Religion in the Public Square

[bryant69]

Imagine at townhall they have a window box thing that is given out, on a weekly basis, for organizations in the community. One week it is the Boy Scouts with a display of photos from their latest trip, the next it's the knitting club displaying some of their better offerings, the next week it is the geologists society with geodes created over millions of years. Around Christmas the local church applies to fill the window with some sort of unspecified Christmas display.

Should they be allowed or not?

Bryant

[Kerrytravelers]

1. What if it was a Univeraslist church?

The word church, in and of itself. doesn't necessarily imply that the display will be anti-non Christian or anti-anyone. There are many Episcopalian churches that would do a beautiful job.

Christmas, although derived from a Pagan holiday, is now celebrated by Christians and anyone else who likes to celebrate it. As long as everyone else is given a time to display in town hall, including the times of year they have their holidays, and everything is kept equally, then I don't have an issue with it.

However, I'm always ready to have someone point out to me the fallacy in my statement. Perhaps I am missing an angle here.

[eallen]

2. It depends. How are applicants selected?

If the process truly is neutral with regard to religion, so that local Wiccans get their shot at Samhain decorations and local Jews get their turn, and the local atheists theirs, it likely is fine. On that basis, many religious groups meet in public buildings, and many public schools have religious clubs.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Depends on if the display was religious in nature

What if the church wanted to advertise a food drive for the needy? That should be allowed. Same thing for a clothing drive, drive for winter heating, etc, etc.

[bryant69]

5. But not just a generic christmas display?

Bryant

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. Depends on what you mean by "generic"

If it is a tree with lights, a snowman, Santa--these are generic. If it is a nativity, that is religious.

[bryant69]

7. A christmas tree with a little card saying "First Baptist"

might still be considered religious.

Bryant

[Lowell]

4. You said it was a townhall window box

that would imply government endorsement. I don't like religion and government to cross the lines. Keep religion out of government run properties.

[Imperialism Inc.]

8. Could go either way.

Lemon test (Lemon v. Kurtzman):

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.


3 isn't violated here. Since the display has served secular purposes in the past 1 is probably not violated either. 2 however is why it could go either way. If it is a display of a religious nature then it will have to be removed. If it is more about the many secular aspects of Christmas then it can stay.

Personally I wouldn't care either way even if 2 is violated for a short period of time. However, if it is brought to a court , and 2 is violated the court must and should rule it to be removed.

[bryant69]

10. As for two it would depend on what the constitutes the

governments action. If it is providing the window box, than clearly the action doesn't have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. If the action is granting the permit than we find ourself questioning whether or not granting the permit is advancing religion or not granting the permit is inhibiting religion.

Bryant

[Imperialism Inc.]

15. No we don't.

This isn't a major unsolved question of Constitutional law. This is pretty basic stuff.

[bryant69]

18. Ah - the "I'm right, you're wrong" card. Well played.

Bryant

[Imperialism Inc.]

23. It's just that I can't believe you honestly think that

not elevating one religion above all others is inhibiting religion. I mean yes right wing nut job fundamentalists try that horse shit but the courts have never taken it serious and never will. It is a complete inversion of the first amendment. I honestly , mistakenly, thought you knew better than that. I figured you were being facetious, stirring up shit and holding on to foolish propositions for the sake of argument like you are prone to do. I mean just think it through for 2 seconds. If what you say is the case then we have to let the right wing nut job fundamentalists take over the entire public square just like they (and you??) want to. 10 commandments in the courthouses? No problem! After all, disallowing it would be impeding religion! It's so ridiculous an argument that I thought here on DU it wouldn't really be necessary to explain. It truly bothers me that you have been here as long as you have and don't know the first thing about the separation of church and state.

[bryant69]

26. Everytime I have this discussion

I get called a right wing fundementalist. I'll take that as a sign that your argument is weak and you are trying to avoid actually having to make it.

