CCN Is Trying to Define Religion, and Getting It Spectacularly Wrong & A Challenge To Them

 Cowlitz County News has apparently decided that it is now the local authority on what does and does not constitute a religion. Unfortunately for everyone reading along, CCN is getting it spectacularly wrong.

This whole mess started with The Satanic Temple, religious freedom, a government invocation and a public-records request. Instead of sticking to those actual issues, CCN and several commenters have appointed themselves a theological review board and decided they get to determine what qualifies as a “real” religion. Their apparent test is simple: if you don't worship a deity the way they believe a religion should, you aren't religious.

That isn't how religion works, and it certainly isn't how religious freedom works.

The Satanic Temple is a non-theistic religion. It does not worship a literal Satan. Satan is used symbolically within its religious philosophy. People are free to think its beliefs are ridiculous, offensive or completely wrong. What they aren't free to do is turn their personal opinion into a legal definition of religion.

You don't have to like someone's religion for the First Amendment to matter.

CCN Doesn't Get to Be the Religion Police

CCN claims that an invocation necessarily requires prayer to a deity and asks who the deity would be for Satanists if they don't actually worship the devil.

That's not a constitutional definition of religion. It's a personal theological opinion being presented as fact.

The Supreme Court has recognized that legislative prayer can be constitutional in certain circumstances. The question isn't whether CCN thinks a particular religion is legitimate. The question is whether government is applying its policies lawfully and without impermissible religious discrimination.

That distinction seems to have escaped CCN completely.

“Run Them Out of Town” Is Not Religious Freedom

The comment section gets considerably uglier when people start suggesting that Satanists should be driven out of their communities.

Virginia Jones essentially argues that Satanists should be run out of town and sent somewhere else. That isn't religious freedom. It's religious intolerance.

You can believe Satanism is wrong. You can dislike The Satanic Temple, its name, its philosophy or its politics. You cannot turn your personal religious beliefs into a demand that people with different beliefs be expelled from their communities.

Then Arlene Smith says The Satanic Temple should never have been allowed to meet and that the city can put a stop to it.

No. Government doesn't get to ban a religious organization simply because somebody doesn't like its beliefs. If a city creates rules governing public meetings or religious participation, those rules have to be applied according to the law. The city doesn't get to decide that Christian prayer is acceptable while another religion is excluded because someone considers it illegitimate.

Cynthia Elizabeth actually gets closer to the point when she asks why one religion should be allowed while another isn't. That's the issue. If government creates a forum for religious participation, it cannot simply pick the religion it likes best.

Religious freedom means protecting religions people don't like, not just the ones they do.

Separation of Church and State Isn't Something CCN Can Just Dismiss

Michelle Criswell Reed says that if government opens the door to one religion, it needs to open it to all or maintain separation of church and state.

Laura Ann correctly points out that Jefferson's famous “wall of separation” language concerned keeping government out of religion. The problem comes when that is twisted into the claim that separation of church and state isn't a constitutional principle simply because those exact words don't appear in the First Amendment.

The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That's the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

Holly Carpenter argues that people who believe separation of church and state is federally mandated are proof of the failure of public education. CCN responds simply, “It's indoctrination.”

There is a difference between saying the exact phrase “separation of church and state” isn't printed in the Constitution and saying the constitutional principle doesn't exist. The first statement is technically true. The second is nonsense.

CCN calling it “indoctrination” isn't a constitutional argument. It's simply a political label slapped onto something CCN doesn't like. That's a strange position for a page claiming to be a news source.

Then CCN Apparently Decides History Makes You a Communist

Someone points out that “under God” wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, which is a historical fact. CCN's response is, “Propaganda? Do you support the Communists?”

What exactly does communism have to do with the date those words were added to the Pledge? Nothing.

The commenter didn't advocate communism. They pointed out a historical fact. CCN apparently couldn't rebut the fact, so it reached for a political smear instead.

That's not journalism. It's not reporting. It's not even a substantive argument.

