I love the fact that we never learn.
Let's suppose that you have your religion and I have mine, and to avoid having to kill each other, we agree that we can buy and sell together, we can eat and drink together, and even sleep and live together, provided only that we have the courtesy not to try to shove each other's religion down one another's throats.
Okay, Con-Law 101, Rule 1:
"No shoving religion down the other guy's throat."
An easy principle to remember.
As long as everybody does this, we can both live, because remember,
Religion Kills!
And remember, we want to earn an 'A' in "Works and Plays Well With One Another."
We certainly don't want to wind up killing each other.
Apparently the No Shoving Religion Down Throat principle is a hard idea to remember.
Perhaps if they included it with all that advertising material that pops out when you open your next utility bill, we wouldn't forget.
Here's the scenario:
Homicide detectives and medical examiner arrive at the scene of a double murder. Crime Scene Investigators are already taking photographs...
Detective to Medical Examiner: What's the Cause a' Death on this one, Doc?
ME: Suffocation. Menorah shoved down Christian's throat. She's wearing a cross.
Looking at the other body:
Detective to ME: And this one?
Same thing in reverse. Suffocation. Jewish victim, wearing a Star of David. Has a cross shoved down his throat.
Suspects?
Mutual.
Hmmm...
Here's how it starts:
Symbols of the season causing a spirited stir
A community near Miami displays Jewish symbols, as well as secular. Now a lawsuit seeks to add Christian scenes.
By LISA GREENE, Times Staff Writer
Published December 4, 2004
The causeway leading to Bay Harbor Islands is decked out for the holidays with a large menorah, a star-topped Christmas tree and a colorful fleet of sailboats.
"Everybody loves the sailboats," said Mayor Isaac Salver.
But the menorah and Christmas tree - that's another story. A resident filed a federal lawsuit this week against the town, population 5,200, for its refusal to put up a nativity scene. By Friday, this small-town fight had gotten so heated that even Gov. Jeb Bush had weighed in on the conflict.
"All I'm asking for is inclusiveness," said Sondra Snowdon, whose offer to donate a nativity scene to the display was rebuffed. "I do not know why a baby Jesus in a manger would be so offensive to this town."
Snowdon and her lawyer, Edward White, said the town favors Jewish symbols over Christian ones.
"The town has been allowing only Jewish religious symbols to be displayed for the past several years," said White, an attorney for the Thomas More Law Center, a Michigan group that represents Christians in cases involving religious freedom.
But the town's lawyer, Craig B. Sherman, said leaders of the town, north of Miami, have not slighted Christianity.
"There's an equal number of holiday symbols representing Christianity and Judaism, that's Christmas trees and menorahs," Sherman said. "The town has complied with all applicable law set out by the Supreme Court."
In addition to the causeway display, the town has ornaments hanging from Main Street lamp posts of Christmas trees, menorahs and snowflakes.
But Christmas trees are secular symbols, said Snowdon, a Presbyterian.
"There isn't one Christian who would say, "Yes, the Christmas tree is a symbol of my faith at the holiday season,' " she said. "It's a commercial symbol. You can put as many presents underneath it as you want."
Town officials decided that the nativity scene could run afoul of past court decisions, Sherman said. The decorations the town chose are inclusive, and town officials don't have any obligation to add others, he said.
"Just because a citizen wants a nativity scene doesn't mean the town has to put up a nativity scene," he said.
Each lawyer said past court decisions favor their view. But generally, federal courts have said that governments can't display the symbols of only one religion, because that implies an endorsement of that faith. But religious symbols can be displayed on public property when the symbols of different faiths get equal treatment.
For instance, in 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court said a nativity scene displayed in a Pittsburgh courthouse was unconstitutional because it endorsed Christian beliefs. But a menorah displayed with a Christmas tree outside another Pittsburgh government building could stay, because it recognized different holiday traditions.
Snowdon moved to Bay Harbor Islands four years ago to care for her mother, who had Alzheimer's disease. Snowdon said she drove her mother, who no longer recognized her, past the menorah, the display caught her mother's eye.
"She pointed out the car window and said, "Where is baby Jesus?' " Snowdon said.
After her mother died in 2003, Snowdon said she decided getting a nativity scene put up would be a good way to honor her.
"I never in a million years thought there would be any conflict," she said.
When town officials refused to add to the decorations last year, Snowdon protested by going on a three-month-long fast.
Bush said Friday he didn't like the town's refusal.
"What's the point of that?" he said when told by a TV producer that the town had allowed menorahs but not a nativity scene. "They're picking one religion over the other, rather than allowing all different faiths. ... Mark me down as negative on that concept."
Such clashes over how to best display the holiday spirit are becoming nearly as commonplace as Santas at the mall.
"These are litigious times," Sherman said.
Indeed. Palm Beach was sued last year by two residents for refusing to put up a nativity scene in a town park, next to a Christmas tree and a menorah.
Four years ago, the Northdale Special Tax District put up a Christmas tree and a menorah at the entrance to the Hillsborough County neighborhood, only to decide the next year to get rid of them after some residents objected to the menorah as a religious symbol. How to change the display resulted in even more heated debate before both symbols were eventually auctioned off.
Times staff writer Steve Bousquet contributed to this report.