TruthBook Religious News Blog

By Helen T. Gray
McClatchy Newspapers

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Earl Martin of the Olathe, Kan., School District remembers when five- and six-foot Christmas trees bearing ornaments adorned each classroom.

Thirty years later, "Our practice is there might be a main holiday tree on display but not a lot of individual trees, and the ornaments would not be religious," said Martin, director of elementary education and a former school principal.

In Kansas City, Kan., Wyandotte High School has what is called a "winter tree," not a Christmas tree, and "generic songs" are featured in the winter program. The students "want to sing (gospel singer Kirk) Franklin and Mariah Carey," principal Walter Thompson said, "but they have too much religion. We wouldn't use that music, even if it is allowed, because we don't want to offend anyone."

In the Northwest, when a rabbi complained the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport had Christmas trees but no Hanukkah menorah, the 14 trees were taken down and then put back up after a national uproar.

This time of year, constitutional controversy has become almost as customary as Hanukkah and Christmas.

In one corner is what's known as the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, which has been taken to mean that the federal government should not mandate a national religion. In the opposing corner are the First Amendment's next two clauses, which protect the rights of people to speak freely and to tend to their religions of choice, if they have one.

Every year, keepers of the public square and public schools find themselves trying to make their way between the two, sometimes misunderstanding or misinterpreting what is and is not allowed. Here are but two:

True or false: Students are not allowed to sing religious Christmas songs in public schools.

False.

One of the biggest misunderstandings among public school officials is "that religion must be forcibly removed from the school environment," said Erik Owens, assistant director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College.
For example, at one area elementary school a line referring to "Parson Brown" was changed in the otherwise secular song "Winter Wonderland" because "parson" is another term for pastor or minister.

The Alliance Defense Fund, one of several Christian groups that have organized against what they say is an assault on Christmas, has published a paper entitled "Constitutional Rights of Students, Teachers and Public Schools to Seasonal Religious Expression."

In it, the group argues the U.S. Supreme Court has held that many religious activities, contrary to what some think, can be constitutionally allowed as freedom of speech and expression. These include calling a school break "Christmas Vacation," instead of just "winter break"; closing on religious holidays; allowing teachers and students to say "Merry Christmas" instead of only "Happy Holidays"; displaying religious symbols such as nativities and menorahs; and allowing students to opt out of such activities.

The American Civil Liberties Union is usually cast as the villain in these disputes, but its stated policy is that the ACLU "works to ensure that people remain free to choose which religious beliefs (or none) they wish to express and that governments, school boards and legislatures do not become involved in deciding which religious beliefs should be promoted or in spending taxpayer dollars to support religious activities and symbols."

Brett Shirk, executive director of the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri, said the organization believes that "citizens should never be forced to express beliefs they do not hold, like making Jewish kids in a public school sing Christmas songs." Likewise, he said, "no one should be prohibited from voluntarily expressing holiday greetings." Shirk said the organization also contends that publicly funded displays should express all beliefs of people in that municipality.

Phillip Hammond, retired professor in the religious studies department at the University of California-Santa Barbara, said a public school is free to engage in activities that might seem religious to some people if it has a secular purpose for doing so.

"For example, the school choir at Christmas time sings hymns, which gives the children the opportunity to sing, and the music is pegged to the season," he said. "So no one needs to say they are doing that because they are Christian. They are doing that because they are singers."

Alan Brownstein, law professor at the University of California-Davis, said some school officials play it too safe.

"For example, there are school administrators who say we can't have any religious music or you can't say `Christmas,' " he said, "and that pushes the attempt to respect the constitutional requirements far beyond what the law demands."

True or false: Municipalities cannot allow residents to put up holiday displays on public property.

False.

Groups such as the Christian Defense Coalition, Faith and Action, Generation Life and several members of Congress have joined in the Nativity Project, calling for faith communities across the country to apply for permission to set up nativity scenes in front of their city halls or state capitol buildings. One group, the Thomas More Center, has arranged for several hundred lawyers to assist if legal action is necessary.

"The free speech provisions of the First Amendment give private citizens the right to express their religious beliefs in spaces designated as public forums," Owens said. "In these places, such as town squares, private citizens may be allowed to erect displays that might be unconstitutional for the government to put up."

But this still puts pressure on local government.

"Governments must be careful to convey a nonreligious message in the overall context of religious displays they sponsor," said Joseph M. Knippenberg, professor of politics at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta. Even if the display has private sponsorship, he said, it cannot appear that the government endorses the efforts of the private group or individual to celebrate the exclusively religious aspects of the holiday.

What happens next Hanukkah and Christmas season hinges on the Supreme Court, Knippenberg said.

"If we had a Supreme Court willing to accede to the commonsensical notion that neither a creche nor a Christmas tree coerces anyone's conscience, but rather merely acknowledges a community's celebration, inviting all to join, appreciate or respect it, we might actually have a chance at achieving the rich pluralism and unity our founders promised.

"Until then, we're consigned, at best, to confusion and, at worst, to the kind of timidly bland homogeneity that leads people to refer to holiday trees and businesses to enjoin their employees to be careful about wishing anyone anything other than a `Happy Holiday.' "
---
© 2006, The Kansas City Star.