Give the Devil His Due

It has become a fairly popular trope within movement atheism to say that if a government entity posts up a permanent religious monument, then they must provide equal space to accommodate permanent monuments from competing religions or philosophies. Here are just a few examples:

http://t.co/d9jHDSKKgX Baphomet the superhero: On Monday, the Oklahoma Supreme Court rejected an attempt by Mary… http://t.co/CGIfs97J3v — Atheist Feed (@AtheistFeedz) July 29, 2015

Oklahoma moved the 10 commandments monument just down the street from the Capitol in plain sight. Now no Baphomet statue allowed at Capitol. — dave rags (@daverags66) October 6, 2015

LOL it was either that or allow the Baphomet statue. Win for Satan! Hail Satan! http://t.co/1nQp7enyBP — B. (@AutotheistMusic) October 6, 2015

Oklahoma Bows to BAPHOMET: 10 Commandments Removed http://t.co/WBI4IURBB7 — daryl lawson (@daryllawson) October 7, 2015

Another Ten Commandments monument pops up in Oklahoma! Looks like a good place for @satanicpsalms Baphomet statue. http://t.co/jB57GMGMTD — Secular Coalition (@seculardotorg) October 7, 2015

.@Aron_Ra: Texas now has a spot for the Baphomet statue http://t.co/4aS4vhTJXG — PatheosAtheist (@PatheosAtheist) October 8, 2015

I would love it if our court system actually worked this way, creating a public forum for everyone with a monument to donate whenever the government displays a permanent monument laden with religious significance. Alas, it doesn’t actually work that way.

How it actually works was laid out by the Supreme Court in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a government entity may accept and display a permanent monument as a valid expression of government speech, and it is not thereby bound to accept third-party monuments as a result.

There may be situations in which it is difficult to tell whether a government entity is speaking on its own behalf or is providing a forum for private speech, but this case does not present such a situation. Permanent monuments displayed on public property typically represent government speech.

One may attack government speech on various legal grounds, such as violating the Endorsement Test or some other limit on permissible government speech, but one cannot legally demand equal time with government speech. Government speech does not, in and of itself, create a public forum.

So let’s stop giving Baphomet credit where it is due to the civil rights activists and lawyers who actually pressed the case within the existing legal framework. Instead, let’s give Baphomet (and his many supporters) credit where it is due: They created a fascinating piece of artwork and used it to expertly troll the media and the superstitious citizenry. Good on them for that! Troll recognize troll.