Is tolerance banned in Boston?

Argonne Cross, Arlington National Cemetery

Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston made headlines recently by vowing to withhold permits from an organization wishing to locate in the city. “Catholic Charities does not belong in Boston,” Menino proclaimed, disagreeing vehemently with their values. “I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston.” Catholic Charities opposes abortion on religious grounds, a viewpoint that the liberal Menino abhors.

Well, almost. As Dan Rather would say, this story is fake but accurate. Actually, Menino promised to block Chick-fil-A, a fast food operation, from the city because he disagrees with founder Dan Cathy’s religiously-based views on same-sex marriage. The story and the reality both hinge on religious beliefs that conflict with the Mayor’s views. But that is precisely the domain of the First Amendment, whose text is brief and unambiguous.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is very clear that Menino, as a public official, cannot impose his viewpoint on another. However, as a private citizen, he is free to boycott Chick-fil-A and encourage others to do so as well. As are we all.

Does this mean that government is powerless in the face of bigotry? Indeed not. We have laws prohibiting discrimination in employment and accommodation of customers. These laws can and must be vigorously enforced.

On another religious freedom front, there is a group called “Freedom from Religion Foundation” who, with their willing ally the ACLU, remove prayers from school walls, crosses from war memorials, and crèches from public squares. This organization of atheists militantly imposes their views, often to the distress of  citizens of such disparate places as Cranston and Woonsocket RI, and Steubenville OH. The FFRF interprets the First Amendment as strictly banning religious practices and artifacts from the public space. This is a tortured interpretation.

One must step back and ask, what is a religion? Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism all provide a model for how to live, how to behave well in a moral fashion, and require that adherents accept certain tenets of faith. In other words, part of the belief system must be accepted without proof because it is unprovable.

Atheists, likewise, believe in the goodness or badness of certain behaviors. Else, why would they intercede to prevent certain acts which they consider bad? And they share a belief that God does not exist. But that is an unprovable tenet of their belief system and must be accepted on faith. 

It appears clear that an alien visiting from the Cygnus constellation would be confused. Are not the atheists practicing their own religion? Are their attempts to impose their religious beliefs on the public space not, therefore, unconstitutional?

Perhaps the answer is to interpret the First Amendment in its simplest terms. The government shall not impose a religion, such as the historic Church of England. The government shall not prohibit the practice of religion, such as the Nazis did to the Jews, or the Taliban to Christians. Perhaps the answer is to be inclusive rather than exclusive. If you object to a cross on a war memorial, then add symbols of other religions, do not ban them all.

Tolerance, it seems, is a kinder and more peaceable approach than Menino and FFRF's belligerent intolerance.