Gibbon v. Gibbons and the FFRF letter!
- FFRF open letter to Rep. Gibbons
December 2, 2011
Open Letter to State Representative Jaret Gibbons
309 Fifth St.
Ellwood City, PA 16117
Re: A Community of 46 Million
Dear Rep. Gibbons:
In your open letter to the Freedom From Religion Foundation you weighed in on the unconstitutional show of governmental religion in Ellwood City:
> "Ellwood City's holiday decorations have beenThis is simply not true.
> a symbol of peace and love that bring people
> closer together and strengthen our community
> during this festive time of the year."
The ongoing Ellwood City episode and history in general show that religion in government is a divisive force, not a unifying one. FFRF did not choose to oppose Ellwood's nativity on a whim, we received complaints from local citizens who work in downtown Elwood and were made to feel like outsiders in their community because of the city associating itself with a particular religion for the past 50 years.
We got involved because members of the community felt marginalized by the display. If you want to know why nonbelievers choose not to be public about their non-belief, you need only look at Friday morning's mob of angry protestors, out in force to ensure that their god is honored.
You may not know it because many nonbelievers do not advertise their lack of belief, but there are plenty in your community. In fact, 15% of the U.S. population and 15% of the Pennsylvania population is nonreligious (American Religious Identification Survey 2008). That means that Pennsylvania alone has almost 2 million atheists, agnostics, and other nonbelievers; America has 46 million. We are made to feel like outsiders in our community because of governmental shows of Christianity. Your claim that your community consists only of the "faithful" is insensitive and inaccurate.
If history teaches us anything, it is that religion is divisive, not inclusive.
In the Federalist No. 10, letters arguing for the adoption of the U.S. Constitution James Madison wrote,
> "A zeal for different opinions concerningThe Supreme Court said
> religion Have, in turn, divided mankind
> into parties, inflamed them with mutual
> animosity, and rendered them much more
> disposed to vex and oppress each other
> than to co-operate for their common good."
> "The Framers and the citizens of their timeand
> intended to guard against the civic
> divisiveness that follows when the government
> weighs in on one side of religious debate;
> nothing does a better job of roiling society,"
> "the divisiveness of religion in current publicIn fact, the
> life is inescapable."
> McCreary County, Ky.
> American Civil Liberties Union of Ky.,
> 876, 881 (2005).
> "purposes of the First Amendment's Religion ClausesThe final word goes to a court decision that predates Ellwood's nativity by some 60 years:
> [are] to assure the fullest possible scope of
> religious liberty and tolerance for all, to avoid
> the religious divisiveness that promotes social
> conflict, and to maintain the separation of church
> and state."
> Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 678 (2005).
> "there is no such source and cause of strife,So let's hear no more claims that this display is for the community; it's for Christians.
> quarrel, fights, malignant opposition,
> persecution, and war, and all evil in the state,
> as religion. Let it once enter our civil affairs,
> our government would soon be destroyed. Let it
> once enter our common schools, they would be
> Weiss v. District Board, 44 N.W. 967 (1890).
And let's hear no more about how it brings people together; it brings Christians together and excludes everyone else.
This is not a message the government should be sending or one that you, in your capacity as State Representative should be approving.
You manage to mention the members of our armed forces in a letter concerning a nativity display. FFRF appreciates all Ellwood City residents and all Americans who serve our country but wonder what members of our armed forces have to do with a governmental nativity display? Besides, isn't the greatest honor we can show to those brave men and women fighting to uphold our Constitution, to uphold the Constitution?
Incidentally, FFRF members include over 4000 veterans or active duty military, and 23.4% of all U.S. military personnel identified as atheist, agnostic or no religious preference (2010 MAAF study based on Department of Defense data).
If the holiday season is indeed a
> "time of peace and goodwill(and let's include women, this is supposed to be for the whole community after all)
> toward our fellow man,"
then why not act peacefully?
Why endorse a display that is divisive?
Why not correct the constitutional violation?
FFRF is not suggesting that all nativity displays are unconstitutional, only nativity displays put up by the government, on government property.
If the government wishes to show peace and goodwill it should leave religious displays to churches and find a better way to spend its time and money.
In conclusion, we would like to point out that politicians have been capitalizing on religion for centuries.
Edward Gibbon, a contemporary of the Founding Fathers (and not to be confused with Rep. Gibbons), wrote in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
> "the various forms of worship, which prevailedGibbon's timeless observation holds true today.
> in the Roman world, were all considered
>> by the people to be equally true,
>> by the philosopher as equally false, and
>> by the magistrate as equally useful."
You, Rep. Gibbons, are certainly finding religion useful.
But can we please stop pretending that it is about community, togetherness, tradition, or anything other than the government promoting Christianity?
Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor