Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) saw the Supreme Court rule that a Christmas display in Rhode Island did not violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. The city of Pawtucket had since 1943 erected a Christmas display in a park owned by a nonprofit organzation and located in the middle of the downtown shopping district. It included secular displays such as a Santa house, Christmas tree, and a "Seasons Greetings" banner, and also a nativity scene. The Rhode Island chapter of the ACLU, led by plaintiff Daniel Donnelly, filed suit on 1st Amendment grounds in the US District Court for the state. The district judge agreed and issued an injunction forbidding the display of the nativity scene. The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling.The city appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. Chief Justice Burger wrote the plurality opinion for the Court's 5-4 ruling, which held that the nativity scene did not violate the terms laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman 13 years earlier. Burger argued that the nativity scene is a passive religious symbol and not used as a state promotion of any particular belief, and the Constitution mandated accommodation of all faiths and forbade hostility to any. He continued and noted that the very first session of Congress when George Washington was president passed a bill allowing for paid chaplains in Congress and that Federal employees received paid leave on Christmas and Thanksgiving. "No inquiry into potential political divisiveness is even called for because the situation does not involve direct aid to church-sponsored organizations and because the crèche been displayed for 40 years with no problems."
Burger also added that publicly-funded museums, including the National Gallery in Washington D.C., displayed religious artwork, at the time of the Court's ruling in 1984 some 200 such items. The Supreme Court Building itself contained a display of the Ten Commandments. The president proclaimed a national day of prayer each year, and presidential proclamations have honored the Jewish community in America, showing that the Christian faith was not the only one acknowledged. Burger added that this case differed from Abington School District v. Schempp in that that involved the required reading of the Bible in a public school, which was an active as opposed to passive promotion of religion. Until the current lawsuit, nobody in Pawtucket had ever publicly complained about the nativity scene since it was first displayed in the 1940s.The Establishment Clause, Burger continued, was written at a time when the Founders wished to prevent the creation of a state church as existed in Europe, or the nation being compelled to obey the diktats of a foreign ruler such as the Pope, and the Court had acknowledged that the late 20th century was a much different world from the 18th century and such concerns were no longer relevant to the present day.
Justice O'Connor dissented. She argued that the Establishment Clause, among other things forbade government support of or opposition to religion, and displays such as the nativity scene were designed to "exclude" members not of that faith, send them the message that they're not welcome on the community, and to show those who are that they are specially favored.Justices Brennan and Blackmun filed separate dissents and argued that celebration of a national holiday could be done in such a way as to not promote one religion over others, and that the nativity scene was in the center of the display, proving that the city of Pawtucket meant to send a clear message with it. "The effect on minority religious groups, as well as on those who may reject religion, is to convey the message that their views are not similarly worthy of public recognition nor entitled to public support. It was precisely this sort of chauvinism that the Establishment Clause was intended forever to prohibit."
Brennan noted that the Founders' opinions on a public nativity scene cannot be gauged since Christmas celebrations in their modern form only date to the second half of the 19th century. The Puritans in the early colonies explicitly opposed Christmas as a decadent and pagan celebration associated with the Anglican and Catholic Churches. Over the 18th century, Anglican, German, and Dutch immigrants in the colonies actively celebrated it, but other Protestant groups including Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, and Methodists retained the Puritan hostility to Christmas well into the 19th century. Brennan felt it was safe to assume the Founders knew Christmas was a divisive issue in the America of their day and would have preferred to not stoke public controversy by including Christmas symbols on government buildings. No state recognized Christmas as a legal holiday until 1836. By 1865 it was recognized by 28 different jurisdictions. Congress made Christmas a legal Federal holiday in 1870 along with the 4th of July, New Year's Day, and Thanksgiving.The evidence indicates that German immigrants in Pennsylvania and Maryland in the 18th century were probably the first people to introduce nativity scenes to America, and the nativity scene became more widespread as Catholic immigration grew over the 19th century. However, it could not be determined that the practice was widely accepted by most Americans until the 20th century. As such, Brennan believed there was no reason to suppose the Founders would have approved of a government building displaying a nativity scene.
>>18540112Burger was right btw. Whatever the Founders would have thought of 18th century Christmas was irrelevant in the 21st when it was universally accepted by Christian denominations.
>>18540110>Until the current lawsuit, nobody in Pawtucket had ever publicly complained about the nativity scene since it was first displayed in the 1940si mean, someone in 1860 probably said hey nobody ever complained about slavery until the last couple years too
>>18540123meds
>>18540123probably just an irish catholic seething because he thought the christmas display didn't give mary enough attention
>>18540116true. even Muslims honor Jesus as a prophet and Indians were not yet here in any significant numbers in the 80s. i can only think of one religious group that would be likely to have a beef with a manger display.
>>18540112that was how Washington won the battle of Trenton btw, he captured the Hessians on Christmas because they were German and were drunk after holiday feasting which his troops came from religious denominations that likely disavowed it.
The lemon test has subsequently been explicitly overruled so this case is no longer good law anyway.
>>18540129Slavery was controversial since the nation's founding, idiot.
>>18540123no one cares, /pol/
