Guest Post by Morbo
A psychoanalyst could plumb the depths of the human psyche and explain why we need a holiday like Halloween. I suppose, deep down inside, we all know we’re going to die some day. Adults deal with that in part by playing footsie with the dark side for one night a year.
For kids I think the explanation is a lot simpler: You get to wear a cool costume and are showered with free candy. What’s not to like?
I know that some people are bothered by Halloween — but that doesn’t mean they get to spoil everyone else’s fun. I also know the holiday has ancient, pre-Christian roots — but that doesn’t mean it’s a religious holiday today. One needs to look at how the culture celebrates the holiday, and in America, Halloween long ago became secular.
That’s why I think a federal court made the right call recently in a case challenging Halloween decorations at a government building in Puerto Rico. The judge rejected the claims of a Pentecostal Christian employee who argued that the decorations establish paganism. One of the decorations plaintiff Coraly Rosa-Ruiz found most offensive was a carpet that emitted a “horrific scream” whenever anyone walked on it. She demanded that the screaming rug and all other decorations be removed.
Fortunately, the court disagreed.
It ruled:
The cats, goblins or screeching mat do not convey an endorsement of any religious belief. Such decorations, like Halloween costumes and parties, are linked to the seasonal celebration of a fun-loving tradition in which children are particularly involved in classrooms, neighborhood gatherings and trick or treating. Halloween decorations, like valentines, Easter bunnies, and egg hunts are all secular displays and activities that neither convey religious messages nor constitute religious symbols. Halloween lost its religious and superstitious overtones long ago. It has become instead a commercial holiday enjoyed by communities in its many forms of entertainment.
At the same time, the court allowed Rosa-Ruiz’s claims of religious discrimination to go forward. She claims she was retaliated against after she complained about the decorations. Having read the opinion, I think her claims are a little weak, but I also believe the judge was right to rule in her favor on this narrow question. If her supervisor was indeed retaliating against Rosa-Ruiz because of her religious beliefs, she should have the right to pursue the claim and make her case in court.
Fundamentalists will whine about this decision, of course. TV preacher Pat Robertson, for example, is a longtime foe of Halloween and has warned parents about letting children participate. (Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network maintains an entire webpage beating on poor Halloween.)
Robertson and his ilk will carp that the courts have allowed Halloween in government buildings but struck down Christmas. As usual, they aren’t telling the whole story. Christmas has in no way been excluded in government buildings. Courts have held that Christmas is a holiday with secular and religious overtones. Government can acknowledge the former but not the latter. In other words, Santa, Frosty, elves and even Christmas trees are welcome at city hall. Jesus in the manger is best left at church.
In short, secular celebrations are acceptable for government; wholly religious ones belong in houses of worship. Such a policy makes sense. It’s not the least bit scary.