How has the Supreme Court approached religious display cases?
The speaker dates the Pawtucket nativity case to 1983 (Lynch v. Donnelly was decided in 1984) and hedges that the Bladensburg cross is about 110 feet tall (it is roughly 40 feet). Neither figure is tested.
The check-ins use the correct version. The video is Khan Academy's, unchanged.About this video
The speaker explains how the Supreme Court has handled religious symbols on public property since the 1980s. In the Pawtucket nativity scene case the Court allowed the display because it was surrounded by secular holiday decorations, which satisfied nobody, and later cases were closely divided without a clear principle. In the Bladensburg cross case, a 7-2 majority held that a long-standing, uncontroversial World War I memorial cross did not violate the establishment clause.
You'll be able to
- explain why the Pawtucket nativity scene ruling made people on both sides unhappy.
- describe the reasoning of the Bladensburg cross decision.
- explain what lower courts have taken from the Bladensburg case about old religious symbols.
Key words
- Establishment clause
- The part of the First Amendment that stops the government from establishing or favouring religion.
- Nativity scene
- A display showing the birth of Jesus, often set up at Christmas.
- Kitsch
- Showy, cheap-looking decorations, like the Santas and candy canes around the Pawtucket display.
- Secular
- Not religious.
- Commemoration
- Something that honours and remembers an event or people, like a war memorial.
Transcript
Video Title: How has the Supreme Court approached religious display cases? Video URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLquTdgL59M Transcript generated by YouTube Transcript Generator - Extract transcripts from any YouTube video instantly at https://transcriptgenerator.org ======================================== [MUSIC] The Supreme Court did not get involved in religious symbols on public property until the 1980s. The first case was in 1983. The Supreme Court has not done a very good job with these cases, they basically made everybody mad. The very first case, which had to do with the nativity scene as part of a holiday celebration downtown Pawtucket, Rhode Island.
The court split almost evenly the majority said that the nativity scene was okay. But the reason they said it was okay was basically it was surrounded by all the Kitsch of modern secular Christmas by Santa Clauses and candy canes and cut out clowns, and the most hilarious part of it was a talking wishing well. But all this kitsch and some people were mad because they allowed a nativity scene on government property, celebrating Christmas, and how dare they allow that?
Other people were mad by saying, how dare they say that Nativity scenes are only okay when they're surrounded by all the secular kitchen, and so they really didn't satisfy anybody. Almost every case since then has been a closely divided court and very hard to tell why they go one way or why they go the other, there's no clear principle involved. Then most recently, they finally came with not quite unanimous seven to two a decision. But that's pretty strong majority in a case involving a very large 110 foot, I think it is, maybe I forget. Cross erected in Bladensburg, Maryland as part of a World War I commemoration. The Court held seven to two that this was not a violation of the establishment clause. Basically, reasoning that there are all symbols in public.
The symbol of one thing doesn't imply a rejection of anything else and that where the history of the object is one where it has been an accepted part and not particularly controversial. It wasn't designed to denigrate any other religion or to hold that one religion is better than any other, that it is okay. I think that for lower courts, what they really have taken from this is that old symbols that have been around for a long time without controversy are not subject to [inaudible]. The court said, we shouldn't be running around the country, denuding the country of all the various religious symbols that have been part of our culture for a long time. I think that's going to calm things down. Although there
may still be flashes of controversy where politicians try to use religious symbols in order to make a particular point, we'll have to take those as they come. [MUSIC]
Video © Khan Academy, used under CC BY-NC-SA. Watch on Khan Academy. Puzzicle is not affiliated with Khan Academy.