Separation of church and state:Municipalities' use of religious displays
Sponsored link.
Religious displays by municipalities:
There are two main principles involved here:
 |
Balance of religious and secular symbols: Senior courts have repeatedly ruled
that one or more religious symbols, such as the Ten Commandments, cross, menorah,
nativity scene, pentacle, etc. cannot be constitutionally displayed by themselves on public
property. To do so would be to violate the principle of separation of church
and state because they would be promote:
- Religion as superior
to secularism, and/or
- One religion or faith tradition as superior to another.
However,
one or more religious symbols may appear in a cultural display if it includes
both
religious and secular symbols.
|
American Atheists commented, with some apparent sarcasm:
"So, for governments and religious groups wishing to
erect sectarian displays on public property during the holiday, the
guidelines require 'secularizing' any sacred objects. Baby Jesus or other
religious icons need help from Santa if they are to be kept in the public
square." 1
|
Equal access for all religions: "In general, the courts have allowed either all religions or none to be
practiced on public property. Once Christmas, Hanukkah or other religious holiday displays
are allowed in city halls and town squares, all religions must be afforded similar access."
2
|
Hopefully, this simple principle will eventually
be understood by all, so future court battles will be unnecessary.
Some
recent court decisions:
|
1984 - Pawtucket, RI: (Lynch v. Donnelly) The court ruled that the city did not
violate the separation of church and state when it included a nativity
scene among a number of other decorations (plastic reindeer, candy canes,
a wishing well, a Jewish menorah) displayed in a public park.
|
|
1989 - Pittsburgh PA: (Allegheny County v. ACLU Greater
Pittsburgh Chapter) The court prohibited the display of a
nativity scene which stood alone inside a county courthouse.
|
|
1997 - Township of Wall, NJ: The U.S. Supreme Court let a ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
stand. They decided that a
display showing a Jewish menorah and a Christian nativity scene was
unconstitutional. Township officials later converted the exhibition into
a cultural display by adding a Santa Claus, reindeer and Frosty the
Snowman. 3
|
|
1998 - Syracuse NY: The court allowed the city to retain
its nativity scene in a public park along with a number of other
decorations - a menorah and non-religious symbols. 4
|
|
1999 - Jersey City, NJ: The Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that a religious
display with a menorah, manger scene and Christmas tree was unconstitutional. The religious display was later modified by adding
symbols of Kwanzaa -- a traditional African celebration -- Santa Claus, Frosty the Snowman, a sleigh, and a sign stating that the purpose for the display was to celebrate "cultural and ethnic diversity." It was then found to be constitutional.
3
|
|
2005: The "three
reindeer rule:" The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF),
a fundamentalist Christian legal group, refered to "Three Reindeer
Rule." It states that in order to convert an unconstitutional
religious display into a constitutional cultural display, a
municipality must include a certain of secular objects or
symbols in close enough proximity. They state: "Although the
overall display must not convey a message endorsing a particular
religion's view, Christmas displays are not banned as some people
believe. Simply put, the courts ask, 'Is the municipality
celebrating the holiday or promoting religion'?" 5
|
|
2005: Mount Soledad cross La Lolla, CA: On 2005-MAR-08, after sixteen years of
conflict, San Diego City Council voted
5 to 3 to reject a plan to retain a cross which has stood at the
top of Mount Soledad in La Jolla, CA since 1913. In its present form, it is a massive concrete structure that is 43 feet tall, including the base. The cross is surrounded by 2,700 plaques dedicated to individual war veterans in six concentric rings. A federal judge has
repeatedly ordered that the cross, which had been built on land owned by
the city, be removed. The city had tried unsuccessfully on a number of
occasions to sell the land to some person or group.
