Source: https://www.atheists.org/legal/faq/miscellaneous/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:22:20+00:00

Document:
Is it legal for Christmas to be recognized as a federal holiday?
So what truly distinguishes federal recognition of Christmas to make it constitutional?
Although the Supreme Court’s Lynch v. Donnelly ruling is not primarily about the federal government’s recognition of Christmas, the Court discusses its constitutionality. The Court concluded that government cannot live in total isolation from religion, or vice-versa; therefore, the Constitution does not require complete separation between religion and government, but accommodation of all religions with hostility toward none.7 The Court went on to name a number of ways government has traditionally been commingled with religion, including the use of Congressional chaplains, the national motto “In God We Trust,” and the inclusion of religiously inspired works in publicly funded art galleries.8 Impliedly, federal recognition of Christmas fits among these as a mixture of religion and government deemed acceptable.
Five years later, in County of Allegheny v. ACLU, the Court determined that “confining the government’s own celebration of Christmas to the holiday’s secular aspects . . . permits the government to acknowledge the holiday without expressing an allegiance to Christian beliefs, an allegiance that would truly favor Christians over non-Christians.”9 Still, the ultimate question remains unanswered: why permit the government to acknowledge the holiday at all?
The only court to tackle this issue head-on is the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in 1999.10 Applying the Lemon test for Establishment Clause claims, the court concluded that federal recognition of Christmas serves the secular purpose of “accommodat[ing] the calendar of public activities to the plain fact that many Americans will expect on that day to spend time visiting with their families [and] attending religious services.”11 However, this explanation is no more compelling than the appeal to the holiday’s secular elements. In effect, it concludes that federal recognition of Christmas is acceptable merely because it is widely celebrated. This analysis is insufficient: the popularity of an action cannot be enough to sustain an Establishment Clause violation. The court goes on to say that recognizing Christmas no more endorses Christianity than recognizing the days of the week endorses the Roman and Norse gods after whom they were named.12 The implication that Christmas is as divorced from Christianity as the days of the week have become from the religious practices of ancient Rome is absurd; unlike the days of the week, Christmas unquestionably retains its religious dimension.
The conclusions reached by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio are not controlling, but they are likely reflective of the U.S. Supreme Court’s views. While there are good reasons to question the analysis employed on this issue, currently the courts are unanimous in their finding that it is within the government’s power to recognize the Christmas holiday.
1. 5 U.S.C.A. § 6103.
2. Stephen W. Stathis, Cong. Research Serv., 98-301 Gov, Federal Holidays: Evolution and Application 1-2 (1999).
3. County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 579 (U.S. 1989).
4. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 709-10 (1984) (Brennan, J., dissenting).
5. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 41-42 (1980).
6. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 41-42 (1980).
7. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673 (1984).
8. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673-77 (1984).
9. County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 611-12 (1989).
10. Ganulin v. U.S., 71 F. Supp. 2d 824 (S.D. Ohio 1999).
11. Ganulin v. U.S., 71 F. Supp. 2d 824, 832 (S.D. Ohio 1999) (quoting Lynch, 465 U.S. at 710 (Brennan, J., dissenting)).
12. Ganulin v. U.S., 71 F. Supp. 2d 824, 834 (S.D. Ohio 1999).
Is it legal for religious images or iconography to be displayed on public property?
Yes, so long as the property is open to displays of other religious points of view as well.
From these two decisions, one upholding a display, the other striking several down as unconstitutional, we can discern that religious displays are permissible on public property so long as the observer of the display can discern from the context that the government is not endorsing a religious position, but rather is merely acknowledging the impact religion has and has had on our society. Drawing the line between endorsement and acknowledgement remains incredibly difficult and requires a detailed examination of the facts of each religious display.
If a religious display has been erected on public property in your community, please let us know so that we can examine the circumstances and laws in your jurisdiction in order to determine whether further steps may be taken.
1. U.S. Const. Amend I.
2. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 683-84 (2005); McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005); Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968).
3. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, <> (2005).
4. McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 880 (2005).
5. McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 868 (2005).
6. McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 869-70 (2005).
7. McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 870-71 (2005).
8. McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 873 (2005).
9. Van Orden v. Perry is one of those relatively rare Supreme Court cases in which no decision had the five votes necessary to constitute binding precedent. Because Justice Breyer constituted the fifth vote in favor of constitutionality, and his concurrence lays out the more stringent test for constitutionality among the majority, only his factors are addressed here.
11. Prescott v. Okla. Capitol Pres. Comm’n, 373 P.3d 1032, 1034 (Okla. 2015); DiLoreto v. Board of Education, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 791, 798-99 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999); Summum v. Pleasant Grove City, 345 P.3d 1188, 1193 (Utah 2015).
What is RFRA and is it constitutional?
