In 2003, the Brownstown Area Ministerial Association in Jackson County, Indiana purchased a nativity scene for the town. In the years following, the display quickly became a staple in the town. The display consists of a nativity scene, Santa Claus and his sleigh, reindeer, candy canes, and carolers. The Brownstown Area Ministerial Association (BAMA) is only responsible for the purchasing of this light display. From that point forward, the town’s Lion’s Club, a secular organization, took the responsibility to set up the display each year. In 2018, the Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter to the County demanding that the display be removed because it was a violation of the Establishment Clause. As a response, the town moved the nativity to the side so that all secular and nonsecular lights were showcased evenly on the lawn. Rebecca Woodring, a resident of Jackson County, heard about the display and sued Jackson County for violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. She felt that the County was endorsing Christianity by utilizing tax money to pay for the electricity needed for the display.
In 2020, the district court ruled that this was in fact a violation of the Establishment Clause, and the County was forced to remove the nativity scene from the lawn of the courthouse. They based their ruling on the Lemon test, a result of Lemon v. Kurtzman. The Lemon test has three parts that are used to determine whether something is a violation of the Establishment Clause. The court examined whether the display (1) had a secular purpose, (2) it advanced or inhibited religion, and (3) if it resulted in the endorsement of religion. The district court concluded that the nativity scene failed the Lemon test because it did not have a secular purpose and it advanced/endorsed a religion.
The County appealed this decision due to a more recent case, American Legion v. American Humanist Association. This case dealt with a memorial display in Bladensburg, Maryland for WWI soldiers that included a cross. The case worked its way up to the Supreme Court. In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that the cross was not a violation of the Establishment Clause. The majority felt that the cross had taken on a secular meaning and there was no coercive action from the government. During this decision, the Court’s majority opinion rejected the Lemon test and deemed it not applicable in situations concerning religious symbols or monuments. They also concluded that the Lemon test does not have the power to solve all problems concerning the establishment of religion, as previously thought. There have been three other appeals that have concurred with the decisions made in American Legion v. American Humanist Association.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana is the organization that sued on behalf of Rebecca Woodring. Ms. Woodring, an atheist, was offended by the display and felt that the government should not be showing support for it. In her argument, she advocated against taxes being used to fund the electricity needed for the lights. The only evidence found is that Woodring, and other community members, pay taxes to the County and the County pays the electricity bill. There is no proof of the County utilizing the taxpayer dollar directly to pay for the electricity for the display.
I do not think that the light display is violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. For starters, I think it is important to note the nativity is not the only part of the display. When a complaint was filed against the County, they rearranged the display so that all items were equally showcased (religious and non-religious). Although a nativity is typically associated with the Christian faith, over the 15 years that the lights were displayed, it became part of the community’s tradition. The display that was donated by the Brownstown Area Ministerial Association was not the first nativity scene placed in the front yard of the courthouse. In fact, in 2001 there was no nativity scene displayed and the President of the County apologized because the people of the community were upset. Beyond donating and owning the figures, BAMA does not dictate whether or not they are displayed. Completely secular groups, such as the Lion’s Club, took on the responsibility of the display and the community continued to show support year after year. The government is not allowed to establish a religion or coerce the community to comply, but they are also not required to remove religious symbols from public property. Through the decision reached in American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the Court came to the conclusion that government can participate in traditions. If this display was to be removed, the government would be favoring non-religion over religion.
10 comments:
I agree that the light display is not violating the establishment clause of the first amendment. I believe that if the display is set up as to equally include secular and religious displays, the town is acting in a neutral way. They are not favoring religious scenes over secular displays and they are ensuring an even set up on the lawn. I believe that this case was an issue because it only showed one religion in the display and to some people this could be seen as offensive.
I think that if the display includes equal amounts of religious (not just Christian) and non-religious symbols, then the town is acting neutral and is not violating the 1st amendment. However, from what I could understand of this case, it was predominately a nativity scene with Christmas lights, which I think is a violation. A nativity scene is not a secular 'winter' symbol: it is a model representing the birth of Jesus Christ. While lights can be thought of as winter holidays/tradition, only including a nativity scene is promoting Christianity above other religions and non-religions.
