Case Study: Religious Symbols on Public Property
As you know, the
exact meaning of the Constitution is constantly evolving. The Constitution may be a
concrete social contract, but the application of that contract is dependent on
the specific issues at hand, the context of the questions being asked, the ideological
trends in both society and among justices of the Supreme Court, and how the constitutional
question relates to prior Court decisions. What this often means that common,
everyday practices are, periodically challenged by someone else, claming that the behavior
violates the Constitution. This assignment addresses one such case.
|
The
Case at Hand: What to Do About The Christmas Display
 This
is a picture of Borough Hall in Metuchen, the location of the traditional Christmas
holiday display. |
In
the town of Metuchen, New Jersey, a minor controversy has arisen over the display of
celebratory objects during the December holiday period. For at least sixty years,
the town has celebrated Christmas by outlining the town hall with colored Christmas
lights, decorating evergreen trees on the grounds with lights, and putting up a mailbox
for letters to Santa Claus. |
And for sixty years, the Chamber of
Commerce in town would sponsor a parade that ended with Santa Claus meeting the town's
children on the lawn of the town hall. There were never any complaints filed
by individuals or groups during this period.
|
All of this changed in 1997, when a town
employee, who is Jewish, decided that she wished to commemorate Chanukah, and so, with her
won money, she purchased a custom-made flag of a menorah. She then draped the flag
out of her window on the second floor of town hall, which is at the intersection of the
two main roads in the town. This display of the menorah flag enraged many citizens,
most of them Catholic, including the rector of the cathedral parish, St. Francis of
Assisi, located two blocks away. The concern of these citizens was that the flag
was a religious symbol, and that a public display of such a symbol should be balanced with
the display of a crèche on the town hall lawn. The mayor of the town reassured
concerned citizens that in 1998, their concerns would be addressed.
A dispute settled?
In 1998, the mayor responded by taking down
ALL holiday decorations, except for a small string of lights along the front door of town
hall, and the mailbox to Santa. Instead, the town attorney donated land he owned
several blocks away in a commercial district, to be used for a "festive
celebration" of the holidays. On that property (private land), there were
several displays, including lights, a snowman, a Christmas tree, and an actual menorah.
This display outraged some of the people who had complained in 1997. They
believed that their religious views were left out of the display, and that the mayor's
assertion that the Christmas tree and menorah were essentially equal in their celebration
of their respective holiday, was absurd and discriminatory.
In addition to the problems people had with
the display on the private property, even more people were outraged over the mayor's
decision to virtually eliminate decorations on town hall property. Even the rabbi of
the Reformed temple in town stated that he was dismayed by this decision, and he asked
that the town return to nonreligious decorations of past times, with no religious displays
permitted. This, however, has not satisfied some member of the Catholic cathedral
(including the rector, a relative newcomer to the town). They believed that Jewish
symbols were given preferential treatment, violating the Establishment Clause of the
Constitution. In their view, the only fair remedy would be to put a nativity scene
up along with whatever religious symbols other churches in the town desired.
Developing a New Solution
Given the seeming impasse among the factions
in town (the town is about 35% Catholic; 35% Protestant; 20% Jewish; and 10% other), and
the divisions within the mayor's own party (a Democrat, he is the leader of a
coalition of primarily Catholic, Black Protestant and Jewish residents), he has decide to
appoint a blue-ribbon pane to study the issues and to make recommendations for the
future. You are that panel.
Your charge is to consider that various
alternatives available to the town. What does Supreme Court doctrine say about this
issue? The two cases, Lynch v. Donnelly, and County of Allegheny v.
ACLU present a framework for deciding upon the issue of holiday displays and the
Establishment Clause (the cases are posted above). Given the doctrine, CAN the
town place any religious symbols on its property? If not, why not? If so,
under what conditions?
Next, consider whether the town SHOULD put
these symbols up next year? If so, under what conditions? If not, why not?
Once you have studied the issue, discuss the
various options and come up with a comprehensive proposal for solving this conflict.
Be sure to fully explain your decision, and to explain why your recommendations are the
best of those available to the mayor.
On December 6, you will present your
recommendations in both oral and written form, to the mayor. You will have ten
minutes to present your findings.
Supreme Court Rulings. These will give you some
good background on the Constitutional Issues in this case:
Related News Stories on the Issue: Some commentary and
a report on Somerset, MA.
Click Here to see the Somerset, Massachusetts display,
specifically designed to conform to Supreme Court doctrine on the placing of religious
symbols on public property (as outlined primarily in Lynch v. Donnelly).!
Statements of Interest Groups: These will assist
you in understanding the basic positions taken by interested parties.
If you are interested in learning a little
about Metuchen (not necessary, but helpful), you can visit this web site
