Court rules: New York City public schools may explicitly ban nativity scenes during Christmas while in the same policy explicitly permitting displays of menorahs during Hanukkah and the star-and-crescent during Ramadan.
This boggles the mind. Either all three must be permitted, or all three must be banned --- right?
The policy at issue expressly states that the display of "secular holiday symbol decorations is permitted," and it lists as examples the menorah and the star and crescent. The policy specifically excludes the display of the Christian nativity scene. The City defended its policy by arguing that the menorah and star and crescent were permissible symbols because they were "secular," whereas the nativity scene had to be excluded because it was "purely religious." Even though the majority recognized that the City's argument was fallacious, stating that the policy "mischaracterizes" these symbols, it still upheld the discriminatory ban on the Christian nativity.
This is nuts. There's no way the U.S. Supreme Court will go for the argument that a menorah is secular "enough" and a nativity scene is not secular "enough." Since when is the government allowed to decide the degree to which speech is religious in order to determine if it will be permitted?
I wonder if it's because there really aren't any widely recognized secular symbols of Hanukkah that can be substituted for the menorah (dreidels? latkes?). Why, if we didn't classify a menorah as "secular," children wouldn't be allowed to experience Hanukkah-based art projects at all. Whereas Christmas always has jolly old St. Nicholas.
I mean Santa. Strike that last bit.
Comments