I live in the city of Columbus itself, not in the suburb of Whitehall, but it’s close enough that when I read about the Government-paid Christian nativity scene on Government property in front of the city hall of Whitehall, I thought I should take a look for myself. Here’s what I found:
Manger? Check. Mary? Check. Joseph? Check. Baby Jesus? Check. Off camera are the Magi, a donkey and a camel.
Here’s the angel nailed to the top of the manger, complete with the words “Gloria in Excelsis Deo” etched on a, um, holy dirty brown ribbon. In English, that reads “Glory to God in the Highest.”
And for our bonus round, here you have one of many angel street lamp decorations on the town’s light poles, complete with halo and the ever-Biblical angel’s trumpet.
Yes, this is religious. Yes, it is promoting one very particular religion, that of Christianity. And no, there’s not a shred of any other religion’s displays, in case you’re curious. No Jewish menorahs or Kwanzaa candles or solstice signs. Nope. This is a very clear case of the unconstitutional use of government to promote religion.
The crazy thing is that it’s completely unnecessary. South Yearling Road, on which the Whitehall City Hall rests, has three Christian churches on the same block. There’s the Holy Spirit Catholic Church at the prominent corner of Broad Street and South Yearling Road. There’s the Praise Temple Church of God in Christ. Then there’s the Whitehall Church of the Nazarene. None had manger scenes in front of them as far as I could see. All had prominent street frontage. Any of these churches could have volunteered to house the manger scene. They could rotate it from year to year between them. If simply having a manger scene on display was the goal, it could easily be accomplished without having the City Government pay for it with taxpayer money and having the scene displayed in front of City Hall. But those chances are not taken. No, it appears to be very important that these particularly Christian messages be placed right in front of City Hall, and that it be a Government activity. Some Whitehall Christians appear to be in need of government help to prop up their weak faith by turning into a government-sponsored celebration. Very insecure. Highly unconstitutional.
You wrote:
Highly unconstitutional.
Where in the constitution does it say that people of a community cannot express their religious beliefs?
Maybe you are referring to Ammendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Have you read it? It doesn’t stop people from expressing their religion, and yes they can use government funds, just not federal to establish or further their beliefs.
We are a representative republic. You should choose live where people have similar beliefs and opinions and if you don’t like those beliefs/opinions you can go to another state or jurisdiction.
Preventing the expression of religion by a local government/citizens is unconstitutional.
Establish… their beliefs?
USA Dave, what part of no government establishment of religion do you not understand?
If you really have a divine creator of the universe on your side, why do you need government to promote your religion?
Have you read rulings of the Supreme Court on the first amendment and the establishment clause, USA Dave? We live in a representative constitutional republic in which majorities cannot Shanghai government to do whatever they please and in which the Supreme Court is the arbiter, thanks not only to Marbury v. Madison but also Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution, as to matters of “law and fact.” And the Supreme Court has ruled in interpreting the Constitution that government cannot be used for purposes of promoting particular religions, which is clearly what’s going on in Whitehall.
Your notion that people should just go away and live somewhere else if they don’t like the way people use government to push their religion down others’ throats, and your notion that within a community everybody should either have similar beliefs and opinions or shut up, are repugnant.
I have no problem with this manger scene being paid for by any church and decked out as gaudily as can be on any church lawn, in any business window, or in front of any private person’s home. But it is not the business of the government of Whitehall to use government resources as government space to push religion. That’s the one place where religion in America has no place. The pushier you get about your religion, the more sure I am that at its core your belief is a desperate, spindly crutch and not a true and robust faith.