Putting up the ten commandments in the courthouse is different than putting a christmas tree in a window box for a couple of reasons. There's an implied endorsement in putting up the ten commandments, and there is no provision for any other religion or point of view getting their day in the sun. The implied endorsement in the window box is considerably weaker if it exists at all, and as others have pointed out, they could allow for other religions and points of view. If Atheists wanted a week to celebrate reason, or Mulims a week to commemorate Ramadan (i know it's a month, but going on the assumption that they change it out weekly) or Jews to celebrate Yom Kippur, they should be allowed to as well. You either let everybody or you let nobody, as someone else put it.

Bryant

[Imperialism Inc.]

28. I guess that's why the court rejected it too right?

Because it is such a strong argument. You are hopeless and a waste of time.

On edit: btw i never called you a wing nut only pointed out that it is the failed tactics that they use. Personally I considered you a right wing nut long before I ever saw you post in this forum, but that is beside the point and not what I was saying at all. I addressed your misunderstanding of the first amendment once you pointed out that you were actually serious about not understanding it. So I never dodged you in the first place. But, like I said now it is clear you are a hopeless waste of time so welcome to my ignore list.

[bryant69]

29. You should keep in mind rule 3

But whatever. I can see that asking these questions upsets you so I will refrain.

Bryant

[Az]

19. Cases like this happen all the time

The determining factor is whether anyone is limited from using the facility. As long as all groups have access to it then its fine. The thing of it is that historically the Christian groups seem to want to have exclusive or primary access to such facilities and when they don't get it they wreck it for everyone else.

An example:

Here in Michigan not too long ago a school had a very active and vital afterschool program. Basically students could meet in various groups to participate in a variety of activities that they set up. One such group was a bible study group. Now as no other groups were disallowed the bible study group was perfectly fine as it was not sponsored by the state.

But then a group of atheist students decided they wanted their own bible study group. And this is where the trouble started. The principle was heistant about allowing them to meet. But eventually it was pointed out he really had to if he was allowing the Christians to have a bible study group. So the principle granted them permission if they could get a teacher to sponsor them. Another road block.

For a time no teacher would touch it with a 10' pole. Eventually they got a science teacher that agreed to set up a PA system that they could be monitored via but the teacher would not actually agree to be present in the room. This was enough to give them the go ahead.

Then the parents got involved. There was a huge uproar from the local Christian community. They came down on the principle like a ton of bricks. He tried to explain that he had to allow the atheists the same rights as the Christians. But in the end they had to shut down all after school activity. Not because of the atheists. But because the active Christians refused to allow diversity in the system. It was their way or no way.

[bryant69]

20. That's my understanding of how it works as well

or how it should work at any rate - sad for those students in Michigan though.

Bryant

[Sam1]

9. You can't keep the church out.

This is a public forum. to deny the local church request on the bases of the content would be an infringement of the 1st amendment right of free speech because the denial is based on considerations of content. Content neutral regulation is, however, ok.

The government is providing a place for private organizations to use, this is very different from a governmental unit sponsoring the display.

[cosmik debris]

12. Then you can't keep out the Wiccans either

Or the pagans, or the Jews, or the Hindus etc.

I wonder how long it would be before the Christians started howling when they found themselves in a line of 200 or 300 religions who wanted equal access, and they had to wait until after the Luciferians had their turn. What if their turn didn't fall on a Christian holiday. That might be fun to watch.

[charlie]

14. Some are already howling, it's already fun to watch

Jerry Falwell got his lawyers to make a Virginia county school system accept Christian flyers inserted into student backpacks. Pagan groups saw the opening he created and ran through it:

http://blog.au.org/2006/12/falwells_flub_j.html

[Sam1]

21. That is absolutely correct. And that is the way it should be.

[Imperialism Inc.]

16. You forgot to read the whole ammendment!

Read the second half to understand why you are wrong.

[Sam1]

22. don't need to - the window box is a public forum and therefor

this is a freedom of speech issue not a freedom of religion issue.

[Imperialism Inc.]

24. Tell it to the judge.

You do realize of course that even most of the hard core right wing nut judges we have on the court now will disagree with that right? How does it feel to be to the right of Bush appointees? And , yes , you most certainly do need to read the whole amendment since we are talking about a government building and therefore the potential to violate the second part of it.

