This Is What's Going on In My Home Town–Nativity Scene Drama

Apparently they are fighting over a nativity scene.

The problem erupted after a Columbus man apparently complained about equality of religions in displays at state parks.

After a letter to the business manager of Ohio State parks regarding symbols of religion, an order came down to remove the nativity scene which the Garden Club has provided. the letter told all start parks in the state to take down their nativity decorations.

On Friday, Dec. 7, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland intervened.

Under current law, government entities (city halls, courts, public schools, etc) can generally acknowledge religious holidays so long as they do not create an impression of endorsement of religion by the government, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Strickland issued an order mandating that Shawnee and all state parks continue their traditional nativity displays.

And he appears to be well within the law, according to the ACLU. “Just because a nativity scene or other religious display appears on government property does not necessarily mean that it is owned or is being displayed by the government, using tax dollars. Many local and some state governments have within their boundaries public areas whereby citizens are permitted to erect displays, including those of a religious nature, of their own choice” says the Ohio ACLU web site.

This is right in my parents’ backyard. This lodge is really fancy (at least by southern Ohio standards), and most of the folks who stay there are upper middle class folks, who come from places like Columbus and Cincinnati to explore the wilderness in the luxury of fancy hotel.

I wish somebody I know would go up there and put up a Menorah, and see how the locals respond. In my experience, a very large majority of southern Ohio folks are all for freedom of religious expression, when it in involves Christianity. But if somebody went up there and put up a Menorah or any other non-Christian symbol, they’d throw a fit.

I remember around the time I graduated from high school when there was some court decision about prayers at graduations. The administrators and students really wanted to have a prayer (of the Christian variety, of course), so they decided that the graduating seniors could vote on whether or not to have a graduation prayer. I bet I was the only person to say that I didn’t want a prayer. Of course, this was a school was everyone was a Christian or person like me, who was tired of Christianity. Nobody was Muslim; nobody was Jewish,;and if anyone was an atheist or any other religion, they wouldn’t say it publicly.

This is one nice thing about living in a town with a noticeable non-Christian population. There seems to be a great deal more tolerance.

This entry was posted in Anti-atheism, Anti-Semitism, Atheism, Free speech, censorship, copyright law, etc.. Bookmark the permalink.

129 Responses to This Is What's Going on In My Home Town–Nativity Scene Drama

  1. Gwen says:

    “Keeping atheists out of the public square would impinge on fewer people’s rights.”

    Well, keeping blue-eyed people out of the public square would only impinge on blue-eyed people’s rights, but I fail to see what problem it would solve.

    On the other hand, “keeping religion out of the public square”–which I assume was meant to be shorthand for “avoiding government sponsorship or endorsement of any religion or religious practice”, so no nativity scenes on public property–would solve a few problems, i.e., religious discrimination (real or apparent…and I’m having a hard time coming up with scenarios that wouldn’t entail some form of religious discrimination in theory [hence my post regarding what secular philosophies and fandoms are going to get to share space with baby Jesus] or in practice [as goes on whenever Christians decide that if their religion isn’t the only one sponsored and endorsed by the government they’re being discriminated against, so screw the Wiccans and Jews and Muslims and Hindus, &c.]–any ideas?), wasting taxpayer money when people are perfectly capable of celebrating their religions on their own property with their own time and money, and opening the whole can of worms that goes along with any attempt to mix church (/synagogue/temple/mosque/&c.) and state.

    So I’m just not seeing the connection between secularizing public space and keeping a whole segment of the population from being in it…could you enlighten me?

    Part of “public” is toleration – putting up with things that we don’t care for or that make us uncomfortable.

    Yes, but that doesn’t mean that anything that certain people or groups don’t care for, or are made uncomfortable by, automatically gets government sponsorship. I’m having trouble seeing a compelling reason why a city or state would put up religious stuff knowing it would make quite a few people uncomfortable, especially since it seems like every Christmas brings more stories of certain smug Christians asserting their right to put up religious displays in the town square–and then to exclude anyone else who wants to do the same. (Or to put up celebrations of rationality next to the nativity scene.)

  2. mythago says:

    But it would violate the same Constitutional principle

    Namely that the government cannot sponsor (or condemn) a particular religion, or a religion in general. Allowing groups to use public space is quite different than a government-sponsored or -endorsed religious display. It’s one thing if the city allows the Lubavitchers to use the town square to do a menorah-lighting every year, another thing if they pay for the menorah, or reserve the town square specifically for that purpose to the exclusion of the folks who would like to put up a Christmas tree.

  3. Robert says:

    Allowing groups to use public space is quite different than a government-sponsored or -endorsed religious display.

    Sure. Betcha a dollar that fidelbogen would bar the former as part of hisher vision of ‘religion out of the public square’. Fidelbogen?

  4. RonF says:

    It’s one thing if the city allows the Lubavitchers to use the town square to do a menorah-lighting every year, another thing if they pay for the menorah, or reserve the town square specifically for that purpose to the exclusion of the folks who would like to put up a Christmas tree.