Olivia, I agree with your statement that is not violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Not only was there a lack of evidence for if taxpayer dollars were being used for electricity to power the lights, but by removing any sort of religion, even tradition potentially being associated with it, seems as if no religion at all is being favored. I feel as if Woodring is completely ignoring the attempts of the county’s neutral symbols as well.
I feel like a compelling argument could be made to suggest the nativity display is an establishment of religion. While I agree that a cross in a cemetery could serve as a secular symbol, it's a stretch to say a Christian nativity scene is a secular symbol. Even though religious symbols are presented with the same precedence as non-religious symbols, it doesn't change the fact that a nativity scene is a religious symbol by admission. I'm also wary to accept the detail that the community complained in 2001 when the scene was not present: are those not the complaints of the majority? Additionally, the fact that a secular outside organization puts up — and is essentially in control of — the display, it doesn't change the fact that it's on public land.
Obviously there's a significant amount of nuance to the case, but unless any of the facts of this case change (electricity is not paid for with public funds, symbols from other religious traditions are added, etc.), it's difficult for me not to see this as an establishment of religion.
Nick, I agree that there is a strong argument to be made that displaying the nativity scene is an establishment of religion. I believe this because I can not see any argument that there is a compelling state interest to do this. Additionally, if they are allowed to display symbols for one religion every religion should have the right to have their symbols displayed and I think this would become a burden and be unattainable. Even though I do not think this one symbol is a major burden on taxpayers it is using tax tased money for an affirmation of a religion.
Religious groups should be able to place their holiday lights next to secular holiday lights. This is not an establishment of religion, particularly given that the nativity is next to Santa Claus and other Christmas lights. These actions by the government are totally neutral in context as the purpose of the lights is clearly to celebrate the winter holiday season. It does not matter if the lights are to celebrate Christmas and Hannukah with a nativity, a Santa Claus, or a menorah. If these objects are placed by non-government groups, this does not amount to establishment of religion. The one concerning part of this case is that the government bought the nativity scene, thinking back to Everston v. Board of Ed. Ewing Township I think this action is fine as long as the state bought lights for Santa and other potential holiday lights.
This case definitely reveals two strong arguments that could be expressed depending on which point of view you are looking from. Personally I do think that religious holiday lights should be allowed to be placed next to secular lights. I can see how this could be a problem if the religious lights were outshining the secular lights or placed on the majority of the lawn. But that was not the case. In this case the religious and secular lights were evenly distributed in places of visibility and there was no surplus of religious lights. I do not think that this should be considered an establishment of religion.
I think that there is a good argument that the nativity scene is an establishment of religion because if there is a symbol for one religion being the Christian faith, then there should be allowed to be symbols for all religions. But I do agree with Olivia that it didn't violate the first amendment because when their was a complaint they rearranged the display so that all items were included. This display also became part of the community's tradition. I think this case was an issue because of only one religion being on display, which could be offensive to people, but I do think they were not favoring any religions and rearranged so that all items religious and non religious were equally showcased.
I don't think that this qualifies as an establishment of religion. I think in most towns there are a variety of displays on public land of nativities, santa, menorahs, etc. Ideally in this case the town would have displays of multiple faiths winter holidays as well as other secular light shows. While I understand why just viewing the nativity may seem like a form of establishment I don't think the argument is super strong.
I agree and I don't think that this qualifies as an establishment of religion. Religious groups are allowed to freely express their religion, which would allow for non-secular light sets ups to be allowed including the nativity set. By allowing this set up is not establishing a religion, one could even argue that denying the set up is unequal treatment towards Christianity. Especially because the holiday season has become largely secular with Santa Clause, Christmas trees, presents, etc., these set ups and displays often act more as a fun holiday season tradition, rather than an attempt to establish a specific religion.
Post a Comment