The left’s absurd attack on Brooke Rollins
Skodonnell/Getty Images
There’s a difference between hearing something and being made to say it yourself. The First Amendment lives in that space. It protects the employee who quietly appreciates the message and the one who deletes it without a second thought.
Suppressing such expressions, on the other hand, risks creating a different constitutional problem: hostility toward religion. The Supreme Court has cautioned against interpretations of the Establishment Clause that demonstrate animus toward faith.
Neutrality does not mean erasure; it means equal treatment. Allowing a pro-Easter message does not privilege Christianity so long as the government does not exclude or penalize other beliefs.
In a religiously pluralistic society, the goal should not be to eliminate religious references from public life, but to ensure that they are expressed in a way that respects freedom for all.
The secretary of agriculture sending an Easter message — grounded in tradition, delivered without coercion, and consistent with historical practice — falls well within those constitutional boundaries.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.