    Actually, if the Lubavitchers get their reservation in on time I have no problem with it. Just because someone wants to put up a display that has a religious significance doesn’t mean that at that same place and time any other religous group gets to put something of their own up as well.

    Stating what I hope to be the Obvious here. . .

    In the long run, the only solution is to keep religion out of the public square.

    It’s not obvious to me that a) there’s a problem here that needs any other solution than the one we already have and b) that it’s desirable to keep religion out of the public square. Religion is widely believed to be a favorable influence on society in general by society in general and that fact that a minority feels differently doesn’t mean that religious expression or any other kind of expression should be banned from the public square.

    I’m having trouble seeing a compelling reason why a city or state would put up religious stuff knowing it would make quite a few people uncomfortable,

    Because the exercise of the right to freedom of expression is far more important than whether or not it makes people feel uncomfortable. God knows that feminism makes lots of people uncomfortable. Should that be the next thing banned from the public square?

  5. Gwen says:

    Sure. Betcha a dollar that fidelbogen would bar the former as part of hisher vision of ‘religion out of the public square’. Fidelbogen?

    Betcha a dollar it’s possible for even Christians to “use” a public space without sticking up a nativity scene. Just like it’s possible for a Christian government worker to not go around wishing everyone a “merry Christmas”, or for a Christian teacher to avoid putting up a big poster saying “Jesus saves” or “God bless all the little children” on it.

    Some people might have apoplexy, but the failure of the government to provide a platform for religiously-motivated speech doesn’t stop anyone from expressing such speech on their own platform.

    It’s not obvious to me that a) there’s a problem here that needs any other solution than the one we already have

    Well, let’s start here. What problem do you think there is here, and what solution do you think we have to keep it from happening?

    and b) that it’s desirable to keep religion out of the public square. Religion is widely believed to be a favorable influence on society in general by society in general

    Hang on there a tick. Christians in general–who make up the majority of the United States–think that Christianity in general is a good thing. The students at a particular school may, in general, think that prayer to Our Lord Jesus Christ is a good thing. Heck, people at my high school were probably evenly divided among the people who thought that prayer to the Christian God was a good thing and people who thought that prayer to the Goddess was a good thing.

    What the majority of folks think is a good thing doesn’t get government endorsement automatically. I mean, the trans community would probably have a problem with a giant display talking about How Evil Transvestites Are And People Should Just Stick To How God Made Them on the side of the courthouse, and that’s not a very large part of “society in general”, but I’d bet “society in general” would agree with the statement.

    Which isn’t to say they’d agree with having it put up–but then, neither do many religious people, whether their reason is “I believe in separation of church and state”, “I think religious displays are idol worship, or inviting it”, “it’s tacky”, or “I think advertizing my religion from every street corner is acting too much like a Pharisee”.

    and that fact that a minority feels differently doesn’t mean that religious expression or any other kind of expression should be banned from the public square.

    And the fact that a minority students would feel left out if the valedictorian was allowed to lead the school in a prayer during the graduation ceremony for the local public high school doesn’t mean that she shouldn’t be allowed to do so.

    And the fact that a minority of students would feel like their teacher at that same school might discriminate against them for their political views if their teacher shared his own with them doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t be prohibited from it.

    Oh wait–public school, it does have to make sure to represent the multiplicity of opinions unless there’s a real educational or institutional reason why not. Public school teacher, he does have to keep his discomforting opinions out of the classroom unless there’s a pedagogical purpose for having them in.

    Public square. Hmm, I wonder if there’s a connection there.

    Allowing a public school valedictorian to talk about how God changed her life all she wants during the graduation speech, even though it was against the rules and she knew it, but cutting off the taxpayer-funded microphone and sound system.

    Keeping public schoolteachers from expressing their religious views during school time on school property, but allowing them to let it all hang out, man, when they’re off-duty.

    Keeping public property free of religious displays and paraphernalia unless there’s compelling governmental interest in having it there.

    “Banning religious expression from the public square” so that people can’t even go through it while wearing a cross pendant, or a hijab, or a turban. Or just banning all theists and otherwise religiously-oriented folks, I’m not exactly sure which strawman you’re attacking.

    One of these things is not like the others….

    Because the exercise of the right to freedom of expression is far more important than whether or not it makes people feel uncomfortable. God knows that feminism makes lots of people uncomfortable. Should that be the next thing banned from the public square?

    So you are in favor of my feminism-related dioramas and posters going up. I assume that means you’re also O.K. with my evolution display, my bacon-cat statue, my Snape diorama, and of course my monuments to Pluto and to atheism? Not to mention my donkey wrapped in an American flag and my “I like vanilla, it’s the finest of the flavors” poster.

