[slightly edited form of a post from last year]
The above is a sign noted in a news article from years back. I have had something of a Xmas tradition (other than helping putting up the family tree or buying overpriced stuff in catalogs or wrapping something on Xmas eve) -- reading a Supreme Court ruling on some religious display dispute, now with the added benefit of being able to listen to audio at Oyez.org. Hey, we each have our little traditions.
An opinion by Justice Stevens did a good job discussing why this matters in a fashion. Such disputes are sort of like the Tiger Woods mess -- somewhat annoying, not life threatening but still relevant and addressing important matters. The case cited is particularly notable in that the locality tried to handle the situation by avoiding controversy, but Rehnquist Court "religious speech is mostly like regular speech" doctrine (one area where conservatives have successfully used the courts to promote their views, see also anti-affirmative action battles) stopped them. This makes the case somewhat different from some locality being challenged for sponsoring a display or allowing it on their land.
I find the doctrine cited stupid -- religious speech is different because the First Amendment specifically treats religion differently. Thus, as Stevens notes, if a display can be reasonably understood to be sponsored by the government as here, it can (and should) be avoided. Likewise, neutral spending that directly funds religious institutions can be a problem. The doctrine in effect belittles the value of religion by treating it like any other sort of viewpoint, which is exactly what the First Amendment does not do. The result generally is a watered down sort of establishment, which can lead to an ironic result:
The respect for religious holidays tend to be selective. "Majority rules" is not the proper test. People are upset, they want to sing their Christmas carols [all carols might not be a problem or holiday songs] in school and have their Nativity plays. But, they can -- outside of public schools, which are not the place for selective use of religion. The push for true religious diversity is both often a fool's errand given the breadth of options (even if President Obama was right on the Golden Rule) and likely failure of a decent job in truly honoring religious beliefs in the eyes of many. Weak tea like "In God We Trust," which is not free from problem anyway, is how useful?
In practice, to be honest, weak tea is a sort of vaccine that provides a weak form of what in large doses can really hurt you and provide a sort of immunity from too much harm. But, equally honest, the result is also that some people are benefited more than others. Certain beliefs deemed more acceptable and the weak "ceremonial deism" also somewhat ironically also making some more strong beliefs a problem as well. If "In God We Trust" is the official line, those who insist on more forceful exhortations are as much troublemakers in a fashion than the loud mouth atheist.
Display cases remind us about such issues as well as the value of not getting the government too involved with religious symbols and messages. Individual government agents might express their own views, including President Obama citing his views as to what good religious belief promotes. Religion is part of whom we are and influences political positions. But, when the government as a whole is involved, strict neutrality should be our guide. Christmas clearly has secular components, its very timing arising from pagan practices, but its religious aspects are basically none of the government's business (again, collectively speaking). As Stevens noted:
[Notable event: During one display case, Justice Thomas actually asked questions, admittedly, before not doing so truly became his thing. But, it underlines how his p.o.v. -- no snark -- can be worthwhile, and how asking questions can be useful to add to the conversation.]
The above is a sign noted in a news article from years back. I have had something of a Xmas tradition (other than helping putting up the family tree or buying overpriced stuff in catalogs or wrapping something on Xmas eve) -- reading a Supreme Court ruling on some religious display dispute, now with the added benefit of being able to listen to audio at Oyez.org. Hey, we each have our little traditions.
An opinion by Justice Stevens did a good job discussing why this matters in a fashion. Such disputes are sort of like the Tiger Woods mess -- somewhat annoying, not life threatening but still relevant and addressing important matters. The case cited is particularly notable in that the locality tried to handle the situation by avoiding controversy, but Rehnquist Court "religious speech is mostly like regular speech" doctrine (one area where conservatives have successfully used the courts to promote their views, see also anti-affirmative action battles) stopped them. This makes the case somewhat different from some locality being challenged for sponsoring a display or allowing it on their land.
I find the doctrine cited stupid -- religious speech is different because the First Amendment specifically treats religion differently. Thus, as Stevens notes, if a display can be reasonably understood to be sponsored by the government as here, it can (and should) be avoided. Likewise, neutral spending that directly funds religious institutions can be a problem. The doctrine in effect belittles the value of religion by treating it like any other sort of viewpoint, which is exactly what the First Amendment does not do. The result generally is a watered down sort of establishment, which can lead to an ironic result:
The creche has been relegated to the role of a neutral harbinger of the holiday season, useful for commercial purposes but devoid of any inherent meaning and incapable of enhancing the religious tenor of a display of which it is an integral part. The city has its victory -- but it is a Pyrrhic one indeed.
The respect for religious holidays tend to be selective. "Majority rules" is not the proper test. People are upset, they want to sing their Christmas carols [all carols might not be a problem or holiday songs] in school and have their Nativity plays. But, they can -- outside of public schools, which are not the place for selective use of religion. The push for true religious diversity is both often a fool's errand given the breadth of options (even if President Obama was right on the Golden Rule) and likely failure of a decent job in truly honoring religious beliefs in the eyes of many. Weak tea like "In God We Trust," which is not free from problem anyway, is how useful?
In practice, to be honest, weak tea is a sort of vaccine that provides a weak form of what in large doses can really hurt you and provide a sort of immunity from too much harm. But, equally honest, the result is also that some people are benefited more than others. Certain beliefs deemed more acceptable and the weak "ceremonial deism" also somewhat ironically also making some more strong beliefs a problem as well. If "In God We Trust" is the official line, those who insist on more forceful exhortations are as much troublemakers in a fashion than the loud mouth atheist.
Display cases remind us about such issues as well as the value of not getting the government too involved with religious symbols and messages. Individual government agents might express their own views, including President Obama citing his views as to what good religious belief promotes. Religion is part of whom we are and influences political positions. But, when the government as a whole is involved, strict neutrality should be our guide. Christmas clearly has secular components, its very timing arising from pagan practices, but its religious aspects are basically none of the government's business (again, collectively speaking). As Stevens noted:
The Establishment Clause should be construed to create a strong presumption against the installation of unattended religious symbols on public property.The "attended" part reflects the difference between a speech and freestanding display, religious statement and so forth. Lest we forget, the holidays do have various meanings, though somewhat selectively honored, which I do care more about than such questions. All the same, the cases do suggest the importance of such things, the things that matter are personal, the government having a duty to be neutral.
[Notable event: During one display case, Justice Thomas actually asked questions, admittedly, before not doing so truly became his thing. But, it underlines how his p.o.v. -- no snark -- can be worthwhile, and how asking questions can be useful to add to the conversation.]