A news organization should be able to distinguish between facts, opinions and accusations. If someone gets a fact wrong, correct it with evidence. Don't respond by insinuating they're a communist.

That raises a pretty basic question: Why does Cowlitz County News even call itself “news”?

The Founders Don't Say What These People Think They Say

Darlene Click argues that the Declaration of Independence explains why America exists while the Constitution explains how the government works, then invokes John Adams and the Founders' religious beliefs.

There is legitimate history in that discussion, but it doesn't prove what she appears to think it proves.

The Founders absolutely used religious language. They argued about religion and government. The Declaration refers to a Creator and natural rights. John Adams wrote about the importance of a moral and religious citizenry.

None of that establishes Christianity as the government's official religion.

In fact, Article VI of the Constitution says that “no religious Test shall ever be required” as a qualification for federal office. The First Amendment then prohibits government establishment of religion and protects the free exercise of religion.

The Declaration isn't the Constitution. John Adams' writings aren't the Constitution. The Pledge isn't the Constitution.

The Constitution is the Constitution.

History can tell us what the Founders believed and argued about. It cannot magically turn their personal religious beliefs into constitutional law.

The Public-Records Argument Doesn't Make CCN Look Any Better

CCN also tried to make the religion of the person making a public-records request relevant to whether that request was legitimate.

That is another problem.

Washington's Public Records Act says identifiable public records must be made available to “any person” and explicitly says agencies “shall not distinguish among persons requesting records.” The requester's religion doesn't turn a legitimate public-records request into an illegitimate one.

CCN seems determined to make the requester's religion the issue. It isn't.

The question is whether the law provides a right or protection. CCN doesn't get to erase that protection by declaring someone's religion invalid.

Then Joel McEntire Jumps Into the Middle of It

Joel McEntire isn't an anonymous Facebook commenter. He's a sitting Washington state representative.

His comment labeling someone “UNSAFE” while repeating an allegation that the person said Jews should be eliminated is serious. If that accusation is true, provide the evidence. If it isn't, it shouldn't be repeated as fact.

An elected official should understand the difference between a serious allegation and something floating around on Facebook.

The irony is difficult to miss. The discussion is supposedly about religious freedom, yet people are throwing around accusations about who is “unsafe” while others argue that people belonging to an unpopular religion should be excluded.

That is precisely why constitutional protections exist.

He must have been needing attention.

The Xanax Comment Was Completely Uncalled For

CCN also responds to someone disagreeing with its constitutional argument by asking, “Tracy Bouchard-Morgan take your Xanax yet?”

That's not debate. That's a personal insult involving someone's medication.

If CCN disagrees with someone's interpretation of the First Amendment, it can make an argument. It can cite the Constitution or court decisions. Instead, it chose to demean the person making the argument.

For a page claiming to be a local news source, that's an incredibly cheap way to handle disagreement.

Eddie Williams Wants Everyone to “Open Their Minds”

Eddie Williams declares that The Satanic Temple doesn't do any good work and suggests that if they don't worship Satan, they should change their name.

Another commenter challenges him to provide evidence and points out examples of charitable work, including food and toy drives, blood drives, community cleanups and collections of feminine hygiene products.

Eddie doesn't provide evidence for his claim. Instead, he calls the other commenter an idiot and accuses them of posting a lie.

That is an impressive way to demand “truth” while refusing to substantiate your own claim.

More importantly, Eddie's argument is based on the same misunderstanding as CCN's. The Satanic Temple doesn't worship a literal Satan. It is explicitly non-theistic.

Telling people to “open their minds” while refusing to learn what the organization actually believes is a little like failing a test and blaming the textbook.

Nobody Attacked Father's House Church

CCN also claims that people like Alex Kirby and Longview Resistance are attacking elected officials and Father's House Church.

Let's be very clear: nobody attacked Father's House Church.

People questioned the motives of individuals involved in the controversy. They questioned elected officials and government policy. Those are not the same thing as attacking a church.

CCN needs to prove its accusation. If Alex Kirby attacked Father's House Church, show exactly where. If Longview Resistance attacked Father's House Church, show exactly where.