    Look, if every time someone put up a Ten Commandments tablet we were also allowed to put up The Top Ten Really Evil Things Christians Have Done In The Name Of Their Religion list, and maybe an illuminated Principia Discordia, and the Pastafarian account of creation, and the Top Ten Reasons Why The Moon Is A Government Hoax, and so on, and then you could guarantee that they wouldn’t get torn down, run over, painted over, hit with a sledgehammer, set on fire, or exorcised, I doubt you’d get quite so much opposition. As it is, though, the response to “all or nothing” seems to be “Christianity! (and maybe Judaism too)”, which, obviously, isn’t a valid answer, no matter how a big a majority thinks that “Judeo-Christianity”, whatever that is, is an integral part of our national identity and no matter how small the minority made to feel like second-class citizens because of it. “All” could get a little bit crowded, and unless the government really wants to have flat-earth dioramas and Have You Accepted The Love of Severus Snape Into Your Heart posters on every available surface, there’d have to be moderation beyond “no attacking people or groups directly”, and that could, obviously, get sticky. Has gotten sticky, with the moderation most of these towns and public schools seem to have, i.e., rubberstamp Christians and Jews and then deny the Pastafarians their tasteful FSM light display, or look the other way when vandals destroy the Wiccan pentacle-wreaths and then declare that it’s too much of a hassle, nothing religious allowed because then we’d have to let all the other religions put up displays too.

  6. Robert says:

    and then you could guarantee that they wouldn’t get torn down, run over, painted over, hit with a sledgehammer, set on fire, or exorcised

    But that’s a separate thing.

    I don’t agree with that kind of behavior. But that’s not the government. The government must pursue and punish lawbreakers, but the government cannot guarantee that all ideas will be well-received. Go to Boston and shout “fuck the pope”, and the government must definitely find and prosecute the people who beat the shit out of you, but the government is not responsible for guaranteeing that you won’t get shit-beaten in the first place. Can’t be done.

    (Now, do it in the presence of a cop and have him stand by and do nothing during the beating, THAT’S wrong. The government has to stop it when they can stop it. But we’re talking about the great spectrum of all possible scenarios.)

    If your right to use the public square is honored by the government, just as mine is, then your rights are being honored. It isn’t the government’s fault if so many people find your views vile that the tiny fraction who would trample on your stuff ends up amounting to >1 individual. I find display-trampling vile, but your civil rights vis the government aren’t being violated by the government.

  7. Gwen says:

    (Now, do it in the presence of a cop and have him stand by and do nothing during the beating, THAT’S wrong. The government has to stop it when they can stop it. But we’re talking about the great spectrum of all possible scenarios.)

    Which is why I specifically put it in opposition to

    look the other way when vandals destroy the Wiccan pentacle-wreaths and then declare that it’s too much of a hassle, nothing religious allowed because then we’d have to let all the other religions put up displays too.

    The place where the Ten Commandments would be to begin with–the courthouse–already has cameras, security, other anti-vandalism measures there. In my area, at least, the prime spot for putting up nativity scenes and bacon-cat statues is in full view of the police station; the larger town nearby has a “courthouse plaza” for this sort of thing. If the hypothetical vandals didn’t get caught, someone wasn’t looking hard enough–and if someone can get a ladder, climb to the top of the roof of a public building (I think it was a town hall? I’m not sure, though), and take a hammer to a wreath all without getting caught, there’s some obvious looking-the-other-way going on.

    Either way, if vandalism was a major problem in a Christian display you can bet they’d put up cameras to catch the vandals.

    I am curious to read what you think of the rest of my arguments, when you have the chance to address them. ;-) Especially the question in my first comment here, and brought up again in my most recent, of which sorts of expression the government is now obligated to provide a platform for. I’m not sure if “Fuck the pope” is protected speech, but if it is, could I put up a poster saying that next to the manger scene or what?

  8. mythago says:

    Actually, if the Lubavitchers get their reservation in on time I have no problem with it.

    Again: there’s a difference between content-neutral permission to use public space, and government sponsorship or endorsement. The government isn’t, we hope, purchasing the menorah. Which is a difference you seem to skip past–a city allowing a church to put up a Nativity scene somewhere on Town Square is a lot different than the official city Nativity scene put on the City Hall lawn.

    I would buy a “Have You Accepted the Love of Severus Snape Into Your Heart” sticker, by the way.

  9. Michael says:

    Gwen,

    Some thoughtful points. I do have a few questions/comments. First, with regards to what you say is a waste of taxpayer money; I’m curious if you have figures as to how much money governments actually spend on Christmas decorations. In the case highlighted in the article Rachel originally referenced the creche was provided for by an outside organization. In my hometown, most of the decorations in the center of town were provided by the local Knights of Columbus. I would presume that a majority of towns are like this.

    I also do not believe that secularizing the public square necessitates the removal of all religious symbolism, particularly seasonal imagery. This is of course debatable but the notion of full removal of religion from the public sphere seems impractical and implausible. I would argue that secularization (which may be as hard to define as religion) is a lack of compelling public belief; that is a secular society is not one that is devoid of religion or even devoid of religion in the public sphere, but one in which it is easy and reasonable to not believe.

    And our society is not simply a secular society; it is a secular Latin Christendom, which is markedly different than a secular Muslim society or even a secular Eastern Christendom. So cultural tradition, I believe, can be a compelling government reason for the display of Christmas decorations (not tradition for the sake of tradition, but the sense that the promotion of certain cultural traditions is good for society). Additionally a government can always make a compelling economic argument which would have varying degrees of plausibility depending on the town; but since many town centers are economically depressed due to suburban sprawl and big-box retailers, anything that brings people into the center of town (to see the yearly nativity, for example) can be viewed as a compelling government interest.

