By DOTTY NIST
Walton County’s recent correspondence has involved religion and the issue of separation of church and state.
A nonprofit organization espousing separation of church and state recently contacted the county in opposition to its seasonal display of a nativity scene on the grounds of the Walton County Courthouse.
In a Sept. 23 letter to Walton County Attorney Mark Davis, Andrew L. Seidel, staff attorney for the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), stated that the organization had been contacted by a “concerned local resident” about the annual Christmas Reflections event taking place in DeFuniak Springs. The resident was not identified.
“We understand that in previous years, a nativity scene has been the sole display on the lawn of the Walton County Courthouse, as part of this event,” Seidel wrote.
Attached to Seidel’s letter was a picture of a nativity from the city of DeFuniak Springs web site.
Citing 1984 and 1989 United States Supreme Court decisions, Seidel continued, “It is unlawful for Walton County to maintain, erect, or host a holiday display that consists of a nativity scene, thus singling out, showing preference for, and endorsing one religion.”
“When the county displays this manger scene, which depicts the legendary birth of Jesus Christ, it signals the government’s approval of Christianity. This excludes citizens who are not Christian, including the 23% of adult Americans and 35% of millennials who are nonreligous,” Seidel wrote.
He clarified that the group’s objection was directed only at the nativity scene which they understood to be “the sole display at the Walton County Courthouse.”
“We request written assurances that this constitutional violation will not recur this holiday season or in future years,” Seidel wrote.
In an Oct. 19 letter written by Davis in response, it was clarified that Christmas Reflections and the nativity at the Walton County Courthouse are “two separate displays located on property owned by two different governmental entities,” with the former taking place on property owned by the city. The nativity in the photograph attached to Seidel’s letter, Davis noted, is part of the Christmas Reflections display.
Also, while agreeing with Seidel’s assertion that it would be unlawful for Walton County to put up a holiday display consisting only of a nativity scene, Davis pointed out that it is “not the case” that the nativity scene on the courthouse is the only display.
“There are numerous secular items displayed on the Courthouse lawn in addition to the nativity scene, including, but not limited to, a Santa Claus, sleigh, reindeer, Christmas trees, lit and unlit wreaths, as well as several thousand feet of red and white holiday lights,” Davis wrote.
He invited Seidel to contact him with any additional questions or concerns, if any.
Walton County has also been contacted in recent months on another matter involving religion.
In an Oct. 15 electronic mail letter addressed to Walton County Administration, with Davis and Walton County Administrator Larry Jones copied, Thomas H. Wright, III, an attorney representing Timothy “Chaz” Stevens, referenced an email sent the previous week. The communication requested that Stevens be allowed to “perform an invocation before a regular City (sic) Commission meeting.”
“Now, a week later, despite our records reflecting your reception of our correspondence and Mr. Davis indicating he would look into matters, neither my client nor his office have had any substantive response,” Wright wrote.
“Obviously, the lack of information is disheartening. This letter shall serve as a reminder and follow-up in hopes that the county will not discriminate against Mr. Stevens and will allow my client to exercise his constitutional rights. We also hope that the County will not abandon the invocation process in lieu of a moment of silence out of fear of what my client may or may not say as numerous other cities have done,” Wright concluded.
In an Oct. 15 response to Wright’s letter, Davis noted that the county “is currently developing a new policy and procedure for accommodating invocations prior to the County Commissioners meetings in accordance with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in the Town of Greece.”
He advised that the policy would “include the means and methods for citizen participation in invocations,” and that the policy would be forwarded to Wright’s client once complete.
“In the interim, the Board of County Commissioners has time at the end of the meeting for Public Comments on any subject,” Davis wrote.
Deerfield Beach native Chaz Stevens identifies himself parenthetically as “Chaz Satan” on his Facebook page, where he also describes himself as “a professional troublemaker.” In a web site linked to the page, Project “Satan or Silence” is detailed, stating that Stevens has asked “several local cities” to either end prayer at public meetings or allow him to do a Satanic invocation.
Along with a number of Florida cities, Bay County, Lake County, Sarasota County, and the Okaloosa County School Board are listed as having been contacted, along with Walton County.
“In his requests, Stevens cites a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that determined prayer is allowed at government meetings provided it applies to all religions—including, Stevens said, Satanism,” the web site states.
Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meetings typically begin with the Pledge of Allegiance and an invocation by one of the commissioners, although a poem was read instead at the last BCC meeting on Oct. 27.
In the May 5, 2014, Town of Greece decision by the U.S. Supreme Court referenced by Davis, the prayer practice of this town in upstate New York was found not to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This is the clause prohibiting the government from unduly favoring one religion.
Followed since 1999, the Town of Greece’s invocation practice was described in the decision as “a prayer given by clergy selected from the congregations listed in a local directory.”
In the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court rejected the view of a lower court, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, that the Establishment Clause was violated by “a predominantly Christian set of ministers” being invited to lead the prayers for the town.
“The town made reasonable efforts to identify all the congregations located within its borders and represented that it would welcome a prayer by any minister or layman who wished to give one,” Justice Kennedy wrote.
“So long as the town maintains a policy of nondiscrimination, the Constitution does not require it to search beyond its borders for non-Christian prayer givers in a effort to achieve religious balancing,” Kennedy added.