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a federal law which significantly helps religious liberty claims by prohibiting the government from “substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”1 This means neutral laws which were not intended to foster religious discrimination may still be struck down if they happen to negatively affect religious exercise. RFRA was specifically intended to reinstate the Sherbert Test, set forth in the 1963 Supreme Court case Sherbert v. Verner.2 To uphold a law that substantially burdens religious exercise, the government must show two things. First, it must have a compelling interest, meaning that the goal must be very important. Second, the government must use the least restrictive means available to accomplish its goal, meaning that it should act in a way that affects religious exercise the least amount.
Most general laws need only pass rational basis review, which means that the law only has to have a rational reason to exist and be related to any legitimate government interest. The severe requirements of the Sherbert Test are difficult to meet.
Congress moved swiftly to do just that, authorizing RFRA with nearly unanimous consent (just three Senators voted against it).6 In 1997, the Supreme Court reviewed RFRA and concluded that Congress had exceeded its powers. The Court found part of RFRA unconstitutional in City of Boerne v. Flores, stating that it “contradicts vital principles necessary to maintain separation of powers and the federal balance.”7 Accordingly, the Court struck down RFRA as applied to the states. RFRA remains active with respect to laws enacted by the federal government.
The Supreme Court’s expansive interpretation of RFRA has already led to additional challenges. In late 2015, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals went so far as to conclude that RFRA protects companies from the burden of signing forms to opt out of contraception coverage.15 Greg Lipper, Senior Litigation Counsel for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, summarizes the holding as a finding “that a ‘substantial burden’ is literally whatever the plaintiffs say it is,” thus turning this element of the RFRA challenge into mere formality.
The Supreme Court made assurances that its Hobby Lobby decision was limited in scope: “Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs.”16 It went on to suggest that other religious beliefs, such as opposition to immunizations, may still be burdened because of the compelling government interests involved (for immunizations, the need to stop the spread of infectious disease).17 Notably, the Court did not decide that immunizations were necessarily important enough to overcome RFRA challenges; it said only that they may be sufficiently compelling.
Consequently, the limits of the federal RFRA’s reach—and that of the state-level RFRAs, which may be worded or interpreted even more broadly than the federal law—are impossible to foresee.
1. 42 U.S.C. 2000bb (1993).
2. 42 U.S.C. 2000bb (1993).
3. 42 U.S.C. 2000bb (1993).
4. Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 890 (1990).
5. Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 885 (1990) (quoting Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145, 167 (1878)).
6. Richard T. Foltin, Reconciling Equal Protection and Religious Liberty, 39 Human Rights Magazine, no. 2, 2013.
7. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 536 (1997).
8. 2015 State Religious Freedom Restoration Legislation, Nat’l. Conference of State Legislatures (Sept. 3, 2015), http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/2015-state-rfra-legislation.aspx.
9. Press Release, Indiana Governor Mike Pence, Governor Pence Issues Statement Regarding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Mar. 26, 2015).
10. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2751, 2759, 573 U.S. __ (2014).
11. Robin Abcarian, The Craziest Thing About the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Decision, L.A. Times (June 30, 2014), http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-craziest-thing-about-hobby-lobby-20140630-column.html.
12. Robin Abcarian, The Craziest Thing About the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Decision, L.A. Times (June 30, 2014), http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-craziest-thing-about-hobby-lobby-20140630-column.html.
13. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2751, 2797, 573 U.S. __ (2014).
14. Aaron Blake, A LOT of People Could be Affected by the Supreme Court’s Birth Control Decision—Theoretically, Wash. Post (June 30, 2014), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/06/30/a-lot-of-people-could-be-affected-by-the-supreme-courts-birth-control-decision/.
15. Gregory M. Lipper, RFRA Jumps the Shark: The 8th Circuit Strikes Down the Contraception Accommodation, Bill of Health (Sept. 19, 2015), http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2015/09/19/rfra-jumps-the-shark-the-8th-circuit-strikes-down-the-contraception-accommodation-part-1/.
16. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2751, 2783, 573 U.S. __ (2014) (emphasis added).
17. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2751, 2783, 573 U.S. __ (2014) (emphasis added).
18. Non-Discrimination Laws, Movement Advancement Project, http://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/non_discrimination_laws (last visited Nov. 13, 2015).
19. See Mullins v. Masterpiece Cake Shop, Inc., 2015 Colo. App. LEXIS 1217 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015); Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 309 P.3d 53 (N.M. 2013).
Is it legal to ban the sale of alcohol or other goods on certain dates and at certain times?
Yes, but the state or local government must be able to provide a rational secular basis for the restriction.
McGowan involved a blue law that prohibited most activity on Sunday. Do blue laws which limit themselves to prohibitions on Sunday alcohol sales advance a secular purpose?
