Once the Thanksgiving turkey has been cleared off the table, it's not only the start of the perusal of Black Friday fliers, it's time for the restrategizing of the 'War on Christmas'.
Boroughs and municipalities all across the U.S. start putting up their carefully calibrated Holiday displays, trying to figure out the precise percentage to which they can introduce explicitly Christian imagery, and whether they need to balance it out with arguably 'secular' symbols like Santa Claus (wait, wasn't St.Nicholas supposed to be a Christian symbol, once upon a time?), reindeer, snowmen made of anything but snow, inflatable Grinches and such.
This year's 'War on Christmas' award goes to the Canonsburg Borough, PA, for the best example of how not to deal with the issue of objections raised by secular minded citizens offended by Nativity displays. (photo courtesy Observer-Reporter)
From the article:
The council of a Washington County borough has voted unanimously to move a Nativity scene back to a yard in front of the borough building, despite a complaint by a resident.Canonsburg officials said they believe the scene will be legal if they also include secular holiday displays nearby, and voted accordingly Monday night.
Last week, the borough decided not to put up the Nativity scene that had been out every December at the municipal building for 57 years after resident Megan Hartley complained that it didn't belong there. The Knights of Columbus, which installs the scene, instead put it about 20 feet away at a business.
The ACLU's perspective on the issue:
First, the constitutional right of people to worship, preach, sing carols, and celebrate Christmas in their churches and with their families and friends — whether in public or in private — is well-protected. The ACLU itself has brought several cases on behalf of people who want to celebrate Christmas. When the smoke of battle clears, Christmas is completely safe. The real question is not whether people can celebrate Christmas (they most certainly can), but whether the government should be promoting religious beliefs and practices (it most certainly shouldn't).
Second, it seems that some proponents of government-sponsored religion have become so confused that they are now promoting distinctly unchristian symbols in the name of saving Christmas. By all appearances, these culture warriors are doing themselves exactly what they accuse others of doing: undermining Christmas!
The borough officials talked at length with legal counsel, and must have spent a considerable amount of time counting reindeer to make sure that they had enough 'secular' elements to balance out the religious significance of the creche display. From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
Nonetheless, council members were concerned. At the meeting, council member A.J. Williams, who said he researched the issue with other residents, presented a possible solution that might provide the borough a line of defense against litigation. In the U.S. Supreme Court case Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), the court ruled that a nativity scene was constitutional on public property because it was part of a holiday display that included secular holiday symbols, such as reindeers and dancing bears. Essentially the court said if you're going to make room for baby Jesus, you have to leave space for Santa Claus, too.
And in a case that hit a little closer to home -- Allegheny County v. the American Civil Liberties Union -- the court said in 1989 that a creche inside the county courthouse endorsed Christianity and therefore was unconstitutional. But, in the same case, a menorah displayed outside was deemed constitutional because it was next to a Christmas tree, considered a secular symbol.
So, proposed Mr. Williams, the borough could move back the creche "with the addition of secular items to bring it to acceptable displays."
Sara Rose of the ACLU said courts determine whether nativity scenes violate the Establishment Clause -- the separation of church and state -- on a case-by-case basis. And the precedent set by the Supreme Court has been very problematic, she said. Courts could literally find themselves counting the number of reindeer in a display to ensure there are enough non-religious symbols.
"You can't really know whether [the display is] sufficiently non-religious so that it doesn't violate the Establishment Clause without looking at everything in combination," she said. "It makes it very difficult ... some people call it the 'three reindeer test.' "
Instead, they have decided to go with the Bring--it-on approach, because nothing succeeds in politics like belligerence in favor of the popular opinion.
"And ultimately, council members decided it would be worth it to stand their ground if there was a lawsuit."
"The residents of Canonsburg have never taken a back seat to a fight," said council President Joe Milioto.
Local residents of various persuasions have gotten into the letter-writing-to-the-editor fray. One hailed the initial decision to remove the display, another bemoaned it, another (from a writer of Indian extraction) suggested a "Let's have displays honoring all religions whenever they wish, just as they do in India" kind of approach.
If you ask me, I would say that the borough ought to have a permanent display of the Almighty Dollar Sign and the Steeler's insignia. That would be sufficient to take care of all the need for 'religious displays' in this part of Pennsylvania.
Non-Christians would then have no reason to complain and feel bummed out by holiday displays that aren't inclusive enough.
"Here's a new twist to the annual "War on Christmas" debate: Reminders of Christmas can make religious minorities feel ill at ease — even if they don't realize it.
When people who did not celebrate Christmas or who did not identify as Christian filled out surveys about their moods while in the same room as a small Christmas tree, they reported less self-assurance and fewer positive feelings than if they hadn't been reminded of the holiday, according to a new study.
The university students didn't know the study was about Christmas, said study researcher Michael Schmitt, a social psychologist at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada. Nonetheless, he said, the presence of the tree caused non-celebrators and non-Christians to feel subtly excluded
"Simply having this 12-inch Christmas tree in the room with them made them feel less included in the university as a whole, which to me is a pretty powerful effect from one 12-inch Christmas tree in one psychology lab," Schmitt told LiveScience.
Or perhaps we should simply get these borough officials round-trip tickets to Saudi Arabia during Ramadan, or India during the Diwali season, so they can experience their share of uneasiness as being part of a minority oppressed by majority group displays and traditions.
Comments