    Again, because religion is so hard to define and our constitution is often frustratingly vague, these questions aren’t easy. I think it’s beneficial if we think of secularization not as the loss or removal of religion but the addition (and permission by society) of other worldviews.

    In that way, I would say that your attempt to link public school with public square for purposes of equating similar allowance and proscriptions for religious thought is missing a subtle difference. Is the person who encounters the religious expression unreasonably compelled to conform to the religious views of the expresser? In the case of a teacher expressing them in class, this clearly puts undo pressure on the student to conform or agree with the religious expression because of the nature of the authority. What about a traffic cop who wishes you “Merry Christmas”? I think it’s possible to perceive that, given his level of authority over you, that you might feel that a non-Christian might get less protection or be treated less fairly if, say, you were driving with a non-Christian religious symbol in windshield. But what about the clerk who wishes you “Merry Christmas” when you go down to city hall to pay your water bill? Is it reasonable to believe that non-Christians are getting crappier water service? Clearly not. It is not that every religious expression by any government employee is an implicit endorsement of that religion by the government, per se. Or, for a more absurd example, does the town of Corpus Christi, TX have to change it’s name because a Pastafarian doesn’t like writing “the body of Christ” on her return address labels?

    So I would say, does the government allowing (or actively putting) a religious display on public property de facto “endorse” religion insofar as the average person who encounters it feels compelled by the government to publicly believe or support that religion? I don’t know, maybe this is too strict a reading; but I feel that it’s better if we think of secularization as the addition of unbelief to the public sphere rather than the subtraction of belief.

  10. RonF says:

    Which is a difference you seem to skip past–a city allowing a church to put up a Nativity scene somewhere on Town Square is a lot different than the official city Nativity scene put on the City Hall lawn.

    I didn’t skip past it – as far as I can tell there is no controversy here (or anywhere else, for that matter) that the State should not pay for a Nativity creche to be put up.

  11. RonF says:

    Gwen said:

    Either way, if vandalism was a major problem in a Christian display you can bet they’d put up cameras to catch the vandals.

    I’ll take that bet. Nativity scenes are vandalized fairly regularly around the country, most often by stealing the infant Jesus to the point that it’s becoming common practice to bolt Him into the manger. I’ve never heard of a vandal being caught on camera. Perhaps you could offer some evidence as to why your assertion is reasonable.

  12. RonF says:

    Michael, I’m waiting to see when people are going to start protesting against religiously-oriented place names such as Assumption, Mount Olive, St. Louis, Los Angeles, San Antonio, San Diego, San Bernadino, San Francisco (I wonder what Saint Francis would think of the city bearing his name these days?), Christchurch, etc.

  13. RonF says:

    Look, if every time someone put up a Ten Commandments tablet we were also allowed to put up The Top Ten Really Evil Things Christians Have Done In The Name Of Their Religion list, and maybe an illuminated Principia Discordia, and the Pastafarian account of creation, and the Top Ten Reasons Why The Moon Is A Government Hoax, and so on, and then you could guarantee that they wouldn’t get torn down, run over, painted over, hit with a sledgehammer, set on fire, or exorcised, I doubt you’d get quite so much opposition.

    As far as I know that is in fact already allowed. In fact, you don’t even need to link “every time someone put up a Ten Commandments tablet” and “The Top Ten Really Evil Things Christians Have Done” – you can put up the latter regardless of whether the former is up or not.

    Now, I’m not away of any part of the First Amendment that would require that every time someone puts up an expression of viewpoint “A” in the public square the State must also permit an expression of “!A” in the same location and the same time.

  14. Sailorman says:

    # RonF Writes:
    January 2nd, 2008 at 10:06 am

    Michael, I’m waiting to see when people are going to start protesting against religiously-oriented place names such as Assumption, Mount Olive, St. Louis, Los Angeles, San Antonio, San Diego, San Bernadino, San Francisco (I wonder what Saint Francis would think of the city bearing his name these days?), Christchurch, etc.

    [shrug] Don’t like ’em, but they’re old. It’s sort of a straw man, too… the question of whether those would be appropriate NOW is quite different than the question of whether we should erase the decisions made THEN.

    RonF Writes:
    January 2nd, 2008 at 10:11 am
    As far as I know that is in fact already allowed. In fact, you don’t even need to link “every time someone put up a Ten Commandments tablet” and “The Top Ten Really Evil Things Christians Have Done” – you can put up the latter regardless of whether the former is up or not.

    Reeeeeeally? Hey, why don’t you try it in your local courthouse? Or your local town square? Then you would have a handy datapoint to apply to your apparent claim that all us folks who are alleging difficulty, extra-bad treatment, vandalism, etc, are basically making it up.

    # RonF Writes:
    January 2nd, 2008 at 10:11 am
    I’m not away of any part of the First Amendment that would require that every time someone puts up an expression of viewpoint “A” in the public square the State must also permit an expression of “!A” in the same location and the same time.