Two Republican
representatives, Randy Cunningham and Duncan Hunter, inserted an
amendment to a federal spending bill in 2003 which would have had the
land taken over by the National Park Service. But City Attorney
Michael Aguirre issued a legal opinion that donating the land to the
federal government for a religious purpose would be a violation of both
California's constitution and the federal constitution. Several local
churches have offered to have the cross relocated to their property. One
is located within 1000 feet of the cross' present location.
Jimmy Valentine, producer for the The Roger Hedgecock Show on KOGO Radio
in San Diego, said:
"We need you to help us editorially, rally those
who get your material, spread the word that a stand is being taken here
in San Diego to 'Save A Cross.'... We'd like folks to put crosses in
their yards in solidarity with us all across the nation. We need to
create a ruckus. We will chain our selves to the Cross to prevent it
from being taken down. We already have volunteers signing up to be
chained to the Cross in shifts....The world needs to know that we are
taking this stand...we will not relinquish our CROSS." 6
There is, of course, no need to relinquish the cross or take it down. It need only be moved to another location off of city land.
On 2011-JAN-05, the arguments, which had underway for over two decades, continued when Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the cross: "... sends a strong message of endorsement and exclusion." It represents an unconstitutional
"endorsement of religion. ... [It] primarily conveys a message of government endorsement of religion that violates the Establishment Clause. This result does not mean that the memorial could not be modified to pass constitutional muster, nor does it mean that no cross can be part of this veterans’ memorial." 8,9
Judge McKeown also wrote:
"Overall, a reasonable observer viewing the Memorial would be confronted with an initial dedication for religious purposes, its long history of religious use, widespread public recognition of the Cross as a Christian symbol, and the history of religious discrimination in La Jolla." 10
The Court of appeals did not order the removal of the cross as requested by the Jewish War Veterans, other plaintiffs, and the American Civil Liberties Union.
During 2012-FEB, the Liberty Institute, a fundamentalist Christian legal defense group, appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Om MAR-14, the U.S. Solicitor General joined the appeal. However, the Supreme Court decided to not accept the appeal. The decision of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stands: the cross is unconstitutional. 10
|
An exception allowing a single religious symbol in
isolation:
|
Grand Rapids MI: Calder Plaza, a municipally owned facility in Grand Rapids, MI, has
allowed a Jewish
symbol, a menorah, to be displayed every year from 1984 to the present time. This practice was challenged
in court as an unconstitutional state endorsement of religion. The Federal appeals court
ruled that the menorah does not violate the 1st Amendment because the plaza is a public
forum that provides equal access to all groups. Thus, all groups
that celebrate a seasonal festival near the
winter solstice
(Baha'i Faith, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Native Americans, Judaism,
Sikhism, Wicca, other Neopagan religions, Atheists, secular groups,
spiritual groups, etc.) are
equally free to display their religious
symbols on the plaza.
|
Two conflicts handled outside the court system: |
Grand Haven MI: The city council had raised a Christian cross ever since 1964,
during the playing of "God Bless America" at the end of the
city-sponsored Musical Fountain show on each 4th of July. In 1997, a visitor
from Chicago complained; in 1998, a Grand Haven family protested. City Manager Ryan Cotton
asked the city's Musical Fountain committee to stop raising the cross on future July 4
shows. The committee referred the issue back to city council and asked for a
recommendation. City attorney, Scott Smith, indicated that the raising of the cross
appeared to be unconstitutional. One option would be to raise a display which included
multiple religious symbols, each given equal prominence. This might include almost 30
symbols and was seen as impractical. Besides, it would probably be
unconstitutional because it would imply the superiority of religion over
secularism. The city received hundreds of letters. Reactions were divided:
|
Some city officials said that the raising of a cross excludes non-Christians from
participating fully in the July 4 celebration.
|
|
Mayor Gail Ringelberg said that "Everyone is entitled to raise symbols on their
personal, private property. But this is city property and a city-sponsored event."
|
|
Councilman Edward Lystra said: "This is something a lot more fundamental about
our community. It's about dignity and respect for everyone in this community and the
people who come into this community...Several sincere Christians are deeply offended by
the cross on the Fourth of July. They think it doesn't belong there."
