http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20081023/GPG0101/810230656/1207/GPG01
On October 23, 2008, Corinthia McCoy wrote the article “Green Bay committee votes to keep holiday displays nonreligious” which instantly made a connection in my mind to Lynch v. Donnelly (465 U.S. 668). The Green Bay City Council Advisory Committee voted 5 to 1 to keep holiday displays secular after a complaint last year. Apparently in 2007 the council had a lawsuit after a nativity scene was put up on the Green Bay City Hall. The U.S. District Court Judge dismissed the case because the decorations were taken down on December 26th. The City Council will vote on this decision on November 5th and it has people in the community talking. Taku Ronsman, a resident of Green Bay, stated that “…I think they’re going to find a backdoor to put up a Christian display and state that ‘well they’re secularizing it,’ which kind of defeats the purpose”. In the Lynch v. Donnelly case the court ruled that it was not unconstitutional to display a crèche on public grounds. Chief Justice Burger claimed that the display did have a secular purpose, especially when it was accompanied by other holiday symbols, such as candy canes, reindeer, and Santa. Some people in the town of Green Bay know that this is constitutional however some people do not want it to be displayed nonetheless. I do not know the religious population of Green Bay but I think that would be interesting to know, because by the way the article was written, it seems as though the City Council is facing a lot of opposition. I feel that the nativity scene is an establishment of religion and that it should only be displayed on private property. By the courts making it a secular symbol they are degrading the holiday for those who celebrate for religious reasons. With the holidays fast approaching what are your opinions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
It is clear in my mind that Nativity Scenes or other Religious symbols belong only on private property. The same people who vehemently support the construction of a Nativity scene on public grounds would likely not display the same sort of support for a Muslim display on the grounds. I understand the Christian tradition in this country is strong and dee-rooted, but no where in the constitution does it suggest that Christians may be excused from the Establishment Clause. Of Course, the line between religious and secular becomes difficult to define in some cases and therefore the legality of certain displays becomes difficult to identify. For instance, is the Christmas Tree that goes up in Washington or in other public areas around the country unconstitutional? The Christmas tree is obviously a symbol of Christmas these days but the pagan origins of the Tree have to mean something.
There is a Nativity scene near my house every year, which I love, and it is in plain view of passing pedestrians and cars, but it's acceptable because it's on the private property of the Catholic Church, where it belongs.
I think the most interesting point brought up is the idea that Christians would have a problem with the nativity scene being considered secular. As a Christian I feel strongly about the meaning and symbolism behind the nativity and think it would be very degrading to give it secular meaning. But at the same time does this mean Santa Clause is a sign of Christmas, which is a religious holiday is also establishing religion? I understand that the nativity scene is an actual religious symbol and Santa is not, but how far we want to push in separating the holidays from actual religious celebration could get out of hand in my opinion. Should public organizations be allowed to use expressly Christmas related decorations or should everything be secular and just 'holiday' related?
I agree with the above comment. If the courts were to try to "secularize" the nativity it would have several affects. Some Christians might feel as if this were a victory of sorts, as they would be able to keep their imagery in the public view. However, I, as a Christian would see this as an utter defeat. By having the courts issue a statement saying that the nativity doesn't have special religious significance takes all meaning out of that nativity scene. Celebrating the incarnation of Christ is one of the great faith statements of the Church. If this means nothing, then what does that say about Christianity?
This is a really tough situation. I would find it acceptable as long as all other religions were given the same chance to show their own religious decorations on city property. Every year my hometown puts up a rather large nativity. It’s located right on our main street. I’ve never heard of anyone in my town being offended by it, but it’s possible. Nonetheless, as long as all religions in my town are given the same opportunity, then I don’t see anything wrong with it.
I feel that holiday decorations such as a nativity scene belong only on private property. Santas, reindeers, candy canes and christmas trees are all exceptable alternatives to religious decorations. By allowing Christian holiday decorations to be put up on public property and saying that it doesnt violate the establishment clause becuase it serves a secular purpose is degrading to Christianity and it takes away from the significance that the object holds. So unless we want to start putting up a Menorah and every other religious decoration next to the nativity scene and call it neutral and not specific to one religion I feel like we should stick with candy canes. There are plenty of other holiday decorations without bringing in religious decorations.
I agree that Nativity scenes belong on private property and not in a place such as the City Hall. Even if the Nativity scene is decorated with candy canes or Santa, that is still establishing a religion. The celebration of Christmas and Christ being born is a Christian holiday. By having these scenes on public property, especially in front of City Hall, I feel like the town is declaring that they are in fact a Christian town. What happens to those that are not Christian then? I just feel that this is wrong and that the court should rule that religious scenes should not be on public property.
I agree with the first post by pcr002, and feel that the author of this post was also correct in their assessment of the constitutionality of these nativity scenes. Displaying the nativity scene in a public area, such as the town hall clearly constitutes an endorsement of one religion over the other.
However, when considering this I think it is also important to ask the question, how far does this inability to display objects extend? Would it be constitutional for a town to put a display of a Santa in their town square? Can they even decorate to celebrate the Christmas holiday at all?
I feel that direct, clear endorsements of religion such as the nativity scene are unconstitutional, yet, I would not view the use of candy canes or stockings as unconstitutional. This is because I do not believe these displays show the State's preference of one religion over another.
Post a Comment