Religious Displays on Public Property
Presented by Frank Bacon, FAOWM
About the Speaker
Frank Bacon FAOWM member and long involved with the
American Atheists. AA and has been heavily involved in State & Church separation
issues
About the Event
Announcements
Meeting Minutes for May 24, 2000; #69.Because of the parking validation problem experienced @ our last meeting,
for those using the ramp, Jeff procured a stamper for us to imprint our
parking slips. This will insure no future difficulties with the attendant,
and enable free parking for us as was intended from the outset.
We now have updated membership directories available. If you know of
additions or changes to it, please let us know and we can get it in the next
next update. Also, let us know any suggestions, comments or questions you
may have. Reach us at or check our website:
http//my.voyager.net/freethought.
There have been a couple of changes to our calendar of upcoming events and
meetings. The current list is as follows:
Collins, PhD, PC. – SEPTEMBER 24: Adopt-A-Highway- coordinated by Dennis Murphy.
**All meetings are to be held @ the Calkins Science Center of GRCC. Meeting
time is 7PM.
Jeff met with a person who had contacted us before about presenting
Phrenology to our group. This would be sure to draw some debate from those
in our group who are skeptical of this practice.
Both KCC and Calvin are interested in hosting a debate with Dan Barker
(“Losing Faith in Faith”) in opposition to a Creationist debator, so this
will likely take place. We will keep all interested in this posted.
Presentation
Our topic for this meeting was “Religious Displays on Public Property” and
was moderated by Frank Bacon, FAOWM member and long involved with the
American Atheists. AA has been heavily involved in State & Church separation
issues, including this one of religious symbols on public property.
Frank read to the group an item that he wrote that summarized much of what
has transpired in recent times with this entanglement; the cases, the
participants and ways that those who placed the religioussymbols on public
property found to get around the Constitutional prohibition over supporting,
endorsing or showing favoritism for one sect over another. One such method
was for the religious group to purchase a small portion of the land beneath
the display- often a Christian cross- then erect the sectarian symbol atop
it.
There have been long-standing traditions in this country for placing the
creche, or other Christian symbols on public property, especially around the
time of the Winter Solstice. Supporters argue for the tradition. A way to
seem unbiased toward only one religion arises then, when a Jewish menorah is
placed alongside the Christian display. Then to further show that the
practice is not in violation of the Constitution, it is further diluted by
“secualrizing” it with plastic Santas, reindeer, and other such items. The
result is a kitsch hodgepodge that ends up honoring no religious tradition,
offends many who encounter it, and reveals clearly the folly of this
practice.
Frank showed us most of a video that focused on the media aattention given
to the Somerset NJ case where the above senario was enacted, complete with a
17’ Santa Claus, that some had dubbed “Santazilla.” A strong opposition to
this garish display was from the leaders or representatives of various
religious denominations or sects. While the protest over the display took
place far earlier in the year, it was not heard by the local Council until
December, after it had already gone up. This was apologized for @ length,
with an attempt to make clear that it was not an intentional oversight. It
was mentioned that due to the timing, it was sad that this had been
arbitrated so much by the media attention it had drawn. Snippets of several
newscasts were also shown in the video that Frank provided.
The general sentiment from the Council was to keep the symbols up, while
saying that the opinions of those gathered to protest it were respected.
Both those speaking for the Christian denominations and the Jewish Rabbi,
explained that these combinations of symbols do not compliment or balance
each other, but only make a sham of the significance of each item. Most
traditions have the idea of a festival of, or coming Light—including the
pagan ones, from which this concept was adopted, so it was not seen as a
problem to string colored lights around the city during the holiday season.
Besides the traditional religions, a Wiccan and atheist weighed in on the
matter, but all were in agreement that the best action to take was to remove
the offensive conglomeration from the property. Some from the non-religious
community worked to erect a Winter Solstice display in different parts of
the country to counteract the Judeo-Christian messages and symbols. The
rabbi had made an analogy with art to these various juxtaposed symbols,
saying that they were individually beautiful, and not intended to make
Ultimate Truth claims, so there is no need to festoon public buildings with
various displays to all get equal time.
It was argued @ our meeting that government has the right to stay out of the
business of religion and to support the rights of the minority—not to be
hindered by the majority beliefs. The councilmen had talked a great deal
about how long standing the tradition was, as if a wrong perpetuated for a
great time made it less wrong, and of how most people were seemingly in
support of the unconstitutional display remaining, denying the intent of the
Constitution to protect the rights of minority interests. Even if somehow
every faith group were to be given equal exposure on public property, it was
argued that it is not government’s job to create or promote such a display.
We discussed the issue of groups allowed to hold sway on public grounds with
their symbols accompanying the speeches or gatehring, even to where a great
deal of resources would go to keep matters under control or provide a
forum—and how this differs from one religious group or another doing the
same.
An interesting question arose as to who actually owns the various symbols?
If a synagogue, for instance, owned and placed the menorah, then they should
be able to take it down, if they disliked the placement alongside the
Christian nativity scene (the rabbi had pointed out that the menorah does
not represent a Jewish Christmas, as it seems to when both faith group’s
symbols are placed together). If it is the public institutions who own them,
then why do they, and why are they in the business of erecting them in the
1st place?
It was discussed how a majority religion will try to skirt the
Constitutional intent to get their message out in courthouses, city
buildings, etc. Then the minority faiths put pressure to get their symbols
out in reaction to the first offense (not out of genuine feeling for their
own symbols which are more properly revered in their houses of worship),
leading to the approach of putting candy canes and towering Santas amidst it
all to supposedly secualrize the whole abomination.
Also—how putting all groups’ symbols up is an exercise in futility, yet
putting up only one group’s-as in a courthouse-seems to indicate that
justice is to be meted out only to the group whose symbols are represented
there.
There was much interesting commentary that emerged out of this topic.
Afterwards, some of us adjourned over to the Cottage Bar for more
stimulating talk.
Recorder: Charles LaRue.