First, it is important to note that, so long as the regulation does not offend the Establishment Clause or other constitutional provisions, states have broad control over alcohol sales within their borders thanks to the 21st Amendment.10 Although the Supreme Court has not heard a case involving a blue law limited to alcohol sales, several lower courts have concluded that such bans are permissible to protect the public health, safety, and morals.11 Because the use of alcohol can pose harm to the safety of the public generally, these courts have been deferential to state interest in regulating its sale. A state’s interest in promoting safety and public health is arguably more justifiable than its interest in promoting a uniform “day of rest.” Therefore, if the legislature can provide (or be ascribed) a rational basis for the limitation based on secular interests which neither advance nor inhibit religion, the legislation will stand.
1. Anna M. Tinsley, Will Texas Scrap Bans on Sunday Sales of Alcohol and Cars?, STAR-TELEGRAM (Mar. 14, 2015), http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/article14422340.html.
2. Barbara Miller, Bill Would End Ban on Sunday Hunting in Pennsylvania, PENN LIVE (June 17, 2015, 11:54 AM), http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/06/bill_would_end_ban_on_sunday_h.html.
3. Alissa Scheller, Here are the Rules to Buying Alcohol in Each State’s Grocery Stores, HUFFINGTON POST (Sept. 3, 2014, 1:59 PM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/26/here-are-all-the-states-t_n_5710135.html.
4. McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961).
5. McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 431-35 (1961).
6. McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 444-45 (1961).
7. McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 442 (1961).
8. McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 573 (1961).
9. McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 576-77 (1961).
10. U.S. Const., Amend. XXI, § 2.
11. See, e.g., State v. Heretic, Inc., 588 S.E.2d 224, 226 (Ga. 2003); Pruey v. Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 715 P.2d 458, 461 (N.M. 1986).
Are the U.S. Constitution and federal or state statutes based on the Ten Commandments?
Some who claim U.S. law is based on the Ten Commandments point to images of Moses and the Ten Commandments on the walls of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court building was not constructed until 1935, almost 150 years after the U.S. government was formed.6 Although the Supreme Court does in fact have a representation of Moses, he is included as one of many “great lawgivers” along with other notable figures such as Confucius, Hammurabi, the Egyptian pharaoh Menes, and Muhammad.7 Strangely, very few people have argued that American law is based on the polytheistic beliefs of ancient Egypt or on the teachings of the Qur’an.
It is possible for the Ten Commandments or other sacred texts to be incorporated into a government display in a way that passes constitutional muster. Nevertheless, the history of U.S. government and the text of the edicts themselves prove that U.S. law is not based on the Ten Commandments.
1. Exodus 20:2 (“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”); Exodus 20:4 (“Thou shalt make unto thee any graven image . . .”); Exodus 20:7 (“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord they God in vain . . .”); Exodus 20:8 (“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”).
2. Exodus 20:12 (“Honor thy father and thy mother. . .”); Exodus 20:14 (“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”); Exodus 20:17 (“Thou shalt not covet . . .”).
3. Clara Moskowitz, Bible Possibly Written Centuries Earlier, Text Suggests, LIVESCIENCE (Jan. 15, 2010, 4:32 AM), http://www.livescience.com/8008-bible-possibly-written-centuries-earlier-text-suggests.html.
4. Joshua J. Mark, Ur-Nammu, ANCIENT HISTORY ENCYCL. (June 16, 2014), http://www.ancient.eu/Ur-Nammu/.
5. U.S. Law Not Based on Ten Commandments, Law Profs Tell Court, CHURCH & STATE (June 2003), https://www.au.org/church-state/june-2003-church-state/people-events/us-law-not-based-on-ten-commandments-law-profs.
6. The Supreme Court Building, U.S., http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/courtbuilding.aspx (last visited Nov. 2, 2015).
7. Matt Soniak, How a Muhammad Statue Ended up at the Supreme Court, MENTAL FLOSS (Jan. 11, 2008, 11:29 AM), http://mentalfloss.com/article/17802/how-mohammad-statue-ended-supreme-court.
8. Courtroom Friezes: East and West Walls, U.S., http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/eastandwestwalls.pdf (last visited Nov. 2, 2015).
9. Courtroom Friezes: East and West Walls, U.S., http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/eastandwestwalls.pdf (last visited Nov. 2, 2015).
10. Dan Barker, Did You Know that American Law is Not Based on the Ten Commandments?, FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUND. (Aug. 2012), https://ffrf.org/faq/freethought/item/15139-did-you-know.
11. Dan Barker, Did You Know that American Law is Not Based on the Ten Commandments?, FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUND. (Aug. 2012), https://ffrf.org/faq/freethought/item/15139-did-you-know.
12. Dan Barker, Did You Know that American Law is Not Based on the Ten Commandments?, FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUND. (Aug. 2012), https://ffrf.org/faq/freethought/item/15139-did-you-know.
13. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42 (1980).
14. McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005).
15. McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 869, 874 (2005).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 6103
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.