ConstitutionNEXT
  • Welcome
  • Videos
    • Archives
  • Blog
  • Your Rights
  • Resources
    • Resources By Age-Group
    • Teacher Resources
    • Competitions
    • Opportunities for Young Americans
  • Bill of Rights
  • Contact
  • Welcome
  • Videos
    • Archives
  • Blog
  • Your Rights
  • Resources
    • Resources By Age-Group
    • Teacher Resources
    • Competitions
    • Opportunities for Young Americans
  • Bill of Rights
  • Contact
Search

Christmas,  Ramadan,  and  the  Reindeer  Rule  –  Redux

12/10/2018

 
Last year at this time, I talked to you about the constitutionality of Christian nativity scenes under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.  I told you how the rule evolved over time to allow nativity displays in public places, but only if they are deemed to serve secular purposes such as celebrating a holiday or depicting the origins of that holiday.  The displays that have passed constitutional muster in recent years have all included non-Christian symbols, like plastic reindeer, leading some to derisively call the current state of the law on this subject the ‘reindeer rule’.  I showed you how, through the wizardry of Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Establishment Clause – which, on its face, has nothing to do with passive religious displays – is now the ‘endorsement clause’ – Congress shall make no law constituting an endorsement of religion, or appearing to favor one religion over another.  Originally, the Establishment Clause was addressed to situations, like in my own state of Virginia, where the government in colonial times had ordered everyone to attend a particular church and had even paid the ministers.  That’s the establishment of a state religion, no question about it.

But now that Pandora’s Box has been opened – can I say that without endorsing Greek mythology? - the issue will probably never go away.  Three current situations show how the battle continues.  In the first, a 4-foot Satanic statue is now on display in the Illinois state capital building alongside a nativity scene.  The Satanic Temple of Chicago – which says it’s merely a benevolent association – applied to display the statue and the Illinois state government decided the group has the same rights as any other religious organization, so its display could not be censored.  The Satanic Temple says it does not actually worship Satan; it’s just a group of atheists, humanists, and free speech activists.  So how is that a religion? The Supreme Court has never really defined ‘religion’ beyond saying it must be a set of sincerely held beliefs, no Deity required. [Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (4th ed. at 1231-34].  Atheism and humanism certainly qualify under that loose definition. 

The second situation involves a 4-story tall World War One memorial in the shape of a cross in a Maryland suburb of Washington, D.C.  The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals emphasized the Christian origins of the memorial in ruling that it violates the Establishment Clause and must be removed. [American Humanist Association v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission]  That case is now in the Supreme Court.

The third situation involves a cross that has been in a Pensacola city park for 75 years without controversy, up until now. A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit has ruled that the cross must come down.  The city wants the Supreme Court to take the case, arguing that long public acceptance of the cross is enough to make it kosher under previous Supreme Court precedents and, further, that the passage of time before any legal challenge was mounted indicates that just about nobody considers the cross to be an ‘establishment’ of religion.  As of this writing, the Supreme Court has not indicated whether it will take the case.

From time to time on these webinars, I have criticized the Supreme Court for deviating from the Founders’ design.  When the Supreme Court stopped requiring active measures imposing a state religion to make out violations of the Establishment Clause, and veered off into deciding whether passive religious displays endorse religion, it opened the door to an endless stream of cases where it would have to decide on fine shadings of fact what is and what is not an ‘endorsement’.   How many reindeer are enough?  None of this would be necessary if the Supreme Court had stuck to the original meaning of the word ‘establishment’ in the first place. 

But that’s just me.  Like I said, this issue isn’t going away.  See you same time, a year from now.


Comments are closed.

    The Web Team

    Our web team is dedicated to bringing you Constitutional news you can use.

    Archives

    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    October 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    March 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018

    Categories

    All
    Constitution Minute
    Contributed Articles
    News Round Up
    News Round-Up

    RSS Feed

Home

Blog

Resources

Contact

Dedicated to protecting freedom for all Americans, present and future.
Photo used under Creative Commons from Fibonacci Blue
  • Welcome
  • Videos
    • Archives
  • Blog
  • Your Rights
  • Resources
    • Resources By Age-Group
    • Teacher Resources
    • Competitions
    • Opportunities for Young Americans
  • Bill of Rights
  • Contact