Secular Group Rids Cincinnati Suburb of Public Nativity Scene
A Christian nativity scene on village property in the Cincinnati
suburb of Addyston, Ohio, vanished (some say almost miraculously) soon
after a letter of complaint was sent by the Freedom of Religion
Foundation.
An area resident alerted the Foundation on Dec. 10 about the
creche on public property near U.S. 50 and Main Street adjacent to a
village maintenance building.
The Foundation, based in Madison, Wis., works to keep state and
church separate and has more than 14,000 members nationwide and almost
400 in Ohio.
In her letter
to Mayor Dan Pillow, Rebecca Kratz, Foundation staff attorney, noted
that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it is illegal for public entities
"to maintain, erect or host a holiday display that consists solely of a
nativity scene, thus singling out, showing preference for, and
endorsing one religion."
Kratz referenced another federal ruling that said the creche is
irrefutably a religious symbol and a "re-creation of an event that lies
at the heart of the Christian faith."
The Foundation received no official response from the village,
but on Dec. 12 the complainant e-mailed to say the nativity scene was
no longer there: "Never had such a fast result."
The Foundation's letter reminded the village of the "ample
private and church grounds where religious displays may be freely
placed. Once the government enters into the religion business,
conferring endorsement and preference for one religion over others, it
strikes a blow at religious liberty forcing taxpayers of all faiths and
of no religion to support a particular expression of worship."
The Foundation gets many inquiries about possible violations this time of year and has prepared a list of Frequently Asked Questions about Christmas displays on public property.
"This isn't an issue of free speech," said Annie Laurie Gaylor,
Foundation co-president. "Why should nonbelievers and non-Christians be
subjected to Christian religious mythology on property that is jointly
owned by all citizens?"
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Private displays of nativity scenes and other religious symbols in a public area are perfectly legal and constitutional as long as they identify who erected it. If a private group wants to erect a nativity scene, menorah, etc, they have every right. The requirements are that no government funds, employees, etc. be involved and a sign stating which non-governmental group put it there. Governmental bodies may not erect religious symbols that endorse a particular religion , but that does not prevent private entities from doing so. People get confused on this point all the time. What the government may not do private citizens may do freely. Public property belongs to people of faith just as much as it belongs to non-believers. Thus, the government is not endorsing religion but allowing the free exercise there of.
I am curious how many people who don't believe in God or Jesus Christ still take a Christmas holiday, expect or exchange presents, send cards, attend a party, etc. If you don't believe in it, why do you adhere to the customs and traditions of Christmas?
If the birth of Christ or belief in God is just a silly notion, why do atheists bother spending so much time and energy fighting it?
"I am curious how many people who don't believe in God or Jesus Christ still take a Christmas holiday, expect or exchange presents, send cards, attend a party, etc. If you don't believe in it, why do you adhere to the customs and traditions of Christmas?"
For even most professing Christians , no matter how they insist otherwise,"Christmas"is merely an excuse for a feel-good, sense-and-emotion-indulging time of pleasure-seeking and materialism. Most if not all of the customs and traditions have little or nothing to do with Christ, let alone to do with anything written in the Bible. Many of us who are not Christians (btw, I'm agnostic, married to the same woman 30 years, have six children ) have no problem participating in the merriment and revelries -- we differ from Christians in that we don't pretend we're enjoying all the social and family partying and fun "because we're honoring the birth of Christ".
"Thus, the government is not endorsing religion but allowing the free exercise there of."
As long as the religious display follows the same procedures that any other display/
"I am curious how many people who don't believe in God or Jesus Christ still take a Christmas holiday, expect or exchange presents, send cards, attend a party, etc. If you don't believe in it, why do you adhere to the customs and traditions of Christmas?"
Because it part of the culture that we grew up in, and many of the people around us are Christian (including friends / family).
As to Christmas holidays... I don't take it off, but Christmas is part of the overall holiday calender (I get all the federal holidays).
Sounds like political correctness gone mad.
While I certainly agree with monitoring and curtailing the activities of certain ultra-conservative elements of Christianity, I think crushing people's right to celebrate a traditional holiday in a traditional manner is a bit much.
It harms no one other than those already consumed with hate, fear & envy.
Or else they are just pathetic individuals who get off on imposing their will and telling others 'No' about something...anything!
mick7744 -
I think you misunderstand the situation. It is not an outright ban of all religious displays. People have the right to put up any religious displays they want to on their own private property - and no one is suggesting that this right be taken away. The objection only concerns religious displays on government -owned property.
Thus, people have the right to "...celebrate a traditional holiday in a traditional manner ..." The government, however, does not have the right to support or promote one relgious tradition (by allowing religious displays on its property) over another.
mr average-
I know that you are correct in your assertion that it was on government owned property and therefore subject to attacks like this, but sometimes...being right just isn't enough.
I believe that this particular case involved mean-spirited people who did what they did for the same reason that dogs lick their privates...because they could!
The law is meant to provide protection and justice...not to give a club to those who wish to impose their will on others and know how to read the fine print.
I ask again...who was hurt by a nativity scene on the side of the road?
By the way, I am a recovering Catholic who wholeheartedly agrees with the separation of church and state , but this is just petty.
"I ask again...who was hurt by a nativity scene on the side of the road?"
No one, unless that scene is placed on public properety. Then it's potentially anyone living in that community who is not Christian. The message is that the government , by allowing such a display on its property, is tacitly endorsing the religious message behind it and in effect saying that THIS is our official, government-sanctioned religion . That's certianly not a positive mesage to send to people who are not Christians .
It would be different if religous diplays from all faiths and creeds were allowed on public property, but the truth is that there is very little tolerance for anything other than Christian displays and the occasional menorah in this country.
You seem to regard the protections of our constituiton as mere technicalities. I assure you that they are not. Our founding fathers were very concerned about ensuring religious freedom in this country and the embodied that concern in the establishment clause of the constituion. It is not proper for the government to be perceived as endorsing any particular religion because doing so is ihnerently discriminatory against other religious faiths.
I agree that there may be an element of vindictiveness about this situation. I understan dthat the motives of the people brining the case may be the result of feelings of persecution by the christian majority rather than any constituionalist zeal - god knows that non-Christians ( atheists especially) have alwyas been marginalized in this country. But at a basic level, our society is based on adherence to law , and there is no more fundamental law that the US Constitution. If we allow certain parts of the "fine print" as you called it to be ignored, what does that say about the rest of the document? Should we choose to enforce the passages we like and ignore the rest as our mood and fashion dictate? If so, we have no real basis for our existence as a country.
The point is:
It's public land and public money being spent on the religious symbol. Not just Christian Land and Christian money...
Mr Suntzu- - - we can't outlaw
churches and minarets in a free
country.
But we CAN outlaw blaring
church bells!
I find it funny that the same people that don't want any government endorsment of religion all seem to okay with taking off the religious holidays the government requires workers to be given. Funny how that works.