    Actually, the State cannot exercise that kind of content control (with various exceptions which don’t apply here.) If the State permits the expression of A, it must also permit the expression of !A, even if it detracts from A’s message.

    A may have a right to use of the public space, but they probably don’t have a right to exclusive use of the public space*. This isn’t necessarily obvious from the constitutional text, but it’s the law of the land as interpreted.

    *The state can impose reasonable time/place/manner restrictions. But it has to be content neutral. So while it might–MIGHT–be OK to say “only one group at a time can put signs on the town square in December” you couldn’t also say “…and we will always grant that right to christians, as opposed to atheists.”

  15. Daran says:

    Nativity scenes are vandalized fairly regularly around the country, most often by stealing the infant Jesus to the point that it’s becoming common practice to bolt Him into the manger.

    Through the palms?

  16. RonF says:

    Reeeeeeally? Hey, why don’t you try it in your local courthouse? Or your local town square? Then you would have a handy datapoint to apply to your apparent claim that all us folks who are alleging difficulty, extra-bad treatment, vandalism, etc, are basically making it up.

    I would draw a distinction between a courthouse display and the local town square. What is permissible in the latter is not necessarily appropriate in the former.

    Speaking of datapoints; outside of one e-mail that referenced one town that said “rather than permit displays from all religions we’ll have no religious displays” and the Green Bay incident, where a Wiccan wreath next to a manger scene got vandalized, I haven’t seen anyone allege any actual difficulty, extra-bad treatment, etc. The reasons for those specific two outcomes and all the other comments are all speculations, not actual experiences. I’d need to see more than two datapoints from your side of the argument to buy into the concept that this is a widespread pattern rather than a couple of isolated incidents. I presume that’s why the original post said

    I wish somebody I know would go up there and put up a Menorah, and see how the locals respond.

    I’m presuming from the wording that nobody actually has done this yet. Now, she goes on to say that

    In my experience, a very large majority of southern Ohio folks are all for freedom of religious expression, when it in involves Christianity. But if somebody went up there and put up a Menorah or any other non-Christian symbol, they’d throw a fit.

    But I don’t see any actual examples quoted.

    Actually, the State cannot exercise that kind of content control

    Please tell me where I’ve said that the State can exercise content control.

    If the State permits the expression of A, it must also permit the expression of !A, even if it detracts from A’s message.

    Obviously. But it can quite easily say, “O.K., the nativity creche goes over here and the Wiccan wreath goes over there and the Menorah goes up over yonder.” It doesn’t have to put them next to each other. I also don’t see where, if the town square is small enough that only a limited number of displays can fit, the town must permit the !A message to share the same space and time as the A message. They have every right to say “The Christians reserved the space from 12/15 to 12/30 – the atheists can have it from 1/1 to 1/15”.

    If the pro-choice folks want to have a parade on the day that Roe vs. Wade was handed down, the pro-life folks don’t get the right to join that parade, nor do they have a right to have a parade on the same day and time. Now, if the pro-life folks get their act together enough that they reserve the parade route on that day before the pro-choice folks do, then too bad for the pro-choicers. If the pro-choice folks get their reservation in first, they have exclusive right to the parade route on that day, but the pro-life folks have every right to ask to hold a parade the next weekend.

  17. Jake Squid says:

    Speaking of datapoints; outside of one e-mail that referenced one town that said “rather than permit displays from all religions we’ll have no religious displays” and the Green Bay incident, where a Wiccan wreath next to a manger scene got vandalized, I haven’t seen anyone allege any actual difficulty, extra-bad treatment, etc.

    May I refer you to comment #22 on this thread? Multiple sources are linked for the SeaTac Airport incident. No emails in that comment.

  18. Sailorman says:

    I’m claiming a gun is loaded, and you’re asking me to aim it at my foot and shoot, to prove I’m right?

    That’s a fairly large roll of the dice. As for me, I HAVE tried things on occasion–asking for Jesus-on-a-cross to come down from my public library, for example–and the results have been poor. I’ve had similar conversations with other people–regarding Hallelujah choruses or “Christmas concerts”–and the results have also been poor.

    You basically ask us to “prove it”, but really that’s unrealistic. You’re asking us to bet AGAINST ourself. Because after all, if we’re right, which we obviously think is the case, then “proving it” is going to be damned unpleasant. If I “put my money where my mouth is” then i’m going to get shafted; I think I will lose.

    That’s the reason that I suggested you prove it. Unlike me, and a lot of other people, you seem to think it’s really no problem. Great! If you’re right, you will suffer no ill consequences. And believe me, I’d be happy to be proven wrong about this.

    My past experience with this has made me unwilling to try it just for the sake of proving that the consequences exist.

  19. Sailorman says:

    Actually, the State cannot exercise that kind of content control

    Please tell me where I’ve said that the State can exercise content control.

    You didn’t say it (and I didn’t attribute as such)–but you described a situation that involves it.