Yeah, Julip. That’s actually a good question. If God really wants religion in Government, then why don’t you just pray to God to change the Constitution so that when we wake up tomorrow the First Amendment will read, “Go ahead, use the government to make everybody help you be sure that you made the right choice of church?” I mean, God is all-powerful, right? And prayer can move mountains, right? The Constitution is just ink on paper. Surely, if you pray hard enough, your God will change the Constitution for you. Unless your God doesn’t exist, or unless your God exists but thinks you’re full of shit.
i understand your point of view here, but i don’t mind people expressing their religious beliefs (especially for Christmas, which it’s supposed to be celebrating – NOT “buy to keep the economy stable” season). Now GOVERNMENT on the other hand, should most definitely NOT have an opinion or public display unless they include all the relevant ones for the season. Here in my little part of PA there was a giant menorah (sp?) with an electric candle lit each day of the past week or so in a large public park that was decoratively lit with lights on most every tree – and it was nice to look at (especially if you happen to be a child)! i think there’s a creche scene in the same park toward the center (where the stage is). Also there are a few Kwanzaa decorations (if you look for them or happen to be in a neighborhood that celebrates it). What i don’t get is the Salvation Army’s bucket brigade hauling in all that tax-free cash to distribute any way they choose (much of it going to their own organization, contrary to their ads and image). It’s the corporate take-over of Christmas that i’m most upset about. All that pandering and raw greed has ruined the holiday. The whole thing is so phony now. i can’t wait til it’s over.
First of all Jim, that banner the angel is holding isn’t “dirty brown”. It’s more of a parchment color. Don’t you know that angels speak Latin? If it makes you feel better, think of them as “Nikes”.
Second, what’s that red stuff on Joseph? Did he have a struggle with the Holy Placenta? They need to get some kind of graffiti-busters product and take care of that.
Third, Mary looks a little old and mature. Don’t forget she was a teenage mother, and an unmarried one at that.
Fourth, the lumber looks just fine to me. It looks like that non-aromatic type of cedar that is used for outdoor and fencing applications. Haven’t you heard of the “cedars of Lebanon”? They did have carpenters back then. Jesus was a carpenter.
“USA Dave” thinks if someone doesn’t want to belong to the majority religion, they should just leave? Hitler tried that already. It was a bad idea then. It’s a bad idea now.
That said, the city of Whitehall needs to divest itself of the religion business. The role of religious groups ought to keep an eagle eye on the city and hold their feet to the fire in case of any corruption. The churches can’t do that if they’re being coopted by nativity scenes.
The churches need to get together and buy out that nativity scene–it should be cheap considering it needs some work–and put it up *on city property* every year themselves.
I live in Whitehall and see nothing wrong with the traditional symbols displayed. The Whitehall government isn’t establishing a religion or forcing anyone into a religion. Along with Christmas trees, Santa Clause, snowmen and candy canes, the manger scene and angels blowing their trumpets are part of a traditional American Christmas. Whitehall isn’t in the “religions business”, just spreading some good old fashioned Christmas cheer. What will you want next, references to the “Creator” removed from the constitution? Christmas is what Christmas is, leave it alone.
jeff
Read the Constitution and look for the word “Creator.”
Jim, Your correct, my bad. It’s in the Declaration of Independance. But I don’t think the British (nor the framers of the Constituion) objected to that. Whitehall isn’t making a law to estabish a religion when they display the manger nor when they use the city seal that has the word “church”.
Note that anytime you date something, you are actually referencing the date of the manger scene. It’s an inextricable part of our country.
It seems many people, professing to be Christians, use a widening criteria of “proof” for arguments for stipulating America is Christian, ie. the calender most used in America starts counting years, from the time of Jesus.
The fact remains, one of the main reasons America was founded, was because of a desire to have a government that was free from religious control, and that includes Christianity. Ofc, equally important was an understanding that a government has no place in deciding or influencing a person’s personal religious beliefs. That is called “religious freedom” and is a subject addressed in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.
A most comprehensive discription of “religious freedom” is captured in “The Williamsburg Charter”. It is well worth the read. Link: http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/const/Willburg.html
The Williamsburg Charter is a linked reference to the main site named, The Religious Freedom Page. This site breaks down our founders “religious freedom” intend by taking us through the Constitution step by step among other things. The link is http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/
Jim, Good ReMarker. I’m in complete agreement with you in that the government (at any level) has no place in establishing a religion. I just totally disagree with you that the Whitehall display crosses that line. I get to see the complete display multiple times each Christmas season and the few snapshots and your writings are misleading. I do however appreciate your efforts to protect my constitutional right of religious freedom that many in the world cannot enjoy.
