Freedom Writer - December 1994 [ref001] What does the Supreme Court say? By Barbara Simon,

Freedom Writer - December 1994

[ref001]

What does the Supreme Court say?

By Barbara Simon, Esq.

The most recent case decided by the Supreme Court re: religious displays 
on public property is the 1989 decision County of _Allegheny_v._American_
Civil_Liberties_Union_, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter. 

In this case, there were two displays at issue. The first was a display 
of a creche depicting the Christmas nativity scene, placed on the 
main inside staircase of the Allegheny County Courthouse. Above the 
creche was a banner which stated "Glory to God in the Highest." The 
second display was an 18-foot Chanukah menorah placed next to a Christmas 
tree with a sign saluting liberty placed on the steps of the Pittsburgh 
City Hall. 

Associate Justice Blackmun wrote that the effect of the Government's 
use of symbolism "depends upon its context" and that the task of the 
court is to determine whether in their "particular physical settings," 
either religious display has the effect of "endorsing or disapproving 
religious beliefs." 

The Court held that the Establishment Clause required the overall 
display to be seen as conveying a "secular recognition of different 
traditions for celebrating the winter holiday season." The Court found 
that because the creche along with the banner above made it abundantly 
clear that it was endorsing Christian doctrine, it violated the Establishment 
Clause. However, the Chanukah menorah and Christmas tree were not 
found to violate the Establishment Clause because while the menorah 
is a religious symbol, its message is not exclusively religious. 

In sum, the Supreme Court's standard of review for religious displays 
on public property is whether in their "particular physical setting" 
the religious display has the effect of "endorsing or disapproving 
religious beliefs."

On October 11th the Supreme Court refused to review a 9th Circuit 
US Court of Appeals decision, which found that a 43-foot cross, which 
rests on public lands overlooking the city of San Diego, California, 
is a "preeminent symbol of Christianity" and is therefore unconstitutional 
under a provision of California's constitution which forbids religious 
preference.

According to an October 12th report in _The_New_York_Times_, the long-running 
dispute regarding the 43-foot cross will enter a new phase. Back in 
1992, as a way of circumventing the Federal district judge's ruling 
to remove the cross from public land, the city arranged to sell 15 
square feet of its public land to a private religious association. 
The sale was deferred pending the outcome of the city's appeals. Peter 
Irons, lawyer for the Society of Separationists, who brought the lawsuit, 
said that his clients would be back in court challenging the sale. 
Irons stated that the sale amounted to "privatization of the Constitution" 
and called it a "transparent effort to evade the judge's order."

_Back to [ref002]The Grinch: eight years later_

[ref003][ref004] Return to table of contents

Copyright 1995 IFAS
The Freedom Writer / ifas@crocker.com

[ref001] ../banner.gif
[ref002] grinch.html
[ref003] index.html
[ref004] ../../uparrow.gif

        This file is copywritten by the Institute for First
        Amendment Studies.

        Subscribe to The Freedom Writer and Walk Away news
        letters by writing to or telephoneing the Institute
        for First Amendment Studies:

        Post Office Box 589
        Great Barrington, Massachusetts.  01230
        Telephone: (413) 528-3800
        E-Mail: ifas@crocker.com
        Web page: http://www.crocker.com/~ifas