Christmas, Ramadan, and the Reindeer Rule – Redux

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.