GaryP

I wrote to Mr. Haynes regarding the article refeered to in a previous post.

He was nice enough to give me permission to post our dialogue here.

GaryP;

Dear Mr. Haynes,
I would like to make a comment about your article concerning the school memorial tiles at Columbine HS.

I agree that the plaque in the office is closer to violating the Establishment Clause. And that perhaps the school should have thought about the possible consequences before asking for the messages. And that a prominent sign declaring the messages to be from private citizens could make sense.

But you state that the religious messages would have helped heal the community. I would submit that they would have made non-Christians feel more isolated than they probably do already.

If a non-believer were to put up a sign saying, "If there were a god, why didn't he intervene?" would that also promote healing in the community?

It seems to me that this "healing" argument is always used when the majority faith is the one being called upon. Why can't Christians more often take the advice of the Native American faith which urges it's followers to "Walk a mile in the other's moccasins?".

Mr. Haynes;

Thanks for writing. I don’t think I suggested that religious messages would bring healing… But I do think treating people fairly in the process would help bring healing. Anyway, you raise an important point about religious messages. But if the school puts up 4,000 tiles with a great variety of symbols and messages (these are very small tiles), I’m not sure that non-Christians would feel isolated if a number of them had a Christian symbol or message. One could also think about it the other way: 4,000 tiles with only secular expression. Would that make religious people (of various faiths) feel left out or ignored? The school may have been better off without inviting the public to make tiles for the school. But once they did, I don’t see how it is fair or right to exclude all religious messages. Best wishes, Charles Haynes


GaryP

Mr. Haynes;

Thanks for your response. I value your opinions and generally agree with what I have read of your columns.

From what I have read of the community in Colorado, I would suspect that if the ruling had gone the other way, many of the messages would have been religious. It is my understanding, that it is a very conservative place with several "mega-churches" which weild strong political power in town.

And, in my opinion, there are few things more inherently offensive to non-adherents of a particular religion that they are not only wrong in what they believe (or don't believe) , but they will also be damned to never-ending torture because of the lack of the "correct" belief.

And I have heard the argument before about people of faith feeling left out if their religious messages are not included. But to me, it seems as if secular = neutral. Otherwise, to be truly neutral, ANTI-religious messages would also have to be included. And that would indeed be probematical as far as community building is concerned.

Finally, I participate in an internet disussion board called the Internet Infidels http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php? Would you mind if I post your response on that site? There is a current thread about this subject (Columbine) and I referred others to your column. It can be found here; http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=43223

Thanks again!

Mr. Haynes;

Sure, feel free to post my thoughts. The possibility that many or most tiles might be religious (of one religion) in nature is a valid concern. I would then suggest that the school not have a “community tile” display.

But if they open up the forum. “neutrality” would mean allowing a variety of expression – religious and non-religious. Since it is a limited open forum, the school may certainly prohibit hate speech, speech advocating violence, illegal activity etc.

But 4x4 tiles with an occasional cross (or pentagon or Star of David etc.)… tiles with “Jesus Wept” and humanistic messages and Earth Mother symbols etc. would all be allowed. Neutrality under the First Amendment doesn’t mean leaving religion out… it should mean fairness.

The school opened the forum. Therefore, in my view, it should not practice viewpoint discrimination (beyond that allowed in a limited public forum). Best wishes, Charles Haynes

ELECTROGOD

His example doesn't really make sense and only serves to portray the Christians as the poor persecuted minority they actually believe they are when faced with opposing views. Why should they feel left out if they cannot preach everywhere? If they made a non-religious tile then they would be a part of it and would not have any reason to feel left out. To me it says that they don't really give a fuck about what happened but care more about trying to promote their beliefs so that everyone will think like them.