    Obviously. But it can quite easily say, “O.K., the nativity creche goes over here and the Wiccan wreath goes over there and the Menorah goes up over yonder.”

    Not necessarily, actually. Sure, if there’s entirely equivalent space in the town square I suppose it can be simple, but that is often not the case. If one is going under a street lamp, and one behind a garbage can, and one on the corner… well, assignment can be challenged.

    It doesn’t have to put them next to each other.

    It doesn’t HAVE to, but there’s no reason that the State should care. Other than things like public safety, it’s not the State’s job to “protect” A or A’s display from the views of B or a B display. Nor is it the state’s job to analyze the messages of A or B and decide whether they’re complementary or opposing.

    I also don’t see where, if the town square is small enough that only a limited number of displays can fit, the town must permit the !A message to share the same space and time as the A message. They have every right to say “The Christians reserved the space from 12/15 to 12/30 – the atheists can have it from 1/1 to 1/15″.

    That’s not true.

    So what if the town square is only 5×5 feet? Why the heck would the christians get 25 square feet? Just give everyone one square foot and you can fit 25 different people on.

    If you really insist on sole ownership (which would probably not stand up in court) then the christians can have it, maybe, ethically…. for one year. So long as you don’t mind, that is, if the Christian folks get denied the next year, and shuttled into January, so that the atheists can post in December. And the following year the jews get it, and then the muslims, and then the wiccans… no Xmas displays for 20 years or so until it’s the christians’ “turn” again. Because the christians sure as shit don’t “own” December. Does that work for you?

    More realistically you’ll split it. You can only have one parade down a given street on a given day, but you can fit as many displays into a space as you want.

    If the pro-choice folks want to have a parade on the day that Roe vs. Wade was handed down, the pro-life folks don’t get the right to join that parade, nor do they have a right to have a parade on the same day and time. Now, if the pro-life folks get their act together enough that they reserve the parade route on that day before the pro-choice folks do, then too bad for the pro-choicers. If the pro-choice folks get their reservation in first, they have exclusive right to the parade route on that day, but the pro-life folks have every right to ask to hold a parade the next weekend.

    Sure…. so long as there aren’t government machinations which just so happen to result in the prolifers always “winning” the parade date. Or the christians always “winning” the town square around Xmas.

    Problem is, government stagnates, and it’s very hard to change things. Again, i encourage you to test your theory. Find a place with a nice parade–say, St. Patrick’s Day in Boston–and try to get your own parade permit for, hmmm, gay rights.* On the same day, in the same place.

    Hey, you should have to wait no more than a year, right? I mean, there couldn’t be any way that they would deny you and your minority group a right to have a parade, just because some extremely powerful group with a history of doing it wants the spot? Hmm? It’s public land, you’re public… can’t you do what you want?

    Good luck.

    *Carefully chosen, because AFAIK gay rights groups were denied the ability to march in the St P’s parade in boston.

  20. RonF says:

    Fine, then, Jake; 3 instances. In a country with 280 million people and millions of towns, villages and cities I’m shown 3 instances where people putting up or wanting to put up non-Christian religious displays ran into difficulties. I still don’t see where that establishes that such a thing is common.

    Sailorman:

    “Find a place with a nice parade–say, St. Patrick’s Day in Boston–and try to get your own parade permit for, hmmm, gay rights.* On the same day, in the same place. *Carefully chosen, because AFAIK gay rights groups were denied the ability to march in the St P’s parade in [B]oston.”

    Gay rights groups were found to not have a right to march in the St. Patrick’s Day parade in Boston quite rightfully, since the permit was granted to the group organizing the parade and, having been awarded the permit, they had the right to determine who w0uld be in the parade and who wouldn’t. Heck, I just got a letter from a local municipality regarding their 4th of July parade (these people plan ahead!); they are quite specific about who gets to march and who doesn’t, and I see no reason why they shouldn’t have a perfect right to.

    It’s not as if there’s an overall problem for gay rights groups in Boston to get a permit to have a parade. I’ve seen them myself. But IIRC it was judged that that group’s presence would interfere with the message that the St. Pat’s parade was trying to communicate. And that shows a mismatch between your comment and the related note; getting a parade permit to march for gay rights on the same time and place as the people getting the parade permit for St. Patrick’s Day is a different situation than the gay rights group getting the right to become a part of the St. Patrick’s Day parade.

    Which makes sense – on that basis, a gay rights parade would have to permit Dr. Dobson and his crowd to march with them. Or if some group wanted to put up a memorial to Stonewall, they’d have to permit an anti-gay-rights display in the same spot at the same time. I’m not in favor of that either. Having granted a group the permission to communicate a particular message in the public square, I certainly think that it’s required by the Constitution that another group should be able to communicate an opposing message in the public square; but I see no reason or requirement that the !A group should be able to interfere with A’s expression by requiring both to be at the same point and time.

    Now, the fact that some messages are tied to a given date does present some challenges. One question to look at there is whether denying a group a given date interferes with their message. Obviously it makes no sense to set up a Nativity creche in July, nor does it make sense to hold a 4th of July parade in August or a St. Patrick’s Day parade in November.

