The presence of a link on a Fire Department Chaplain’s web page caused a local citizen, Ken Fagan, to complain that a “taxpayer supported website should not have links to religious groups.”  The website is the page of Pastor Jack Martin, and is part of the Spring Hill Fire Department’s official site.

While Fagan is entitled to his opinion, it is unsupported by fact.  The complaint reportedly caused the temporary removal of the link.  It was said to be restored, though the site in its current form appears to be virtually devoid of external links.  The site also now has numerous statements about how it is intended to be for “all citizens” and not in support of any particular faith tradition.  Even the Chaplain’s biography, which naturally describes his theological background, is qualified with a statement saying it is not intended to promote a specific faith.

The concept of religious freedom, as protected by the US Constitution, was never intended to proscribe all persons in public service from ever mentioning religion or a specific sect of religion.  Unfortunately, religious hypersensitivity in America has reached a point where a link on a Chaplain’s webpage can give rise to an inaccurate complaint.  The US military has also received similar complaints when troops associate themselves with religion in public.

Complaints are not altogether bad.  There is nothing wrong with a concerned citizen asking if actions by government officials are permissible.  The appropriate response in this case, however, is to explain that a link on a “taxpayer supported website” pointing to a religious page is not prohibited by either the law or the US Constitution.  The incident presents the opportunity to educate the citizen on the liberties protected by the Constitution.

Many public institutions, however, react to the critic and try to alleviate their offense, rather than take the effort to defend religious virtue and the positive value of religious freedom in the United States.  The offense, hypothetical or real, of a citizen does not grant the citizen a heckler’s veto over the religious liberty of others.

Perhaps one day the default position in America will be the defense of religious liberty, rather than the restriction of it in the face of offense.

Also noted at Religion Clause.