Imagine that an American city decides to create a government owned and operated display featuring a Christian nativity scene, tin soldiers, Christmas trees, snowmen, reindeer and other animals, an array of lights, and a shed with a Santa Claus and elves. Imagine further that the city refuses offers from citizens to include non-Christian religious symbols such as a menorah and a sign marking the winter solstice. What would be the likely outcome of such a scenario, in the nation which first birthed the idea of a formal separation of church authority from state power?
Before you answer, you may want to bone up on the increasingly murky jurisprudence of government religious displays. Here is a concise and accurate article from Dahlia Lithwick of Slate, and here is a bulleted summary from Religious Tolerance. Now that you've got that material under your belt, how do you think the case at hand actually turned out?
Should one recall that these posts are part of a series called Losing the War on Christmas, that might well give away the (invariably unhappy) ending. However, I hate to always end on a down note, so here are a few words of wisdom from then Circuit (now Chief) Judge Mary Beck Briscoe, “Denver has taken the position that, as regards religious items, only items pertaining to the holiday of Christmas are welcome in its display. Wells' sign, like the menorah, represents an alternative religious perspective that Denver has opted to exclude from its display. The decision to exclude Wells' sign and a menorah from the display sends the message that Denver supports Christianity and does not support other religions or religious viewpoints. When the City creates that impression, it violates the Establishment Clause.”
With any luck at all, Briscoe's unbiased and well-reasoned case for genuine religious neutrality will someday become the norm within the Tenth Circuit, and indeed, all of the courts of our fair land.
UPDATE: My preferred solution is an open forum.
0 comments:
Post a Comment