Don't just say it happened.

Show it.

CCN has also repeatedly gotten the people involved wrong, which is hardly unusual. It seems remarkably willing to lump people together, assign motives and then treat those assumptions as facts.

A church does not become immune from criticism simply because elected officials attend it. Criticism of an elected official's conduct or government policy is political criticism. It isn't an attack on Christianity.

Has CCN Considered That the Blog Author Might Not Be Connected to These People?

CCN keeps stating that Alex Kirby and Longview Resistance are behind this blog.

This raises a very simple question:

Has it occurred to CCN that the person who writes the Documented blog may not be related to any of the individuals they keep naming?

Not every criticism of a council member is part of some elaborate conspiracy involving the same handful of people.

Maybe I saw a public discussion, looked at the constitutional issues and decided to write about it. That's how blogs work.

If CCN believes I have some connection to the people it keeps naming, prove it. Otherwise, it's another unsupported assumption and we all know what assumptions are.

CCN also keeps insisting that the criticism is an attack on Christian faith rather than policy.

Where?

Questioning a government policy isn't attacking Christianity. Questioning whether government can discriminate among religions isn't attacking Christianity. Pointing out historical facts isn't attacking Christianity.

CCN needs to learn the difference between criticizing government and criticizing religion.

The Hypocrisy Is Hard to Miss

CCN has previously had its own little swan-song moment over people getting angry about one of its posts involving a drug-addicted female bail jumper. They were very upset that people were angry with them and seemed to think everyone should simply get over it.

Now CCN is doing everything possible to provoke people and then mocking them for being angry.

A commenter says atheists are angry about the post. CCN responds that they can be. CCN then shares a comment from someone identifying as a Satanic Temple member who says they previously appreciated the organization's work but now believes CCN is slandering it.

If CCN believes criticism is fair game, then it needs to accept criticism itself. You can't complain that people are angry about your reporting and then celebrate the fact that your latest post has made people angry.

That's hypocrisy.

The same First Amendment CCN's commenters keep invoking to defend Christian prayer also protects the people criticizing CCN.

So Who Is Actually Running CCN?

This brings us to another question that deserves an answer.

Who is actually running Cowlitz County News?

It increasingly appears that CCN may be being operated or influenced by someone with connections to the Longview City Council.

I'm not presenting that as an established fact. I'm asking the question.

If a sitting city council member is involved in operating, managing, contributing to or controlling a page that presents itself as a local news source, residents deserve to know that. If nobody on the council is involved, then say so. If someone is, who?

A page calling itself news while weighing in on religion, constitutional rights, public-records law and local government should have no problem being transparent about who is behind it.

Here's the Bottom Line

Cowlitz County News doesn't get to define religion. Its commenters don't get to define religion. Joel McEntire doesn't get to define religion. Eddie Williams doesn't get to define religion.

The government doesn't get to decide which religious beliefs are acceptable simply because some people find them offensive, strange or ridiculous.

You don't have to like The Satanic Temple. You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to understand it. You do have to understand that religious freedom applies to religions you don't like.

You also don't get to call criticism of elected officials an attack on their church without evidence. You don't get to invent connections between people because you dislike what they're saying. You don't get to call someone a communist because they point out a historical fact. You don't get to mock someone's medication because you can't answer their argument. You don't get to demand that people of another religion be driven out of town and then claim you're defending religious freedom.

Most importantly, you don't get to invent your own definition of religion and then use it to decide who deserves constitutional protection.

CCN has taken a fairly straightforward discussion about religious freedom and turned it into a showcase of misinformation, personal attacks, unsupported accusations and constitutional misunderstandings.

For a page calling itself Cowlitz County News, that's a pretty remarkable failure to understand the difference between news, opinion and personal grievance.

Before CCN continues trying to decide which religions count, perhaps it should start with the Constitution.

Then it can answer the other question residents deserve answered:

Who is actually behind Cowlitz County News? You tell us who you are and I'll tell you who I am.