|
|
Resident Leonard D'Ambrosio commented: "We're afraid of offending a few people
upset by the cross but we're not afraid of offending almighty God. Who's more important?"
|
|
Resident Robert Van Hoef said: "The cross says that we are a community
established on Judeo-Christian values, which really are quite simple. Those values require
residents to have a measure of self-discipline and a measure of respect for others. These
same values are implicit in the Constitution. The cross doesn't ask people to become
Christian. It simply declares where this community stands and it shows what has been
important for this community."
|
|
The city decided that the cross will no longer be raised at the end of the show.
7
| |
Somerset MA: The town had displayed crèches for
nearly six decades on public property in front of the Town Hall. Also, a
menorah, representing the Jewish faith, and a giant Santa Claus,
affectionately known locally as "Santazilla," were displayed at the Police/Fire
headquarters. In 1997, Gil Amancio, state director of American Atheists,
challenged this policy in court as an apparent violation of church and state. The
town responded by attempting to diversify the Christian display with the
relocation of Santazilla and the menorah to the Town Hall. Amancio, the
American Civil
Liberties Union and the town settled out of court. The agreement called
for the nativity display to be augmented with a "Seasons
Greetings" signs, and secular holiday symbols, including plastic
reindeer, lights, a Christmas tree along with Santazilla. Some local religious
leaders were not happy; they wanted the nativity scene to be shown by
itself.
|
A letter from a religious group commented that "In our
region, there are a variety of groups, witches, Devil Worshippers and
representatives of many other religious beliefs. We fear that the crèche
and the menorah would be compromised even more should other groups seek
to have their symbols included." 1
Their worst
nightmares seems to be coming true. Amancio prepared a sign that
will read "Happy Winter Solstice from American Atheists." Pictures of the display as of early
1999-DEC are at:
http://www.americanatheist.org/
The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above
essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.
-
"Clergy distressed over Mass. display mixing Santa, Nativity;
fears of Witches, 'Devil Worshippers' raised," American
Atheists, http://www.atheists.org/
-
Clarence Page, "Bewitching logic: All religions or none should be tolerated on
military bases," Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lake City, UT, 1999-JUN-17. See: http://www.sltrib.com/
-
"Bush picks hardliner for Scotus..." AANews, American
Atheists's newsletter, 2005-NOV-05.
-
"Atheist looking for answers on nativity scene," Akron
Beacon Journal, Akron OH. Online at: http://www.ohio.com
-
"More than 800 attorneys nationwide ready to combat attempts to
censor Christmas," Alliance Defense fund, 2005-NOV-02, at:
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/
- Michael Ireland, "San Diego to
move giant cross built as memorial to servicemen and women. City Council Votes
To End Suit Over Religious Symbol; Radio Station Signs Up Protesters To Chain
Themselves To Save The Monument," Assist News Service, 2005-MAR-12, at:
http://www.christiannewstoday.com/
-
Anne Hamming, "Council halts raising of cross on Fourth of July," The
Muskegon Chronicle, 1999-JUN-15. http://mu.mlive.com/
-
Tony Perry and Nardine Saad, "Cross on public land in San Diego is unconstitutional, federal court rules," Los Angeles Times, 2011-JAN-05, at: http://articles.latimes.com/
-
"ladyimpactohio," "Liberal 9th circuit court takes aim at Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial Cross," RedState, 2011-JAN-07, at: http://www.redstate.com/
-
"Mount Soledad cross controversy," Wikipedia, as on 2012-JUN-27, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/
Site navigation:
Copyright © 1998 to 2012 by Ontario Consultants on
Religious Tolerance
Original publishing date: 1998-AUG-5
Latest update: 2012-JUN-27
Author: B.A. Robinson
Sponsored link
|
Page Translator:
