader--and they don't. You could argue that the pope is very famous, the Catholic church is very large and well-known (especially in Massachusetts), so that's why we honor them and not other religions. But that's just the point. You don't want the government endorsing majority religions at the expense of minority religions. The first amendment exists specifically to protect minority religions from oppression.
Mind you, I agree with the public policy of lowering the flag to honor the pope. I think it was the right thing to do (though I also think it will be the right thing to lower the flag all over the country when Pres. Hinckley dies).
But I find it odd that no one seems to have made the establishment of religion argument. From a legal standpoint, I find the argument very compelling. If someone had sued the state, they probably would have won.
I wonder why the ACLU wasn't all over this one. Why are the government flags lowered when the leader of the Catholic church dies, but not when the leader of the Mormon church, or the Baptist church, or the Lukumi Babalu church dies? It gives the impression of government endorsement of one particular religion, which is very much unconstitutional.
OK, many major religions don't have a single head like the pope or the prophet (who's the head of Judaism, or Islam, or Hinduism?). But you would think that if they honor the death of the Catholic leader, they would be required to honor the death of another religious leader--and they don't. You could argue that the pope is very famous, the Catholic church is very large and well-known (especially in Massachusetts), so that's why we honor them and not other religions. But that's just the point. You don't want the government endorsing majority religions at the expense of minority religions. The first amendment exists specifically to protect minority religions from oppression.
Mind you, I agree with the public policy of lowering the flag to honor the pope. I think it was the right thing to do (though I also think it will be the right thing to lower the flag all over the country when Pres. Hinckley dies).
But I find it odd that no one seems to have made the establishment of religion argument. From a legal standpoint, I find the argument very compelling. If someone had sued the state, they probably would have won.
Comments:
Well sure. I would, too. But I'm surprised that the ACLU seems to agree with you and me--that's all I'm saying. They could make a good argument against us.
Post a Comment