I said, “a government has no place in deciding or influencing a person’s personal religious beliefs”, NOT as you describe my words, “the government (at any level) has no place in establishing a religion”.
Even though I agree that governments establishing religions is not good, the meaning of my statement is far more profound than your “simple” description of my meaning.
Implicit in my statement, “a government has no place in deciding or influencing a person’s personal religious beliefs”, is the operative word INFLUENCING. Another way to write my meaning is ‘a government has no place in INFLUENCING a person’s personal religious beliefs”.
I submit, for a government to allow its property to be used for displaying religious icons, ie. manger, etc. is a defacto way of INFLUENCING, and THAT, in America, is unconstitutional.
As to the displaying of Christian icons on government property here in America, fundamentalistic Christians seem to accept and encourage it. I suspect if other religions wanted to display the icons of their religions on government property, fundamentalistic Christians would object. And THAT is what is unconstitutional, ie. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF”. In other words, if one religion is allowed to put their icons on government property, then it is lawful for others to do the same.
I think we should all be able to agree, to allow religions to display their icons on government property can NOT be fairly implemented, so therefore DON’T do it.
Ok, I agree with you that “a government has no place in INFLUENCING a person’s personal religious beliefs”. I disagree with you that the Whitehall display of the nativity (and other Christian and non-Christian affects) qualifies as influencing a person’s personal religious beliefs. Taken as a whole, it’s Christmas.
Christmas is a Christian celebration. It is the celebration of the birth of Jesus. There is even Christian debate as to whether it should be celebrated or not.
Having said that, it is still a religious celebration.
If ONLY Buddas were displayed on American government property for Vesak (Budda’s birthday), that would be unconstitutional too, don’t you agree? And can we agree if Buddas were displayed on government property that would be a defacto government endorsement, thereby influencing people to accept the teachings of Budda?
Well said, Remarker.
ReMarker, Christmas is a national holiday that has Christian (and pagen) roots. I guess that needs to change too. Buddhists aren’t part of the founding of this country but Christianity is. That said, I have no problem with a display of Budda on his birthday in the same location as the nativity. I don’t know if there are non-Buddhist ornaments that are part of the same season but if there are, they would need to be displayed as well. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Such a display doesn’t come close.
But that doesn’t happen in Whitehall, does it? There is no city celebration of Buddhism with Buddhist displays erected by the city of Whitehall. And a display of Buddhist imagery doesn’t happen at Christmas in Whitehall either? I’ve been there, I’ve seen the display with my own eyes. The only religion represented with Whitehall city displays is Christianity.
It’s a Christmas display so parts of Christmas are displayed.
Christianity is not a part of the founding of this country. Our founders worked hard to avoid the appearance of our new country endorsing ANY religion or restricting ANY religion.
Most people that believe Christianity was a party of the founding of America was taught that by a Christian Church.
There were probably more Christians here, at that time, if you don’t count the indigenous people’s religion. The only part of our founding that Christianity played was, as one of the religions our founders avoiding endorsing or restricting.
Spelling and gramactical corrections:
Most people that believe Christianity was a part of the founding of America were taught that by a Christian Church.
ReMarker, The founding father’s religious beliefs and practices had no part in their activities in framing this country other than what you stated? I find that people’s beliefs and practices have everything to do with everything they do.
Look if it we’re not for Christians celebrating the birth of Jesus which has been ok for over 1960 years there wouldn’t even be a Holi (Y) Day season! All of a sudden the Marxist Atheist and their Lawyers group the ACLU (American Communist layers Union) wants to challenge a holiday that has been celebrated in this country for 190 years. Look you mean spirited secularists who haven’t anything else to do than spoil what 285 million people want to celebrate…Get a life and find something else to champion like the Government takeover of our freedoms and liberties through Progressive idealism!
The celebration of the solstice season was around long before Christianity winded its way through Europe, and most of its trappings were appropriated from pre-existing pagan traditions, so what you claim about the reason for the season as fact is empirically not true.
Why don’t you question the mean spirited theists who don’t have anything else to do than push what they want onto everybody else?