Bryan Fischer
The path to victory in the war on Christmas
By Bryan Fischer
Things continue to get more confusing and contentious over what kind of public displays will be tolerated during the Christmas season. Amazingly, the Washington statehouse is now allowing a menorah but not a nativity scene, which is like allowing King George to be in a Fourth of July display but not George Washington.
In Italy, gay activists posed four dolls — two male, two female — in prone homosexual embraces, lying among the shepherds witnessing the birth of Jesus. The dolls were festooned with miniature placards printed with pro-gay slogans. This is as offensive as putting toy German storm troopers on a menorah.
Chester County in Pennsylvania has tried to solve the problem by letting people put up anything they want. Commissioners finally agreed to add both a menorah and a nativity scene to an already crowded holiday display. (The nativity scene, by the way, was the last thing to be approved and added to the county's "Christmas" montage.)
But the secular components in Chester County dwarf the religious arrays. The crèche, for instance, sits next to a United Way sign promoting the organization's fundraising efforts. The sign is three times the size of the figures in the nativity scene.
For the solution to this mess, we must go back to the First Amendment since it is inevitably cited in these controversies. The First Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ."
The Founders clearly intended the First Amendment to serve exclusively as a restraint upon the actions of Congress. As originally intended, it does not bind the actions of city officials, county officials, or state officials in any way.
So to begin with, we ought to recognize that nativity scenes on courthouse lawns cannot possibly violate the First Amendment, for the simple reason that a county government is not "Congress." Local and state officials can do anything with Christmas displays their little ole hearts desire without running afoul of the federal Constitution.
Also, Congress can only violate the First Amendment by passing a "law" which establishes one religion over another. Well, a crèche cannot possibly violate the First Amendment for the simple reason that a crèche is not a law.
The term "establishment" had a quite precise meaning at the time of the founding, referring to granting one Christian denomination preference in law above every other denomination and coercing some kind of support for its existence or participation in its rituals, as England had done with the Anglican church.
Well, since the birth of Christ is celebrated by every Christian denomination, a nativity scene obviously gives no preference to any one denomination over another. Congress itself is, of course, permitted to erect a nativity scene if it wishes, for the same reasons: a crèche is not a law, and even if it was, it gives no legal preference to one specific Christian denomination.
The bottom line is that the solution to the war on Christmas is to keep the courts out of the issue altogether and allow city, county, and state officials to post any kind of displays they want. Most decisions of this nature are made today not out of a desire to do what's best, right, fitting, or appropriate, but out of fear of getting entangled in litigation by aggrieved citizens or the minions of the ACLU.
If courts at all levels were to recognize that they simply have no constitutional jurisdiction over such displays — from a legal standpoint, it is literally none of their business — and begin to throw legal challenges to Christmas displays out of their chambers, then our elected officials can get back to their jobs: representing their constituents instead of trying to outguess activist judges.
© Bryan Fischer
Things continue to get more confusing and contentious over what kind of public displays will be tolerated during the Christmas season. Amazingly, the Washington statehouse is now allowing a menorah but not a nativity scene, which is like allowing King George to be in a Fourth of July display but not George Washington.
In Italy, gay activists posed four dolls — two male, two female — in prone homosexual embraces, lying among the shepherds witnessing the birth of Jesus. The dolls were festooned with miniature placards printed with pro-gay slogans. This is as offensive as putting toy German storm troopers on a menorah.
Chester County in Pennsylvania has tried to solve the problem by letting people put up anything they want. Commissioners finally agreed to add both a menorah and a nativity scene to an already crowded holiday display. (The nativity scene, by the way, was the last thing to be approved and added to the county's "Christmas" montage.)
But the secular components in Chester County dwarf the religious arrays. The crèche, for instance, sits next to a United Way sign promoting the organization's fundraising efforts. The sign is three times the size of the figures in the nativity scene.
For the solution to this mess, we must go back to the First Amendment since it is inevitably cited in these controversies. The First Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ."
The Founders clearly intended the First Amendment to serve exclusively as a restraint upon the actions of Congress. As originally intended, it does not bind the actions of city officials, county officials, or state officials in any way.
So to begin with, we ought to recognize that nativity scenes on courthouse lawns cannot possibly violate the First Amendment, for the simple reason that a county government is not "Congress." Local and state officials can do anything with Christmas displays their little ole hearts desire without running afoul of the federal Constitution.
Also, Congress can only violate the First Amendment by passing a "law" which establishes one religion over another. Well, a crèche cannot possibly violate the First Amendment for the simple reason that a crèche is not a law.
The term "establishment" had a quite precise meaning at the time of the founding, referring to granting one Christian denomination preference in law above every other denomination and coercing some kind of support for its existence or participation in its rituals, as England had done with the Anglican church.
Well, since the birth of Christ is celebrated by every Christian denomination, a nativity scene obviously gives no preference to any one denomination over another. Congress itself is, of course, permitted to erect a nativity scene if it wishes, for the same reasons: a crèche is not a law, and even if it was, it gives no legal preference to one specific Christian denomination.
The bottom line is that the solution to the war on Christmas is to keep the courts out of the issue altogether and allow city, county, and state officials to post any kind of displays they want. Most decisions of this nature are made today not out of a desire to do what's best, right, fitting, or appropriate, but out of fear of getting entangled in litigation by aggrieved citizens or the minions of the ACLU.
If courts at all levels were to recognize that they simply have no constitutional jurisdiction over such displays — from a legal standpoint, it is literally none of their business — and begin to throw legal challenges to Christmas displays out of their chambers, then our elected officials can get back to their jobs: representing their constituents instead of trying to outguess activist judges.
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
