Ceremonial Deism

Ceremonial Deism December 15, 2016

5770-a-house-with-christmas-lights-at-night-pvThe Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that Nativity scenes in publicly-owned spaces are legal.  As long as they don’t mean anything.  Hillsdale Sophomore Nic Rowan writing in the Federalist sees this as an example of “ceremonial deism.”

After the jump, read his argument and my thoughts on the matter.

From Nic Rowan, Supreme Court: You Can Only Have Public Nativity Scenes If They Don’t Mean Anything, The Federalist:

A nativity scene placed in the public square is not a religious symbol. It’s an instance of “ceremonial deism.”

Ceremonial deism is when a government promotes nominally religious statements or practices with the public understanding that these have been deemed to be merely ritual and non-religious through long customary usage. But a more straightforward definition is this: As long as no one believes in the thing the symbol signifies, displaying it in public does not violate the First Amendment freedom of religion clause.

We see ceremonial deism everywhere in the American public square. The Pledge of Allegiance, the president’s oath of office, the words “In God We Trust” on our money — all use religious language for an arguably non-religious purpose. Government bodies frequently use the phrase to justify including religious motifs in the public square. For example, this past September, an Illinois judge used ceremonial deism to justify affixing the words “In God We Trust” in big metal letters to the front of the local courthouse.

The Supreme Court treats nativity scenes in the public square as an instance of ceremonial deism in the 1984 case Lynch v. Donnelly. According to the court’s opinion, erecting a nativity scene in the public square does not encourage any religious belief, but instead, it reminds local townspeople of their unique American heritage. So, while nativity scenes have had a significant place in American history, two centuries of use has changed their meaning from a religious symbol to secular and commercial commodity.

Believe it or not, the Supreme Court actually had a methodical test that helped it come to this conclusion. The court used the 1971 case Lemon v. Kurtzman, which struck down teaching the Bible in public schools, to decide if nativity scenes are religious symbols. The test has three parts:

  1. The statute in question has to have a secular legislative purpose.
  2. It can’t promote or inhibit religion or religious practices.
  3. It can’t give the government leeway to get too involved with any religion.

Nativity scenes only pass the Lemon test if society divorces them from what they symbolize. That’s because, let’s face it, there really is only one way to interpret angels, shepherds, and wise men fawning over a baby Jesus. Unless they become independent entities with their own meaning and history, nativity scenes obviously signify Christ’s coming. But, thanks to the court’s opinion and the resulting cultural fallout, nativity scenes have become stand-alone objects upon which the public can impose its own meaning.

[Keep reading. . .] 

I would say that Nativity scenes do have an objective meaning, even though subjective meaning is the only kind that many people can recognize these days.  And that objective meaning can be communicated through the potent symbols of Christmas.

But surrounding Nativity scenes with snowmen, Santas, Menorahs, Islamic prayer rugs, Kwanzaa symbols, etc., has the effect of diluting the meaning, or, rather, burying it with distracting imagery.  Most public Nativity scenes do this as a way to tone down the meaning and comply with the Supreme Court ruling and finesse lawsuits from the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

So, from a Christian point of view, is it worth it?  Should we applaud government-sponsored religious imagery, even though it is going to be undermined?

It does at least give Christianity a public presence at the table of religious and non-religious diversity.  And there is the little matter of what Christianity actually signifies.

"I am not defending horrendous practices. I am saying that I don't understand why a ..."

Monday Miscellany, 4/1/24
"" An apology for any participation in the slave trade and perhaps allocation of funds ..."

Monday Miscellany, 4/1/24
"That's admirable of those missionaries. It doesn't negate the fact that a good portion of ..."

Monday Miscellany, 4/1/24

Browse Our Archives