Twitchell 1

Caroline Twitchell

12/7/21

Synthesis Final Draft

Christmas or Lemon Trees?

“Merry Christmas!” is a phrase seen infrequently during December. Classes and general

assemblies no longer begin with a prayer. An empty tomb is replaced by a giant bunny as a

representation of Easter. Is this appropriate to be replacing or foregoing these religious displays?

Is it inappropriate to discontinue using them? The debate over religious displays in the public

sphere has been one that continues to go undecided. Many argue that there should be a strict

separation, that anything allowed in the public sphere should be secular. Another group pushes

for more leniency in allowing public displays of religion. A final perspective believes there can

be religious displays within certain, well defined bounds known as the Lemon test.

The 10 commandments are a code of conduct many religious communities follow, but it’s

public display has been a topic of discussion for years. In early 2021 those who advocate for a

strict separation had a chance to voice their opinions on Senate bill 2308 as it went through

congress, which, “would allow school districts to post the Ten Commandments if they want”

(Bismark Tribune, Mar 31, 2021). The bill was passed, amended, and sent back to congress

where the bill’s sponsor argued that, “only an atheist would oppose posting the Ten

Commandments.” The author disagrees and argues that there should be a greater separation

between religion and the public. “There are many good reasons people of faith disagree with the

bill and posting of the Ten Commandments in schools.” the author continues. They mention how

the Supreme Court ruled in a 1980 decision that the Ten Commandments are “undeniably a

sacred text” and that posting them in schools or in any public place would invite lawsuits.
 Twitchell 2

One reason that Bill 2308 is being fought against is that many believe that no one should

have to view religious text or participate in a religious experience if they do not want it.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened to Daniel and Deborah Weisman. According to

“Freedom from Religion?” by Michael McConnel, a middle school in Rhode Island had a

tradition where religious leaders from various denominations were invited to participate in their

graduation ceremony. The Weismans believed their First Amendment rights had been violated

and brought this case to their federal district court and it worked its way up to the Supreme court.

The Court explained that this act, “placed public and peer pressure on attending students to stand

as a group or at least maintain respectful silence… the Constitution forbids the state to exact

religious conformity from a student as the price of attending her own high school graduation.”

The Weisman’s believe that no one should be forced into religious participation at their own

graduation or in any event where a collective group of individuals are being celebrated.

While respecting the choice others have to worship how they may is a large reason many

support the lack of religious displays, many also see this separation of church and government as

a way for each organization to thrive. Justice Hugo Black is quoted from a 1948 case titled

McCollum v. Board of Education saying, “the First Amendment rests upon the premise that both

religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims if each is left free from the

other within its respective sphere.” The intent to divide is not out of lack of respect or even

resentment toward religion, but a reminder that one should not be entangled by the other in order

for each to grow. Too much interference from the government would make religious institutions

seem like an extension of the government. If religious leaders were to dominate government

positions religious values may be enforced against the will of many citizens.
 Twitchell 3

Another perspective are those who argue for more leniency toward public religious

displays. In the same article, “Freedom From Religion?”, McConnell adds his thoughts to the

Weisman case, “Deborah Weisman was not required to be present at the graduation at all. Nor

was she required to stand, or if she stood, she was not required to bow her head… to fold her

hands… [or to] enter into the prayer other than to remain silent during it. But the Court said that

putting her through the experience at all was enough to violate the Constitution.” McConnell

continues to lament that this, “is an example of the exquisite care with which our legal system

now treats the right to be free from any possible imposition of religion upon our lives.” He

defines this as freedom from religion while he believes we have a right constitution right to

freedom for religion, the free exercise thereof.

McConnell continues by sharing that the First Amendment, “bars the government from

either "establishing" religion or prohibiting the "free exercise" of religion--in essence, requiring

the government to remain neutral and leave decisions about religious matters to the people.” This

principle has been adapted to mean in modern days that anything allowed in the public sphere

must be secular, or having no religious or spiritual basis. This was not what the First Amendment

was intended to mean, as described by Jeffery Sheely in his article titled, “Freedom for Religion

or from Religion?” Sheely brings up the origin of the term “separation of church and state”, how

it was not a phrase used by the Founding Fathers to completely separate the legal from the

spiritual, but to ease the minds of the many churches established in the new nation that there

would be no official domination in any of the states. No church would suffer because the nation

or the state would not choose one denomination over another.

The Founding Fathers were spiritual men themselves who wanted to respect the beliefs of

all the nation’s citizens, who were predominantly Christian. Sheely concludes with the point that,
 Twitchell 4

“English bibles printed in America were placed in schools by the authority of congress…

Founding Fathers gave speeches, read from the bible, and prayed at public school graduations”

and more religious activities were commonplace in the public. With the right in place for those

who choose not to participate allowed to do so, why should these activities change?

Resting in the middle of this debate is the Lemon test. This test gives guidelines which

define what religious displays are appropriate in a public sphere. This is a recent development,

originating from a case that challenged the government who was giving financial aid to religious

schools. In 1971 Alton Lemon learned that the legislation in Pennsylvania was diverting taxpayer

money to private religious schools for secular items and salary. Lemon refuted this law by

saying, “if a lot of public funds are siphoned off, Blacks and minorities are going to suffer.”

(Hayes, “Squeezing Lemon”). Hayes explains that “Lemon identified and clarified three criteria

a government action must meet to pass constitutional muster: it must have a secular purpose, it

must neither advance nor inhibit religion, it must not excessively entangle government with

religion.” Should an action fail to meet any of these criteria it would be seen as unconstitutional.

This test has kept religious displays constitutional since it was accepted. Lemon, as well

as many others, knew that it would be impossible to keep religion and government completely

divided, but in a country that is filled with faith, having clear boundaries is the best we can do for

now. This test has kept elected officials from favoring any religious groups as well. Hayes quotes

Richard B. Katskee, Vice President at Americans United, in saying, “What’s really going on is

that conservative justices and judges often don’t like the results. They don’t like having to rule

against governmental support for religion or special privileges for favored religious groups.”
 Twitchell 5

While learning about the different perspectives and understandings my own opinion has

shifted many times with each new piece of information. I value nothing more than the free will

of every individual to believe and act as they choose, yet as a religious person I appreciate and

support the displays of religion in America. This country was built upon the freedom to believe

and act freely. As Americans we should continue to feel comfortable doing so today. One’s

beliefs should not be hidden when faithfully and respectfully practiced, no matter what or where

they practice. I believe that rather than causing resentment or discomfort, open displays would

foster curiosity, connection, and understanding between the citizens of this nation.
 Twitchell 6

Works Cited

Boston, Rob. “60 Years of Controversy.” Church & State, Feb. 2008.
https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2263152151?searchid=16388
98531&accountid=28671

Dionne, Jr. “Biden Bids to Be a Peacemaker in Americans’ Religious Wars.” Washington Post,
Feb 16, 2021.
https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2492094636?searchid=16388
98603&accountid=28671

Hayes, Liz. “Squeezing Lemon.” Church & State, Jun 2021.

McConnell, Michael. “Freedom from Religion?” American Enterprise, Jan./Feb. 1993.

Sheely, Jeffery A. “Freedom for Religion or from Religion?” Evening Sun, Oct 1, 2020.

Unknown. “Senate Needs to Kill Bill on 10 Commandments” Bismarck Tribune, Mar 31, 2021