Legal News: Christmas-Itis?

More on the Chicago Christmas (er, winter solstice) display, as I break from studying for the night. There doesn't seem to be much else to report on, other than the fact that this whole business about banning Christmas symbols has gotten way out of hand.

Just a thought: has anyone advocating the removal of anything and everything remotely "religious" from public property ever stopped to consider the fact that by doing so, they might be undermining their own cause? Consider this reasoning.

One of the reasons commonly cited for purging public property of nativity scenes or any other mention of Christmas is that passersby will conflate their presence with government "endorsement" or "sponsorship" of the ideas or viewpoints being expressed. This is roughly parallel to the recent Supreme Court cases involving courthouse displays of the Ten Commandments. In one of these recent decisions, Van Orden v. Perry, the Court upheld the display of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas state capital building, but not before Justice Stevens noted the risk of "'offend[ing] nonmembers of the faith being advertised as well as adherents who consider the particular advertisement disrespectful.'" (Stevens, J., dissenting), quoting Allegheny County, 492 U.S. at 651 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The basic idea is that there has to be "neutrality" between religion and what the members of the Court refer to as "irreligion." If a nonbeliever walks by a Ten Commandments monument or nativity scene outside the courthouse, it is implicit in the "offensiveness" that the government is preferring one point of view over another.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1500.ZD.html

The problem comes when you consider the amount of media attention these Establishment Clause cases have received, and the measures that have been taken in granting a remedy to plaintiffs who sue over nativity scenes and displays of the Ten Commandments (which, incidentally, is displayed in frieze at the U.S. Supreme Court). After former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore lost his battle to keep the Decalogue displayed in his courthouse, workers came and carted off the 1,500-lb granite monument, in the presence of a large crowd who had gathered outside the courthouse to pray and show their support. Several years ago, after the ACLU challenged the city seal of Stow, Ohio, city officials were forced to use electrical tape to cover up the portions of the city seal deemed to be a violation of the "separation of church and state." Time and again, these stories make national headlines because they are so dramatically out of step with what the vast majority of Americans believe: acknowledging a belief in a higher power is important to our culture and legal system, and consistent with our national heritage.

Does anyone really believe that a nativity scene puts us on the verge of ushering in a theocracy? I think it's worth considering that those who oppose the display of Christmas symbols and traditions (and seek to banish them from public schools) are ultimately doing more harm than good to their cause by bringing this issue to the forefront of the cultural discourse. It's not just that it is making headlines on so many different occasions, but that the manner in which it is being done is so flagrant, and so obnoxious to the beliefs of so many, that the more that cities, towns, school districts, and airports in Seattle give in, the less opponents of public displays of Christmas can plausibly cry foul. How can anyone say we are "establishing religion" when so many concessions are made? And unless they can get help from groups like the Alliance Defense Fund, individuals are going to be less and less willing (and financially able) to stand up to the ACLU and others.

So when it comes to being offended and excluded, the shoe is now being worn on the other foot-yours and mine.