Las Cruces and the Bigotry of anti-Theists
By Bruce Walker (11/16/05)
Two years ago I wrote about the bigotry of anti-Theists predicting that they would begin to try to purge religion from the names of historical places, which would involve a major revision of every American atlas and almanac. The predictable barrage of thinly concealed hate mail from Leftists dismissed my concerns, but today it seems like the Orwellian reality sought by anti-Theists is closer.
In September of this year, militant anti-Christians sought to remove the symbol of Las Cruces, New Mexico, which is, as its name suggests, is Spanish for “The Crosses.” The pretext is that the crosses as a symbol were never part of the historical community itself, but why should that matter? The name “Las Cruces” explicitly is Christian, and the crosses are an accurate and fair representation of that name.
Why should not these Christophobes sue to compel the people of Las Cruces to change the name of their old town into a name devoid of Christian faith? Does not the Left seem to feel the Constitution requires such a purge? The absurd contortions of the First and Fourteenth amendments are operative regardless of whether the state action was done yesterday or ten years ago.
Militant anti-Christians know that a direct attack on the faith of Americans will fall flat, so they chip and pick and probe away, confident that no one will really believe that they will pursue the “next step.” Perhaps it is time to call their bluff. Perhaps it is time for the overwhelming majority of Americans who have never seen any harm in symbolic connection between America and Christian faith – like in The Battle Hymn of the Republic – to force the issue.
How? Here are some thoughts. Some brave conservative Christian file a federal lawsuit in San Francisco asking that a federal judge order that the name of the town be changed because it means St. Francis. How would San Franciscans respond to that? If a federal judge would not hear the case, then how about a petition for a referendum on changing the name from San Francisco to “Bay City” or something like that? Most conservatives and other normal people would not object, if San Franciscans wished to change the name of their city, provided other communities were granted the same rights.
Perhaps it is time to purge some pivotal Red states by filing a lawsuit to end the state motto of Ohio “With God all things are possible” or Florida “In God We Trust.” Christian advocacy groups should file a friendly lawsuit, and then ask various national political parties and advocacy groups whether Ohioans or Floridians they wish to file amicus briefs one way or the other on this test case.
If Ohio and Florida are allowed to keep overtly religious state mottos, then why should other states not be allowed to change their state motto or adopt additional state mottos? What, for example, should be the “constitutional” reaction, if the Ohio and Florida state mottos are allowed to stand, to many states adding secondary state mottos with the identical text as Florida and Ohio - “In God We Trust” or “With God all things are possible”?
If the response is that the Constitution requires no change, then conservatives can point out that federal litigation has caused plenty of changes in how states and local governments operate. If the response is that the Constitution only allows change if the people wish it, then surely there is a disconnect because the vast majority of judicially imposed anti-Christianity is not supported by the people. If the response is honest by militant atheists, then it would be this: we seek to make sure that all change is change which moves toward state atheism, and if we cannot accomplish that today, we will do what we can today and wait for tomorrow.
There is, of course, a very simple answer. When confronted with pornography, the Supreme Court deferred to community standards. That actually made sense. Places in Nevada have legalized prostitution, while some states were “dry” for many years after prohibition. The people most affected by the cultural role of government in life, including legislating morality, recognizing faith, and the like, made the decisions.
Equality and political accountability are the hallmarks of any good government. It is time conservative Christians began demanding just that, and pushing in places like San Francisco first, before more Las Cruces battles are fought.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Bruce Walker
