Saturday, December 11, 2010
Poking at the Establishment Clause?
Here's a column by Gail Collins making fun of Tulsa's decision to allow a Christmas parade to proceed notwithstanding the absence of the word "Christmas." Or making fun of the attendant protest. Or making fun of Senator Inhofe. She's definitely making fun of something. "I know you've been worred," winks Collins: "We live in a time of so many terrifying, insurmountable problems. It’s comforting to return to arguing about whether the nation’s moral fiber is endangered if Tulsa downplays the religious aspects of a parade full of Santa Clauses that is currently sponsored by a popular downtown pub." Difficult to cut through the confusing combination of earnestness and mockery to understand exactly what Collins means to criticize.
Be that as it may, the column had me wondering what Collins would have to say about Establishment Clause cases dealing with government sponsored religious symbols, texts, and displays. Would she find the fights in Lynch, Stone, County of Allegheny, Pinette, Van Orden, Buono (to the extent people fought the EC fight), and the rest similarly ridiculous (or "comforting")? Does she think that the "under God" battles now, or the issue of legislative prayers, or even what I predict will be the future question about the word "God" on the coinage -- are all of these and so many others just as mock-worthy? After all, these disputes, no less than the one in Oklahoma, involve conflicts over what the government ought to be permitted to say about powerful and culturally important symbols and texts. I'll admit that I, too, sometimes find them not quite as substantial as Collins's undescribably "terrifying, insurmountable problems," but I hope they are not regarded as objects of ridicule. At least, I don't regard them that way.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/12/poking-at-the-establishment-clause.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
Marc,
I think you may not be clear on the issues (or rather, nonissues) involved in this case and why Gail Collins is amused by it. As I understand it, the traditional organizers of the parade last year (a local utility company) decided to rename the parade "The Holiday Parade of Lights" instead of "The Christmas Parade of Lights" to make it more inclusive. This year, a new sponsor, a local pub, decided to keep "Holiday" in the name instead of "Christmas." The City Council was being urged by offended Christians to deny the parade permit because the word "Christmas" had been dropped. The idea that the government should use its power to deny "holiday-season speech" because it does not explicitly mention Christmas is ludicrous. There would have been an Establishment Clause case if the City Council had refused the parade permit, which is what "pro-Christmas" Christians were urging. Otherwise there is no Establishment Clause case here at all. This is not a government-sponsored parade from which the word "Christmas" was removed owing to concerns about government sponsorship of religion. It is a privately sponsored parade whose organizers have a perfect right to call it what they want without pressure or discrimination by the government if they don't want to use "Christmas" in the title. And the parade sponsors have made it clear that Christmas-themed content (floats, music, etc.) is not banned from the parade.
If Christians are miffed about the title change, they can boycott the parade, or boycott the businesses that sponsor the parade, or organize their own "Keep Christ in Christmas" parade, but to urge the City Council not to grant a permit to prevent holiday parade from taking place because it doesn't mention Christmas is just nutty.