I don't agree, however, that building a creche "merely recognizes the basic humanity of religious folk as a part of the community." That seems to me a conclusory statement rather than reasoning. I can imagine many Americans saying that a governmnent-built church "merely recognizes the basic humanity of religious folk as a part of the community," and also saying that a church "does not exclude anyone" (after all, everyone is welcome to go inside), "nor ... harm anyone." And on the other hand I know many people (myself included) who think that a government-built nativity scene amounts to government taking an active role in spreading a central doctrinal message of one particular religion ("the messiah has come"), and does indeed exclude those whose beliefs are not reflected in -- in a word, are excluded from -- the government display. There are many other ways the government could recognize that Christians are part of the community (assuming that was somehow necessary in anation where Christians constitute the very large majority of the community -- how about government once in a while recognizing the "basic humanity of atheists as a part of the community"?)
If the question is whether the goverment can properly "recognize the basic humanity of group X as a part of the community," I'd say the answer is yes. One might put under that heading a government program teaching tolerance for all groups. And perhaps a reasonable criterion to separate "recognizing the basic humanity of Group X as part of the community" from "improperly making the government a celebrant of Group X's particular religious beliefs" would be whether the government plays a direct role in helping that religious group convey its particular beliefs to the world, whether by building it a church or by building a symbol of the group's special belief and erecting it in the public square.
Art Spitzer
(ACLU-DC)
In a message dated 11/5/05 9:47:18 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is a huge difference, as I'm sure Art realizes and would argue persuasively in litigation if a state proposed to build a cathedral and conduct state-sponsored worship there, between a passive recognition by govt. that some part of the community is celebrating a holiday, such as Chanukah or Christmas, and the state building a cathedral and sponsoring worship. The one, to quote Sandy on another thread, merely recognizes the basic humanity of religious folk as a part of the community, as citizens whose culture is part of the rich diversity of our Nation.
When the government builds a cathedral for actual worship, it strikes at the core of establishment. A passive nativity scene, one of many displays on public property during the course of the year, is not such an establishment of religion. Including religious displays (among many secular ones) does not exclude anyone, nor do passive displays harm anyone. If you are offended by the gay pride display or the nativity display, you can avert your eyes. No harm, no foul.
But the point about this thread was Alito and his confirmation. I would love to see PFAW attack Alito as a dangerous nominee who will allow the Pledge of Allegiance to be recited, Christmas carols to be sung, and nativity scenes to be displayed. That makes Justice Alito
an "extremist" along with 80% of the American people.
And by the way, I think that, under the EC, FEMA could pay to rebuild a church, along with other private buildings(such as the ACLU headquarters), damaged by a hurricane or tornado. No religious purpose, and a neutral program such as this does not advance religion, so even Lemon should be satisfied. Here is another case where Alito might make a difference replacing O'C, who gets a little nervous when public funds are involved. She scares too easy in my opinion. Boo!
Rick Duncan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 11/4/05 12:38:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the state can celebrate gay pride week, and Cinco de Mayo, and Earth Day, and pork producers day on the public square, then why can't it also celebrate Christmas or Chanukah or Ramadan with a passive dispaly in the public parks or a party at school?
Yes; if the state can build an office building, or a courthouse, or a science lab, or a homeless shelter, why the heck can't it also build a church or a seminary?
Art Spitzer
ACLU, Washington DC
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
