New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | December 14, 2005

Jacob Sullum hopes Supreme Court nominee can clarify precise menorah-to-creche-to-frosty ratio that renders a holiday display constitutional.

Comments

Kids! Out Of the Pool! Now!|12.14.05 @ 11:00AM|#

I wish the thinking of the executive and legislative in deciding to go to war in Iraq had been as transparent as the thinking of the third circuit panels re Xmas.

The Judiciary, not just the most harmless branch, but also the most transparent.

O how I love, as a libertarian, knowing what those decisionmakers at the 3d Cir. are thinking, even if they are thinking something ridiculous. There is just something so EMPOWERING about that.

|12.14.05 @ 11:06AM|#

Perhaps, he suggested, "the behavior at issue here is incapable of being guided."

I think that's a more insightful opinion. Trying dutifully to apply precedents is nice, but sometimes you have to acknowledge that a problem is unsolvable.

Anyway, according to the latest issue of the Onion, an activist judge has just canceled Christmas.

Warren|12.14.05 @ 11:10AM|#

I agree with Jacob. Taxpayer funded nativities seem like a straight forward constitutional violation. But it's just so damned petty that you can't work up any outrage, or when ruled against, satisfaction. The practical consequence of throwing the fundies into heightened twitterpation, is also to be avoided whenever possible.

VM|12.14.05 @ 11:17AM|#

the money $entence:

"If it were up to me, the clown alone would render this display unacceptable, but the Supreme Court ruled otherwise."

we have to stand up against clowns.

|12.14.05 @ 11:25AM|#

Yes, down with clowns!!

|12.14.05 @ 11:27AM|#

Are you saying that ALL religious-themed speech by the government is an establishment?

What about a "Bible as Literature" course in a public high schooo, or a state college?

|12.14.05 @ 12:08PM|#

"What about a "Bible as Literature" course in a public high schooo, or a state college?"

That would depend on the context of the course. If it's just an academic study of the Bible "as literature", namely it's history, soruces, impact on society, etc. then I'd say it's A-OK. However, if the class is a clear attempt to evangelize (e.g. Genesis is science, Exodus is History, etc.) then absolutley not.

As I've said in a previous thread on this subject: I don't want a dime of my tax money to go toward the dissemination of anyone's religious propaganda. However, if a Christian group wants to put a holiday display up on public land, they've should pay rent, be responsible for it's maintenance, shut the hell up if the local synagogue or Wicca coven wants to up their own festive displays right next to the theirs, and display a sign imparting that this display is by no means a government "endorsement" of that faith. They shouldn't get the idea that they are "entitled" to a display just because they're the local religious majority.

|12.14.05 @ 12:28PM|#

Akira,

I agree with the principals you lay out. Why not apply your "context" criteria for the Bible class to a multi-themed holiday display? I don't think a pretty display becomes an attempt to evangelize, just because it includes religious imagery.

BTW, I wrote a letter for my boss's boss for the local paper, in answer to the question "Why can there be a menorah on the Town Common but not a nativity scene?" The answer was "because somebody bothered to ask the Selectmen for a permit to put a menorah on the common, and nobody asked to put up a nativity scene."

I like holiday displays. Especially if they've got pretty lights and homey scenes. They look nice in the snow. Y'all atheists need to come up with some kind of illuminated winter celebration symbol.

|12.14.05 @ 12:38PM|#

BTW, I wrote a letter for my boss's boss for the local paper, in answer to the question "Why can there be a menorah on the Town Common but not a nativity scene?" The answer was "because somebody bothered to ask the Selectmen for a permit to put a menorah on the common, and nobody asked to put up a nativity scene."

Now joe, you know that if liberals and the ACLU weren't persecuting christians, the town would have built a nativity scene to proclaim the miracle of Christ's birth. Christians needn't ask for permits in a "god-fearing" nation.

|12.14.05 @ 12:40PM|#

what the hell is taxmoney doing being spent on any sort of display anyway?

|12.14.05 @ 1:24PM|#

I�ve got to side with Akira. If you want to put up religious displays on private land, more power to you. Heck, I�ve even helped assemble community holiday displays on private land. Just keep it out of government owned land and buildings.

|12.14.05 @ 1:32PM|#

David,

Question 1: Are you a Christian? (If Yes, skip to line 14. If No, go on to line 2).

...

Question 14: Signature

|12.14.05 @ 1:35PM|#

jive miguel,

Do you object to strings of lights on Town Hall? A town-sponsored Memorial Day parade? Sculpture in a public plaza? How about reseeding the lawn in front of the library?

Just how ugly do you want your government property to be?

dhex|12.14.05 @ 2:14PM|#

joe, the great thing about minimal government is that it keeps them from making ugly property in the first place.

|12.14.05 @ 2:29PM|#

...as seen in all the lovely concrete boxes built by people determined to keep their govenrment small and not waste the taxpayers' dollars on frills when a new school or fire station was built.

|12.14.05 @ 2:35PM|#

"Anyway, according to the latest issue of the Onion, an activist judge has just canceled Christmas."

i still think the funniest thing that ever happened with the Onion was when they put out an article that china government took as truth and then critisised the US using the article as its basis for the critisism...then when they found out that the onion was fake news they critisized the US for allowing the Onion to exist.

