A rare post about the law...
This is a new pet peeve of mine: people who claim that an Easter egg or a Santa Claus figurine sitting in a government lobby is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. The City of St. Paul has confronted this issue before, but apparently failed to learn its lesson. Back in December 2001, the city announced that all red poinsettias would have to be removed from a holiday display in the main lobby. White ones were okay apparently because they weren't sufficiently Christian, but red ones were considered offensive to non-Christian sensibilities. Eventually someone down there realized how utterly *&%$ing rediculous that rule was and quietly reallowed the red poinsettias back in.
Fastforward to today. A cloth bunny and a display that says "Happy Easter" were removed from the lobby of the St. Paul City Council offices because of a single complaint--actually, not even a complaint, but a comment--that the display might be offensive to non-Christians. The fact that they took the thing down irritates me enough. Add in the subtle detail that no one actually called up the city council and complained that they were offended, but rather that some hippy human rights director speculated that there might be some egg shell ass clown out there who could potentially have his worldview jolted by the sight of a pastel Easter egg sitting in the lobby of a government building. But this isn't "about being politically correct or anything else." No, of course not. I don't know why anyone would get that impression.
This is what happens when legal decisions are made by HR directors. They are under the constant impression that they need to satisfy the most irrational sensitivities of every Tom, Dick and Harry out there--even the hypothetical ones. It isn't necessary, nor is it possible...because by pandering to these Bohemian ACLU soy suckers, they're really just pissing everybody else off. Me included.
Now I'm no Lawrence Tribe here, but I do pretend know a thing or two about the Establishment Clause. And I'm pretty sure that if their concern is truly their "responsibility about advancing the cause of religion," then there was absolutely no need to yank the Easter bunny doll out of the building in cuffs. Back in 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court visited a similar issue in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984). It determined that a city's inclusion of a nativity scene in its display did not violate the Establishment Clause. The display must be viewed in the proper context of the holiday season. From this perspective, the display is clearly not a "purposeful or surreptitious effort to express some kind of subtle governmental advocacy of a particular religious message . . . The creche in the display depicts the historical origins of this traditional event long recognized as a National Holiday." Id. at 680. The Court thus found that a secular purpose existed for the display. Similarly, the Court found that no religion is impermissibly advanced by the display, certainly no more so than the spending of public money for textbooks at or transportation for church-sponsored schools, federal grants for college buildings of church-sponsored institutions, tax exemptions for church properties, etc. Id. at 681. Finally, no evidence of entanglement with religion existed since there was no contact with religious authorities concerning the display or any other action that would cause entanglement. Id. at 684.
Now on the other hand, the Court considered a more blatant Christmas display in County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573 (1989). There the Court did find a violation. The display at issue not only contained a picture of a nativity scene, but also an angel above the scene with the words "Glory to God in the Highest!" written on it. Subtle difference, no? No secular purpose, clear advancement--this sucker is a violation.
The situation in St. Paul is almost identical to Lynch. If anything, there are even fewer grounds for a violation.
Alright, for non-law students who just quit reading once they saw a case cite, it's been well-settled for a long time that this type of thing is perfectly fine. As long as you don't have a ten-foot crucifix standing in the middle of the lobby, you've got no violation. Yet for some reason, I doubt this will be the last time the PC fascists with little else of importance to concern themselves with will take aim at innocent decorations that do no harm to anyone.
Fastforward to today. A cloth bunny and a display that says "Happy Easter" were removed from the lobby of the St. Paul City Council offices because of a single complaint--actually, not even a complaint, but a comment--that the display might be offensive to non-Christians. The fact that they took the thing down irritates me enough. Add in the subtle detail that no one actually called up the city council and complained that they were offended, but rather that some hippy human rights director speculated that there might be some egg shell ass clown out there who could potentially have his worldview jolted by the sight of a pastel Easter egg sitting in the lobby of a government building. But this isn't "about being politically correct or anything else." No, of course not. I don't know why anyone would get that impression.
This is what happens when legal decisions are made by HR directors. They are under the constant impression that they need to satisfy the most irrational sensitivities of every Tom, Dick and Harry out there--even the hypothetical ones. It isn't necessary, nor is it possible...because by pandering to these Bohemian ACLU soy suckers, they're really just pissing everybody else off. Me included.
Now I'm no Lawrence Tribe here, but I do pretend know a thing or two about the Establishment Clause. And I'm pretty sure that if their concern is truly their "responsibility about advancing the cause of religion," then there was absolutely no need to yank the Easter bunny doll out of the building in cuffs. Back in 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court visited a similar issue in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984). It determined that a city's inclusion of a nativity scene in its display did not violate the Establishment Clause. The display must be viewed in the proper context of the holiday season. From this perspective, the display is clearly not a "purposeful or surreptitious effort to express some kind of subtle governmental advocacy of a particular religious message . . . The creche in the display depicts the historical origins of this traditional event long recognized as a National Holiday." Id. at 680. The Court thus found that a secular purpose existed for the display. Similarly, the Court found that no religion is impermissibly advanced by the display, certainly no more so than the spending of public money for textbooks at or transportation for church-sponsored schools, federal grants for college buildings of church-sponsored institutions, tax exemptions for church properties, etc. Id. at 681. Finally, no evidence of entanglement with religion existed since there was no contact with religious authorities concerning the display or any other action that would cause entanglement. Id. at 684.
Now on the other hand, the Court considered a more blatant Christmas display in County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573 (1989). There the Court did find a violation. The display at issue not only contained a picture of a nativity scene, but also an angel above the scene with the words "Glory to God in the Highest!" written on it. Subtle difference, no? No secular purpose, clear advancement--this sucker is a violation.
The situation in St. Paul is almost identical to Lynch. If anything, there are even fewer grounds for a violation.
Alright, for non-law students who just quit reading once they saw a case cite, it's been well-settled for a long time that this type of thing is perfectly fine. As long as you don't have a ten-foot crucifix standing in the middle of the lobby, you've got no violation. Yet for some reason, I doubt this will be the last time the PC fascists with little else of importance to concern themselves with will take aim at innocent decorations that do no harm to anyone.
posted by Your Friendly Neighborhood Clark Bar at 3/27/2006 09:00:00 AM
Subscribe to Tommy Lawyer
2 Comments:
When I was helping out on the Alito hearings, I read many of these cases. I now know more about creches, commandments and easter eggs than I ever thought was possible.
The thing I found most interesting was a study (i wished i remembered who put it out) that said in more than 30% of cases where a complaint is filed against a display, it is filed by people of that faith. For example, Christians letting their political correctness lead them to file a complain against a holiday display. Very odd.
Ps. If the town is so concerned about what will offend non-Christians, do you think someone has perhaps commented on renaming the place? Because as a Protestant, I'm very offended that the city is named after a Catholic Saint. And I'm sure the pagan worshippers aren't too fond of it either...
Post a Comment
<< Home