A 17 year-old wanted to honor his grandfather's death by flying a flag over the Ohio Capitol building for his "love of God, country and family," which anyone can do by purchasing a flag and going through some simple process. The lead architect cited his office's rule for ordering flags: "Personalized dedications are permitted, but . . . political and/or religious expressions are not" and the boy was declined, but he was also persistent. He wrote a letter to his congressman, and now the rule reads: "Personalized dedications are permitted, but limited to three hundred (300) characters."
The LA Times calls this a "touchstone case in the church-state culture wars" and seems convinced that the people behind the wall trying to support it suffered a heavy defeat. But I fail to see how trying to honor one's deceased grandparent by flying a flag that mentions God over the Capitol building is in any related to a church-state debate. It's more like a jackass-state debate. In flying the flag, that state is by no means endorsing a religion or imposing upon passersby. The media and foolish adherents of injurious convictions are thrusting false meaning into a controversy that doesn't need to exist. They're trying to tear down walls that they create just for the spectacle of the rubble and subsiding ash when it all comes down. The remonstrations are mere squabble over letting a citizen elate in the success of a relative with whom he can no longer interact, and in that sense the issue is closer to freedom of speech rather than the separation of church and state. It's really not that big of a deal. It's really not that big of a blow against Separation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Good point. A kid should be able to fly a flag dedicated to his grandfather over the state capitol, even if it does mention God. Besides, who's going to notice that it mentions God anyways, unless they actually are so interested as to look? To most people, it'll just look like a flag flying over the capitol.
I disagree because I think this case does have to do with the church/state issue. If a flag is flying over the state capitol with the word God on it, people will assume that it has to do with the state government in some way. Its basically the same as putting up a plaque with the Ten Commandments. Even if these symbols have nothing to do with how the government decides policies, they still represent something that is supposed to be completely separate. The boy could have flown his flag at his house and everything would have been fine, but his choice to use government property as his medium caused conflicting interests to collide.
Post a Comment