Sheesh. I really can't believe there are DUer's to the right of Bush appointees on religion.

[Sam1]

25. This has been told to the judge - It is

a free speech clause not a religion clause issue because of the venue. Or at least that is how a smart attorney would frame the issue.

Quote some case law - with citation please. Good News Clubs would be a place to start.

[Zhade]

11. It completely depends on one factor: is the government involved in any way?

If one penny of taxes goes to it, it's a violation of the separation of church and state.

[bryant69]

13. Hmmmmmmm

OK - tax pennies go towards keeping the building lit and maintained, but not to specifically funding the things that go into the box. Does that count?

Bryant

[Az]

17. It depends on whether any and all groups can apply

If the local Atheist group can present a display then so to can a local Church. Scientologists and Johova Witnesses. Mormons and Muslims. Taoists and Buddhists.

The criteria in dealing with religion in the public square is all or nothing.

[trotsky]

27. What if so many groups apply that some have to be turned down?

After all, if each group gets a week in the box, then only 52 groups can be accommodated. And if you have less than 52, OK, which groups get to go twice?

Excessive Entanglement.

Why would a Christian group need public space to advertise, anyway? They've supposedly got the ultimate being of the universe on their side, why do they have to use facilities paid for by MY tax dollars, when I already subsidize their churches?

[Az]

30. That is a very real problem

And exactly why most cases tend towards exclusion rather than inclussion. In most cases government officials attempt to set up situations that will not lead to entanglement. Of course the best laid plans etc.

[Sam1]

31. Random drawing solves the problem very easily.

[trotsky]

32. Ha! Yeah, right.

Given the history of church groups that just can't resist using government resources to proselytize, I doubt they'd accept a random drawing result they did not win.

Why not just avoid the whole mess altogether? Why does religion have to be shoved on everyone?

[Sam1]

33. Because like any other group religious groups are protected

by the free speech clause of the first amendment.

To avoid the whole mess we'll shut down the window box; after all why do the Boy Scouts, the Lions, or Aunt Judie's Quilting club have to be shoved on everyone?

[trotsky]

34. Religious groups are unique.

Otherwise they wouldn't have their own clause in addition to the free speech one in the First Amendment.

Shutting down the box would be typical. If the Christians can't have their way, that's usually the next step.

[Sam1]

35. So? That matters under other fact patterns but not this set.

[trotsky]

36. It matters quite a bit, actually.

Religion gets singled out in the first amendment as having freedoms BUT also not being able to enlist the government's resources to propagate itself.

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.- Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1790

[Sam1]

37. This is a free speech issue. The town government has

established the window box as a public forum. To exclude the local church would infringe on their free speech rights as the regulation would not be content neutral. The church is availing itself of a public venue that has been made freely available to secular organizations. While the government can not support religion, nether can it burden it. To exclude it from a public forum freely available to other community groups would be such a burden. What counts is that the church group is nether advantaged or disadvantaged in relation to the other community groups using the window box.

[Az]

39. Think of it as a public notice board

Anyone can place notices on a public notice board. Church, person, business, whatever.

What is being pointed out is that what typically happens and causes all the problems is when the local atheists or scientologists or pagans or whoever nonChristian accesses something like a public display that goes beyond a simply notice board is that the Christians become insensed and demand that it be removed.

Take nativity scenes. No one can raise a fuss if along with the nativity scene other religious and cultural icons are represented with no preference given to any of the displays. But what typically happens is the nativity scene has to be front and center and if any other representation is present its usually around back on the other side of the building.

A secular government is about being fair. Some people can't play fair so the result is most governmental branches attempt to avoid the entanglement all together.

All or None.

[Sam1]

40. agreed. However it is more then a public notice board as

each of the participants get the exclusive use of the space for one week.

[Az]

42. Yep

Which is why you don't see the Gov doing things like that on a regular basis. Frankly such a thing would be too devisive. Its a nice idea or would be if everyone were tolerant. But the thing of a free society is that we cannot mandate that everyone be tolerant. So we sometimes have stop short of things that sound nice because not everyone plays well with the others.

