The agenda for this Tuesday's ceremony for the families of murder victims, sponsored by the Department of Justice, was decidedly different than originally intended. The Freedom From Religion Foundation remonstrated the ceremony, which was supposed to include a hymn including the phrase, This too shall pass,"" and a closing prayer conducted by a Lutheran pastor, Charles Peterson.
According to the FFRF, these two elements of the ceremony, conducted as part of the National Day of Remembrance for Murder Victims, violated a separation of church and state. Although the FFRF was in the right when it came to this ceremony - since it was a state-sponsored event - it was uncertain where they would draw the line.
Following this fruition, FFRF immediately censured a similar ceremony meant to commemorate law enforcement officials killed during duty, but fell short because this event, unlike Tuesday's, was sponsored by a nonprofit group, and thus did not violate the First Amendment. In reviewing both of these events and the actions taken by the FFRF, it is necessary to question priorities.
It is obvious that with the second event, the FFRF was doomed to fail. There was no way for it to force a nonprofit group to remove religious elements from its ceremony. As a sponsoring group not affiliated with the state government, it was its right to choose how it wanted to run its ceremony.
Considering this inevitable outcome, why then did the FFRF choose to direct their attention to a ceremony for law enforcement officials killed during duty?
If it was to bring attention to their overall goal as a foundation - the separation of church and state - they only succeeded in influencing onlookers to formulate an opinion of them that was less than savory. Their actions indicate a frantic motion to get the public's attention in any way possible, but if the attention they harness only manages to prove that some of their actions are superfluous, they should question what they are doing.
It would be more beneficial to focus on clear-cut violations of church and state, rather than to arraign nonprofit groups. These attacks serve only to give atheists and agnostics even more of a negative reputation and increase their seclusion from society.
People will be more apt to believe or at least sympathize with the separation of church and state if there is no doubt in their minds that it is necessary. In short, these actions distract from the commendable message FFRF managed to convey in many of its successes.