    “It’s public land, you’re public… can’t you do what you want?”

    I can’t even do what I want with my own private land. Public land will quite reasonably be under even more constraints.

  21. Sailorman says:

    RonF Writes:
    January 2nd, 2008 at 4:49 pm

    Fine, then, Jake; 3 instances. In a country with 280 million people and millions of towns, villages and cities I’m shown 3 instances where people putting up or wanting to put up non-Christian religious displays ran into difficulties. I still don’t see where that establishes that such a thing is common.

    You are missing the point. It doesn’t need to be “common” to have an enormous suppressive effect. It just needs to engender enough fear to affect people’s behavior.

    Gay rights groups were found to not have a right to march in the St. Patrick’s Day parade in Boston quite rightfully, since the permit was granted to the group organizing the parade and, having been awarded the permit, they had the right to determine who w0uld be in the parade and who wouldn’t. Heck, I just got a letter from a local municipality regarding their 4th of July parade (these people plan ahead!); they are quite specific about who gets to march and who doesn’t, and I see no reason why they shouldn’t have a perfect right to.

    Oh, sure. No disagreement there–a parade is a single-viewpoint affair.

    It’s not as if there’s an overall problem for gay rights groups in Boston to get a permit to have a parade. I’ve seen them myself. But IIRC it was judged that that group’s presence would interfere with the message that the St. Pat’s parade was trying to communicate. And that shows a mismatch between your comment and the related note; getting a parade permit to march for gay rights on the same time and place as the people getting the parade permit for St. Patrick’s Day is a different situation than the gay rights group getting the right to become a part of the St. Patrick’s Day parade.

    It’s not a mismatch, it was just an example. And you’re deliberately trying to duck the hypothetical.

    Say I want to throw a “gay rights St Patrick’s Day Parade.” Surely you can see that this would mean 1) it’d be on StPDay, 2) it’d involve gay rights, and 3) it would conflict with the “usual” StPday parade.

    Having granted a group the permission to communicate a particular message in the public square, I certainly think that it’s required by the Constitution that another group should be able to communicate an opposing message in the public square; but I see no reason or requirement that the !A group should be able to interfere with A’s expression by requiring both to be at the same point and time.

    Sure. HOWEVER, the decision of who gets to say what, when, is huge. And it needs to be apportioned equally, without regard for the underlying messages of A and B. If the apportionment DOES include analysis of the content of A and B, it is not content-neutral.

    Now, the fact that some messages are tied to a given date does present some challenges. One question to look at there is whether denying a group a given date interferes with their message.

    Nope. See, e.g., “content neutral,” above.

    What you seem to be (deliberately) ignoring is that allowing groups to “claim” certain dates, messages, times of distribution, etc., and asking the government to enforce these claims, is inherently just the type of discrimination that the First Amendment is designed to prohibit. The whole content neutral part is there in part because we have realized that it is a very bad idea to have the government sticking it’s nose into your “message” and deciding whether it’s worthy.

  22. RonF says:

    It’s not a mismatch, it was just an example. And you’re deliberately trying to duck the hypothetical. Say I want to throw a “gay rights St Patrick’s Day Parade.”

    I’m not trying to duck anything, I’m just confused about what you’re talking about. I thought you meant a gay rights parade on St. Patrick’s Day that would replace an actual St. Patrick’s Day observance. Now it appears you’re proposing to merge the two into a ‘gay rights St. Patrick’s Day parade’, and I don’t understand what that would be.

    Tell me this. Would you then be in favor of anti-abortion group getting to hold a parade on January 22nd (the day that Roe vs. Wade was decided) and thus elbowing out the pro-choicers? How about an anti-affirmative action group on January 15th? How about an anti-gay rights parade on June 28th (Stonewall)? These are all celebrations tied to dates as well. It doesn’t all flow one way.

    It doesn’t need to be “common” to have an enormous suppressive effect. It just needs to engender enough fear to affect people’s behavior.

    So, then, how much fear did those event generate? Understand that I certainly oppose the behavior in all of them; the people involved should be punished in accordance with the law. But it’s doubtful to me that they had an “enormous” suppressive effect in this country, although there was quite likely a local one. One that could be overcome if the local government would take some action.

  23. Jake Squid says:

    So, then, how much fear did those event generate? Understand that I certainly oppose the behavior in all of them; the people involved should be punished in accordance with the law. But it’s doubtful to me that they had an “enormous” suppressive effect in this country, although there was quite likely a local one. One that could be overcome if the local government would take some action.

    I’m sure that the death threats received by the rabbi who requested that SeaTac Airport put up a menorah (an event that had major coverage in the NW) had, at most, a minimal effect on the Jewish community in the NW. Hell, Jews are used to that sort of thing after centuries of experiencing it and just shrugged it off. I’m sure that there was no effect on whether or not other Jews in the NW would make that sort of request in the future.

    And, hey! Look what Seatac decided to do this year:
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003961584_holidaydisplay19m.html

    They’d rather display nothing than be forced to put a menorah up. Nope. No fucking suppressive effect at all. Expletive.