[Sam1]

43. To Bad. But so true.

[Sam1]

41. Christians are not the only who can become insensed.

[Az]

47. True but its typically for different reasons

The other groups that get ticked get ticked because they are not allowed to play in the reindeer games. The Christians tend to be the ones that get pissed when others play in their reindeer games.

The upshot is that usually what happens is the Christians force one of their displays on a public space and then when another group asks to put theirs up as well they get shoved out or denied. This of course initiates yuckiness involving lawyers.

[Sam1]

50. I do not think that this atitude is

distinct to Christians. Ya, the is a class of christians that act this way. But, we are luck that, here in the US, the yuckiness usually only involves lawyers. Christianity is not the only religion with delusions of exclusivity.

[trotsky]

44. Public forum? Puh-lease.

It's just an advertising space. Advertising, as in promoting. Government cannot promote religion. I know, those Christians are so oppressed. Not allowing ANY religion doesn't burden it.

[Sam1]

45. The government can't denigrate religion. If it is going to provide

an advertising space to some community groups then it must provide that space to all community groups. I take it that you have no objections to Jews, Wickens, Muslims, or Pagans using the space.

Stick to the fact pattern.

[trotsky]

46. Denigrate?

den·i·grate
1. to speak damagingly of; criticize in a derogatory manner; sully; defame: to denigrate someone's character.
2. to treat or represent as lacking in value or importance; belittle; disparage: to denigrate someone's contributions to a project.

Please, use appropriate words. Denying a religious group the "right" to use government resources to promote itself doesn't even begin to resemble "denigrating" it.

And actually, I would object to any of those other groups using it. No use of government resources to promote religion.

[Sam1]

48. Definition two fits your position very well.

First no group, secular or religious, is using the window box as a "right". The town can withdraw the use of the box at any time. But once it has been offered then the town can regulate as to time, place and manner and not as to content. (other then non protected speech). To single out religious organizations as the single class of NPOs that can not use the box does treat them as lacking value and importance.

If what you are saying is that no group secular or religious has a "right" to government resources to use for self promotion then I agree. However, I disagree that all messages are overtly self-promotional.

[trotsky]

49. Sorry, I don't agree.

Religion already has a leg up on other groups, it doesn't and shouldn't need government-provided venues to further promote itself. You are asking for SPECIAL rights above and beyond, and that's not fair to other religions, or those with no religion.

To single out religious organizations as the single class of NPOs that can not use the box does treat them as lacking value and importance.

Bullshit. It merely recognizes the first amendment, which DOES single out religious organizations to ensure they don't get promoted by the state. The Founders knew what they were doing - protecting the freedom of religion.

[Sam1]

51. There is more to the first amendment then the religion clauses.

"Religion already has a leg up on other groups, it doesn't and shouldn't need government-provided venues to further promote itself. You are asking for SPECIAL rights above and beyond, and that's not fair to other religions, or those with no religion."

To apply for the use of what is offered to all is not asking for special rights "above and Beyond". Other religions and those with no religion are free to use the window box also as long as the time, place, and manner requirements are complied with.

This is like the Fla. town that passed an ordnance allowing anyone but members a certain religion as a part of religious observance to slaughter chickens. To deny to a religious organizations that which is granted to other organizations is generally not permissible.

[trotsky]

53. Think about this for a moment.

Especially if you were a member of a minority religion. Say you're a Muslim in a predominantly Christian town. A predominantly CONSERVATIVE Christian town. Drawing attention to your religion is maybe not something you want to do. Setting up your own window box display, to "counter" the Christian one, does exactly that. It singles you out, identifies you as "the other" or "the minority" and very often results in societal judgment against you.

Other religions and those with no religion are free to use the window box also as long as the time, place, and manner requirements are complied with.

Sure they are. And then the majority Christians get to know who they are, and use the tyranny of the majority to make their lives more difficult. Don't tell me this doesn't happen.