R C Dean|12.14.05 @ 2:38PM|#

joe, there's a difference between small government and cheap-ass government.

A hundred years ago here in Texas, we definitely had small government. Yet every county seat put up a beautiful county courthouse.

Now we have a gargantuan government, one that needs so much office space that the only way it can house all its minions is to put up minimal cost concrete boxes.

Indeed, you might even note that the increase in the size and power of government coincides with the increase in the ugliness of government buildings. Its easier to afford nice buildings when you don't have to house tens of thousands of people in them.

|12.14.05 @ 2:41PM|#

"as seen in all the lovely concrete boxes built by people determined to keep their govenrment small and not waste the taxpayers' dollars on frills when a new school or fire station was built."

and to counter, when you look at all the great neigborhoods and building of yesteryear it is a sad note that none of them can ever be recreated without brakeing every building code and zoning law in the books.

all the money that would have went to actually building the government building now goes to storm sewer managment pland and enviornmental assesments.

|12.14.05 @ 2:46PM|#

You are all wrong!

Har. No really.

First off, most of these kind of displays are privately funded but placed on public property. I generally see no problem with that.

The city-funded bit (the case Alito ruled on) i dont think reveals anything about Alito. He was simply upholding precedent (Allegheny & Lynch) One which he disagrees with, it should be said. He doesnt like the Lemon Test, but holds to it where it has been applied as the guideline.

Me personally, I dont get upset about a 'state' storing plastic jesus in the basement - I get pissed about the government having to hear all these stupid cases claiming someone's rights are being infringed by plastic jesus.

Which is a bigger waste of dollars and more in the public interest? To allow people to celebrate whatever myths they want, or a society where the the supernatural is entirely unmentionable?

I see this as a first amendment issue. I dont think holidays, religious or otherwise, constitute endorsement or excessive entaglement (Lemon test)... so if people vote to have a religious display, then good for them. I dont like the ACLU 'protecting' me from harmless speech. They should spend their money on more important matters.

JG

|12.14.05 @ 2:57PM|#

Anyway, according to the latest issue of the Onion, an activist judge has just canceled Christmas.

Heh. thoreau, thanks for the link yesterday. If you haven't read it, here's the holding of the 9th Circuit:

"In accordance with my activist agenda to secularize the nation, this court finds Christmas to be unlawful," Judge Reinhardt said. "The celebration of the birth of the philosopher Jesus - be it in the form of gift-giving, the singing of carols, fanciful decorations, or general good cheer and warm feelings amongst families - is in violation of the First Amendment principles upon which this great nation was founded."

dhex|12.14.05 @ 3:07PM|#

"...as seen in all the lovely concrete boxes built by people determined to keep their govenrment small and not waste the taxpayers' dollars on frills when a new school or fire station was built."

????

joe, ever see the federal buildings in downtown manhattan? or downtown brooklyn, at least the stuff built after 1970.

i mean, c'mon! c'mon! how much grey and brown does one building need? it's not like they saved money - i'm sure they blew the budget several times over and still made it ugly as fuck.

|12.14.05 @ 3:22PM|#

Question 1: Are you a Christian? (If Yes, skip to line 14. If No, go on to line 2).

...

Question 14: Signature

Even that might be too much, joe. It reminds me of my grandparents. My grandfather always calls my brother and I to help him with errands. My grandmother(other side) complains that we don't help her more, but ignores the fact that he asks, where she just expects us to come over do it. No matter how many times we tell her "if you need something, call", she prefers the idea that she's less popular.

|12.14.05 @ 3:39PM|#

Y'all atheists need to come up with some kind of illuminated winter celebration symbol.

We have one. It's a pine tree. You might have seen them around.

Happy Solstice -7!

|12.14.05 @ 7:44PM|#

...as seen in all the lovely concrete boxes built by people determined to keep their govenrment small and not waste the taxpayers' dollars on frills when a new school or fire station was built.

...Because the government still isn't small enough. Half-measures often suck. The obvious libertarian question is, "Why is the government in the schooling or firefighting business in the first place?"

|12.15.05 @ 11:22AM|#

RC, I appreciate the difference - that was my point. I'm not sure everyone does, though. And you are right, look at the public buildings put up between 1750 and 1860.

joshua, "and to counter, when you look at all the great neigborhoods and building of yesteryear it is a sad note that none of them can ever be recreated without brakeing every building code and zoning law in the books." That's why we - meaning, roughly, urban planners and the left in general - are working to change those laws.

dhex, almost all architecture, public and private, from 1960 to 1990 sucks out loud.

Steveo, was the government "small enough" in the decades just before and after the War of Independence? Because those small government fanatics spent a fortune on public buildings, and create some real beauts. See RC Dean's comment.