Ron Wesselius saw a menorah displayed in the Washington state capitol building in 2006. He decided to erect a nativity scene alongside this menorah, but was denied because it was too close to the holiday season for approval. He sued the state, which ruled in his favor in Wesselius v. DeShaw. Wesselius was allowed to display a crèche in 2007. The common area of the building is now open on a non-discriminatory basis. To challenge the Christian display, the Freedom From Religion Foundation put up a sign declaring “Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” This sign stands a few feet from the religious scene. The Freedom From Religion Foundation has sponsored similar signs in the Wisconsin capitol building for the last 13 years; this sign is often vandalized and turned around. The group intends to put "State/Church; Keep Them Separate” on the back to get the message across, regardless. The organization feels that non-religious citizens should be represented within the capitol building as well. Atheists and agnostics are an important part of the country.
This issue is very similar to the debate within Lynch v. Donnelly. In that case, the city of Pawtucket put up a Christmas display, including a crèche, in a park owned by a non-profit organization. All the decorations were owned by the state. This is the reverse situation in Washington; private citizens own the decorations but they are erected on public property. The majority decides in Lynch that this decoration is not a violation of the Establishment Clause. They cite history and tradition, claiming that the crèche does not endorse the Christian faith. The dissent, however, argues that these displays do not have a clearly secular purpose. Justice Brennan claims that it is a small step in the direction of establishment.
With the precedent by Lynch, the action taken by Wesselius to erect a crèche is constitutional. Similarly, the area must be open to all religions, as well as those against religion entirely. The situation becomes less troublesome if there is a mandatory inclusion of all different perspectives. If one religion is going to be displayed, then all religions, or lack thereof, must be provided that same right. I commend the Washington state government for allowing equal access for all beliefs. However, another issue to consider is whether any religious message should be promoted on government property. To me, allowing a crèche or other religious symbol clearly violates the Establishment Clause. The state is either paying for or providing space for a religious display. The Freedom From Religion Foundation should not be able to display an anti-religion sign either. The state should have no role in supporting religious decorations and messages. The dissent in Lynch argues that Christmas is an ingrained holiday; while it is comfortable, it also supports the Christian faith. Similarly, a menorah in the statehouse would have the same effect. Allowing certain religious symbols will alienate other citizens, even if that is not its intent. The only viable solution I see that satisfies both an equal treatment of religion and non-religion and the Establishment Clause is banning all such displays on government property or funded by the state.
Posts
2 comments:
Personally, I agree with Sara's proposal that no religious or non-religious displays should be allowed on public property, but I dont't think that allowing religious display is a violation of the Establishment Clause. The Court by allowing religious display is not violating the Establishment clause becuase Congress is not enacting a law establishing religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. BUT it is uneccessary untanglement of Church and State. To me, there is no reason to allow religious display on government property, there are plenty of other places to put up religion, or non-religious displays.
I agree with both Sara and Erin, that no -- religious display should be allowed on public property, but no -- it is not a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Churches have grounds on which to erect any kind of display. Homeowners have grounds to decorate as they please.
But imagine how a church would feel if a political party were to set up a "Vote for John Smith" sign on their lawn. Or how a homeowner would react to a "Buckle Up, it's the Law" sign on their lawn.
As the acronym NIMBY proclaims: Not In My Backyard.
If we wanted a fence between Church and Religion by passing the First Amendment all players should be respectful neighbors and stay in their own backyard.
Post a Comment