It is in EVERYONE'S best interest (yours included, should your religion ever become a minority) to just keep religion out of it. I am truly sorry you cannot understand this from a minority religious viewpoint.

[Sam1]

55. This is a different issue.

And one where I may be in more agreement with your position then you think. My beliefs, and proclivities to relate most religious practice to the twelve steps, place me in the minority with in my faith community so I do have some understanding.

However, religion is to firmly established in this country to be just kept out of it. Nor is Christianity monolithic. See the reaction to the Ellison affair that came out of one the Baptist seminaries.

About 80 years ago H.L. Mencken put these people in the closet, and as usually happens they didn't stay. They and their leaders need to be engaged by some of the rest of the Christian Community.

[trotsky]

58. That's too bad.

"religion is to (sic) firmly established in this country to be just kept out of it"

No one is asking religion to go away. Very common strawman, usually only brought up by right-wing blowhards like Bill O'Reilly. This is about the use of government resources for promotion of a religion. I stick by Ben Franklin's quote, and virtually every court ruling of the past two centuries.

[Sam1]

61. This is a freedom of speech issue. Having offered the space to

other groups the town can not withhold it from a religious group. In fact you are asking religion to shut up a go away.

Now that you have decided to bring up case law go check "Good News Clubs" which is pretty much on point and does not support your position. Cite some of these cases I will be happy to distinguish them for you.

[trotsky]

62. If the "Good News Clubs" were relevant here, you'd have a great point.

But because those cases only have to do with religious groups meeting, not using government resources to proselytize, they really don't support your argument at all.

Here are some things for you to chew on.

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=legal_litigation (Scroll down to "Religious-Display Cases.")

Also http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/NonLitigSum020601.pdf?docID=682

And please feel free to explore the entire Americans United site for more information on state-church separation. I am disappointed that you are basically parroting the positions of people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who try and misuse the "free speech" right as a shoehorn to wedge religion into government.

[Sam1]

63. Good News Club is relevant to the discussion.

In Good News Club the meetings were held on school property therefor a use of government resources. The Window box is a government resource of the same sort. In both cases the communication of a message is the important point. The use of government resources is the same in both instants and in both cases is neutral because of the participation of other groups.

In both instants the government has created a limited public forum and can not discriminate on the bases of a religious view point. Since the church display is in conformance with the purpose of the purpose of the limited public forum, informing the public of the goings on of community groups it can not be kept out.

You are the one that has introduced proselytizing into the discussion, I don't see it in the original fact pattern. A Christmas display does not on its face indicate proselytizing. However, if the other groups have invited those viewing the displays to visit then I believe that the local church group can do the same thing with out violating the manner of use restriction.

I am also disappointed that you feel that you have to resort to name calling and misrepresentation. I have been very careful to restrict the discussion to a limited public forum and to no other function of government. A one week Christmas display is a far cry from trying to shoehorn religion into government. You will have to do better then that. This is a very narrow point don't expand it.

Having looked at the links that you provided I believe that all of them can be distinguished by:
Some manner of active participation by the governmental unit.
Some exclusive grant of governmental resources.
And in the school cases occurrence of the activity during the school day, or involvement in a
school sponsored function.
And, I am in agreement with the disposition of all of them.

As I said bring on the cases and I will distinguish the fact patterns.

[trotsky]

65. Nope, Good News Club not the same.

If someone was walking by the school, they wouldn't know the club was meeting. Walking by the display case, you'd know a church was advertising. The club was simply using the school as a meeting facility. Pretty clearly different, no matter how much you keep insisting otherwise.

And a church making a public display IS proselytizing. They're one and the same - spreading the "message" of their church.

I'm not sure what kind of definition of "name calling" you have, but I suspect it's a weak attempt to try and claim the moral high ground.

Bring on the cases? I just did. You appear to believe you've dismissed them by some weak hand-waving, so how about you "bring on" YOUR cases that support what you're claiming? Good News Club clearly doesn't, so YOU take a turn.

