Amicus briefs have been filed by parties on both sides of the case appealing the ruling that the Nativity scene display on the Jackson County Courthouse lawn is unconstitutional.
That suit, filed by Rebecca Woodring of Seymour in December 2018, asked the court to rule the courthouse Nativity scene violated her civil rights as she felt county government was promoting Christianity to her and other county residents. According to court records, Woodring is an atheist and believes government should not be involved in religious activity.
Federal Judge Tanya Walton Pratt ruled in Woodring’s favor in May, stating the display was unconstitutional. Jackson County, defended by Liberty Counsel, appealed the decision in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago in May.
Friend-of-the-court briefs, or briefs filed by parties who aren’t directly involved with the case but would like to add insight or opinion, have been filed by groups on each side of the case.
{span}Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, working with local ministers,{/span} filed a document defending the display, speaking to its history in the county.
“The annual Nativity isn’t just a beloved holiday tradition. It’s a symbol of unity and God’s ‘goodwill to all men’ during the Christmas season,” said Doug Pogue, president of the Brownstown Area Ministerial Association. “In a time of such fear and uncertainty in our country, it’s heartbreaking to think that our town could lose this important symbol of hope.”
The group also contended that removing the display would display hostility toward Christianity.
“Scrubbing religious symbols from the public square isn’t neutral but hostile to religion,” said Diana Verm, senior counsel at Becket. “Three courts of appeals have already followed the Supreme Court’s lead and recognized that principle. We are confident that the Seventh Circuit will follow suit and preserve this beloved local display.”
On the opposite side, {span}the Freedom from Religion Foundation filed a similar brief asking the court to uphold the original ruling.{/span}
{span}The group’s filing, drafted by attorneys {span}Chris Line, Patrick Elliott and legal director {span}Rebecca Markert,{/span}{/span} argues the display is nonsecular and dismissive of other religions county residents may practice.{/span}
“For nonreligious and minority religious residents of Jackson County, the prominent display of a Nativity scene on government property each and every December is anything but neutral. It conveys a message of exclusion and secondary status, which is renewed each year when the Nativity is installed,” the brief states.
{span}{span}They said removing the Nativity scene would promote inclusivity toward all religious {/span}{/span}beliefs, not hostility toward Christianity.
{span}{span}”Ending the annual seasonal display of the Nativity scene in front of the Jackson County Courthouse does not convey hostility to Christianity, but rather embraces neutrality, protecting the diversity of religious beliefs and the constitutional rights of all Jackson County residents,” the group said.{/span}{/span}
The Nativity scene, owned by the Brownstown Area Ministerial Association and cared for by the Brownstown Lions Club, has appeared on the courthouse lawn nearly every holiday season since 2003.
After Woodring’s lawsuit was filed, other nonreligious holiday figures, such as Santa Claus and carolers, were moved near the Nativity scene.