    One quote from the article:
    Last December, airport officials ordered Christmas trees taken down after Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky asked to have an 8-foot-tall menorah put on display at the airport.

    That created a national furor. Bogomilsky received death threats and the FBI was called in, according to Harvey Grad, his lawyer.

    Hmmm. “National furor.” I’m sure no great suppressive effect came of this.

    You can’t really believe your words here, can you? You can’t possibly be that obtuse.

  24. Sailorman says:

    RonF Writes:
    January 3rd, 2008 at 8:00 am
    I’m not trying to duck anything, I’m just confused about what you’re talking about. I thought you meant a gay rights parade on St. Patrick’s Day that would replace an actual St. Patrick’s Day observance.

    I’ve highlighyted that last part because I think this is where you and I are not communicating.

    What is an “actual StPday observance?” How do you define it? And who gets to decide whether something makes the cut? You? Me? Spectators? Anyone Irish? The government?

    Do all such observances require green beer, green bagels, and leprechauns? do all such observances require that no gay rights groups participate?

    This is what “content neutrality” is about. It takes the impossible-to-answer question and makes it moot.

    So, back to Christmas…. I celebrate Christmas in a certain way. Is my way the “wrong” way; is yours? Do you really want the government making that call?

    Is it only the “right” way if I’m christian? What if I’m a nonpracticing christian? What if I think that it should involve self-flagellation and 24/7 prayer until I faint? What if I think it should be entirely secular–and avowed as such–and focus solely on consumer purchasing?

    The odd thing is that you seem to think these decisions should be made–that they can be made. To me, that’s a clear sign you are thinking about this too narrowly (helped substantially by your inability to even understand what a gay rights StPday parade would be). It looks to me that you’re fine with the government passing judgment, because it seems that you assume all those judgments will go in favor of you.

    Tell me this. Would you then be in favor of anti-abortion group getting to hold a parade on January 22nd (the day that Roe vs. Wade was decided) and thus elbowing out the pro-choicers? How about an anti-affirmative action group on January 15th? How about an anti-gay rights parade on June 28th (Stonewall)? These are all celebrations tied to dates as well. It doesn’t all flow one way.

    Sure. the KKK can march through Memphis for all I care. It’s what the first amendment means.

    So, then, how much fear did those event generate? Understand that I certainly oppose the behavior in all of them; the people involved should be punished in accordance with the law. But it’s doubtful to me that they had an “enormous” suppressive effect in this country, although there was quite likely a local one. One that could be overcome if the local government would take some action.

    jeeeesus. It’s doubtful to you because you are 1) not experiencing it yourself because of your class membership; 2) not willing to test your theory; and 3) wilfully ignoring the people who are trying to explain that it exists. Wake up, willya?

  25. RonF says:

    That created a national furor. Bogomilsky received death threats and the FBI was called in, according to Harvey Grad, his lawyer.

    Hmmm. “National furor.” I’m sure no great suppressive effect came of this.

    Hmmm. National furor indeed. In whose mind? I never heard of this until now. Hyperbole isn’t evidence. And “no suppressive effect” != “enormous suppressive effect” != “local suppressive effect”, so I don’t see where you’re coming from in that comment.

    They’d rather display nothing than be forced to put a menorah up.

    Not the solution I favor. My solution would be to put up the trees, put up the menorah, and tell the lackwits to bug off. This takes us back to the issue of why bureaucrats do what they do. Fear, or laziness?

  26. Jake Squid says:

    I’m sure that the Seattle newspaper made up that bit about the national furor. They do, after all, run all those stories about Satan in toasters.

    Since my relatives on the east coast had heard about it from sources other than myself, I can only assume that it was, in fact, national news. But, since this has no effect on your life, it may be that it made no impact on you. I can assure you that many non-Christians nationwide noted the incident. Thus, “national furor.”

    National and international sources follow:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16150563/
    http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Briefs/10072.htm
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/11/national/main2244710.shtml
    http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/12/oh_christmas_tr.html
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/12/AR2006121200155.html
    http://cbs4denver.com/watercooler/Christmas.trees.airport.2.275803.html

    This next one, though unintended, is a perfect example of the chilling effect these sorts of incidents have:
    http://simplyjews.blogspot.com/2006/12/chanukah-miracle-in-sea-tac.html
    (scroll down to item #2)
    http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2006/dec/12/121203038.html

    Do you need more links to believe that this was really national news?

  27. mythago says:

    Hmmm. National furor indeed. In whose mind? I never heard of this until now. Hyperbole isn’t evidence.

    RonF didn’t hear of it, therefore it isn’t important. Besides, it’s an example that proves the point, so it ought to be dismissed.

    I’m not quite sure what it would take to get you to take your metaphorical fingers out of your ears, RonF, but if “death threats in response to a polite request for a menorah” doesn’t strike you as anything but ‘hyperbole’, it would seem that the answer is “nothing”.

  28. RonF says:

    The hyperbole I was referring to was that it was a national furor, not the evil of the threats themselves.

  29. mythago says:

    So it wasn’t nationally important because *you* don’t remember it?

Comments are closed.