But if you don't feel like it, why don't you read these. They are especially good at addressing the O'Reilly/Falwell/Robertson "you're discriminating against religious expression" position you're embracing:

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstate101/a/publicsquare.htm

There is, however, another public/private distinction — the one that is really at issue: private, as in what individuals do (whether in their homes or in the street) and public, as in what the government does (public funds, public housing, etc.). A free society must protect the religious expression of the former (individual citizens) but not the latter. The government has no “right to free speech”.

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstate101/a/nakedsquare.htm

One common complaint raised about the way strict separationists read the First Amendment is that it leaves the public square “naked,” by which it is meant that the public square is now “bare” of religious speech. This, in turn, is believed to foster and encourage public hostility towards religion, something which is actually forbidden by the First Amendment. This view has been widely popularized by Richard John Neuhaus, a Catholic priest and regular critic of the separation of church and state.

There are plenty more relevant articles on the parent page for those, http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstate101/Separation_of_Church_State_101_Whos_Who_Whats_What.htm, that you should find very informative.

I'm so glad the Constitution is on my side.

[Crunchy Frog]

38. Depends.

If all religious institutions are allowed the same right to put up displays, then I'd be inclined to say yes. If there is discrimination, or favoritism towards one group over others, then no.

[Evoman]

52. What about the KKK or the white supremacists....should they be allowed to put stuff in the public

display?

Maybe they can have a little display with a noose, showing a lynching. Ha. Why limit their free speech? What is a legitimate group? Who decides? The community.....that good old community that by a vast majority is christian or perhaps government people (who are also christians)? We can see what will happen with that..."The atheist group promotes divisiviness or lack of moralities, and we will not allow them to place their stuff....but oh, the christians have a nice display full of love and...*puke*"

If the government did do something like this, I would start an Anti-Christian group that would display facts like "Jesus never existed" and "Jesus was probably gay" ....or maybe a display showing a zombie that looks like Jesus eating brains. And then when the christians try to shut you down, bam...no more public display.

The moral of the story: Having public displays that allow religious displays are a waste of time and money.

[Sam1]

56. Right - there is nothing like getting down on their level.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

59. Interesting that you should mention the KKK

a couple years back, a certain church in the county where I work sent out a mass mailing that railed against Jews, Blacks, and homosexuals. The members of this church are also known to belong to the KKK. The county board of supervisors drafted and passed a unanimous resolution condemning the letter. Why? Because the letter was written in response to the announcement of Diversity Day at the county's biggest employer. The County Board didn't want that business to get mad and move away.

I don't see this as a curtailment of free speech. The KKK and the church were free to mail out their letters. But the County was free to let the big company know that the views expressed in the letter were not the ones of county government.

[Sam1]

64. Good for the Board of Supervisors

[Az]

54. Memory of a failed experiment in the public square

The Redmond Public Library needed cash. So they had a fund raiser. It was actually quite a good idea. They sold bricks. Specifically the bricks that made up their cobblestone sidewalk. The twist was that they were selling messages on the bricks. Contributors were allowed to place a message on a brick for their contribution. It started out the way they planned. Messages about reading books and such. But then religion got into the mix. A plague of Jesus bricks hit the sidewalk. Evengelyzing people to praise Jesus. This of course resulted in other religions getting into the mix (and atheists). Once other messages showed up the Jesus bricks took a nasty turn and started promising doom and hellfire for those that did not believe. Eventually the project had to be scrapped.

[NMMNG]

57. Why am I not surprised?

Sigh. :-(

[and-justice-for-all]

60. So its a one-sided display??

This country was not founded on the bases of 1 religion, no matter what you are mislead in to beliving, "America is a Xtian Nation" is bullshit.

America was founded upon secular ideals, not xtianity. For any Governement building to only give churches/xtiandom establishments the opportunity to display their ideological perspective is bias and wrong.

If they are going to allow such displays in tax-payer establishments, then they need to recognize ALL the ideologies in the community and allow them all to also display in the buildings. If not, then there needs to be NO displaying of ANY ideologies in ANY tax-payer government buildings.

I, for one, prefer NO DISPLAYING OF ANY IDEOLOGICAL BELIEFS on property that I, as a tax-payer pay for.