Some Religious Displays OKd by High Court

The Supreme Court, continuing to fuzz the line at which religious displays cross the boundary between church and state, ruled Monday that local governments may not support displays that appear designed to promote certain faiths but that they may sponsor religious symbols as part of broad holiday celebrations.

On a 5-4 vote, the court said that a prominent display of a Christian nativity scene inside a county courthouse in Pittsburgh was unconstitutional because it had the “effect of promoting or endorsing religious beliefs.”

But the court, with three liberal justices dissenting, also agreed to permit a Hanukkah menorah on the front steps of another Pittsburgh government building because the overall display, which included a Christmas tree and a sign saluting American liberty, simply recognized “different traditions for celebrating the winter-holiday season.”

Justice Harry A. Blackmun, writing for the narrow majority that struck down Allegheny County’s Christian creche depicting the birth of Christ, said that the nativity scene violated the constitutional separation of church and state. “Nothing in the context of the display detracts from the creche’s religious message,” Blackmun held.

By contrast, Blackmun argued that the display of a large menorah, a nine-branched candelabra used during the celebration of the Jewish holiday Hanukkah, may be acceptable because, “in this particular context, the menorah’s display does not have an effect of endorsing religious faith.”

‘Unjustified Hostility’

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the minority’s opinion, which blasted the court’s majority for an “Orwellian rewriting of history” that “reflects an unjustified hostility toward religion.” He was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Byron R. White and Antonin Scalia.

The full outcome appeared to satisfy only two of the justices, Blackmun and Sandra Day O’Connor. O’Connor wrote in a separate opinion that the display including the menorah along with a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty was acceptable because it “sends a message of pluralism and freedom to choose one’s own beliefs.”

Three of the liberal justices who helped form the majority that struck down the creche contended that the menorah display also should have been ruled unconstitutional.

Justice William J. Brennan Jr. argued that both displays contained a strong religious message. “I cannot agree,” Brennan wrote, “that the city’s display of a 45-foot Christmas tree and an 18-foot menorah . . . shows no favoritism towards Christianity, Judaism, or both.”

Explains Various Views

Blackmun, in announcing the decision, acknowledged that “the court is fractured.” After explaining the views of the various factions, he said: “I hope that’s correct. It reminds me of the vendors at the ballpark selling programs listing the names of all the players.”

Religious leaders were sharply divided over the court’s decision.

“Thank God for the Supreme Court,” said Charles Saul, a Pittsburgh attorney representing the Jewish group that owned the menorah. “The court is saying that when you put a menorah and a Christmas tree and those kinds of things together, that all faiths are welcome.”

The court’s ruling also satisfied John V. Stevens, a Seventh-day Adventist Church official in Westlake Village, Calif., who said that the decision makes it clear that a specifically religious holiday display by itself violates the church-state separation principles.

Prefers Secular Symbols

“If the creche stands alone, the (religious) message is too strong,” said Stevens, who is also president of the non-sectarian Council on Religious Freedom. He added, however, that he would prefer to see only secular Christmas symbols, such as trees and Santa Clauses, in government-sponsored displays.

But the American Jewish Committee, which opposed both displays, expressed disappointment over the ruling.

“I’m gratified the court struck down the creche and distressed it did not also strike down the menorah,” said Samuel Rabinove, the Jewish Committee’s legal director. “Neither belongs in public spaces. There are plenty of private places for them.”

The court’s decision to permit a Jewish menorah to be part of a larger civic display was similar to recent court rulings in California that allowed the Hanukkah symbol to coexist with a Christmas tree in Los Angeles City Hall.

The nation’s high court “vindicated our position,” said Rabbi Shlomo Cunin, West Coast director of the Chabad Lubavitch movement in Judaism.

Relies on 1984 Decision

Monday’s Supreme Court ruling, handed down along with the eagerly awaited abortion decision on the final day of the court’s 1988-1989 session, relied heavily on a 1984 decision in which the court upheld the constitutionality of a creche in Pawtucket, R.I.

In contrast to that creche, which was surrounded by secular symbols such as Santa Claus, reindeer and snowmen, the Pittsburgh nativity scene was displayed by itself.

Justice Department lawyers had urged the court to allow both Pittsburgh displays, arguing that “use of the creche as a symbol of the holiday does not constitute a government endorsement of the religious content of that symbol” and contending that government “is not required to surround it with candy canes, reindeer or other purely secular symbols.”

Blackmun acknowledged in his decision that the 1984 ruling, written by former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, was “none too clear.”

Calls Context Important

But Blackmun’s new guidelines may not help much in sorting out the confusion. “The government’s use of religious symbolism is unconstitutional if it has the effect of endorsing religious beliefs,” he wrote, “and the effect of the government’s use of religious symbolism depends upon its context.”

Blackmun’s opinion in the case (Allegheny County vs. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 87-2050) was joined by O’Connor, Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and John Paul Stevens.

Staff writer John Dart in Los Angeles contributed to this story.