Judges Hear Arguments In Creche Case
By Dan Robrish
Associated Press Writer
Appeared in The Jersey Journal
on Friday, August 7, 1998
PHILADELPHIA - Local governments don't violate the U.S. Constitution when they allow Hanukkah and Christmas displays on city property, a lawyer for Jersey City and Mayor Bret. Schundler argued yesterday.
The hearing in federal Appeals Court centered around whether a "reasonable person" would
consider Christmas and Hanukkah displays in front of Jersey City's City Hall to be a
government endorsement of religion. The hearing was the result of a 1994 suit filed
by the American Civil Liberties Union.
"December 25th People are taking off
not for some unknown reason, but for
Christmas, whose historical origins are depicted in the creche," or nativity scene, said Kevin J. Hasson, the lawyer
representing the city and the mayor.
But Ronald K. Chen of the ACLU said the Appeals Court should stick with its earlier decision to strike down the city's long-standing tradition of displaying a creche and menorah in the plaza in front of City Hall.
In 1995, a federal judge ruled that the city's display was unconstitutional. The city then kept the creche and menorah but added secular symbols, including Santa Claus and Frosty the Snowman.
The trial judge said that made it OK. But the Appeals Court ruled last year that adding the secular symbols was a token attempt at secularizing a religious display. The case is back in Appeals Court because the city is arguing that the decision last year
ignored a precedent about a religious display allowed in Pittsburgh.
"Jersey City is one of the most diverse cities in the nation," Hasson said, noting that about a quarter of its residents are foreign-born.
Hasson said the city frequently sponsors all sorts of ethnic and cultural celebrations and puts up a sign saying, "Jersey City is pleased to celebrate the diverse cultural and ethnic heritages of its people." Many of those celebrations are purely secular
, he said; others include celebrations of the many religions practiced in the city.
Lawyers for both sides pointed to a case in Pittsburgh in which a religious display on public property was upheld. The Appeals Court ruled that a "reasonable person" would know that the government there had allowed many other, secular things to be display
ed there and wouldn't think. the government was endorsing religion.
But Chen said the three-judge panel should reject Jersey City's display. He said the Pittsburgh ruling doesn't support Hasson's argument about ethnic. and cultural celebrations. Chen, said the Pittsburgh ruling means the court
should ask this question: Would a rea-
sonable person, considering what has
been displayed at Jersey City's City Hall
in the past, conclude that the display is
an endorsement of religion?
Chen said lumping in all of the other ethnic and cultural celebrations, as Hasson did, isn't what a reasonable person should be expected to consider. Only what has been displayed at City Hall is important, he said.
Chen added that because Jersey City had been displaying a blatantly religious message for many years, even a moderately religious display would make a reasonable person think the city is endorsing religion. The same moderately religious display in another
city without a history of blatantly religious displays might be OK, he said.
Get A FREE Bumper Sticker!
Hudson County, New Jersey is a place of many firsts - including genocide and slavery.
Political corruption is a tradition here.
First in a series by Anthony Olszewski – Click HERE to find out more.
COMPUTERCRAFT
|
