The Virginian-Pilot
©
RICHMOND
Local governments in Virginia are free to permit religious and holiday displays on public property so long as the venue provides equal opportunity to various faith traditions and messages, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli concludes in a new legal opinion.
The opinion was requested by Del. Bob Marshall, a Prince William County Republican, and relates to an ongoing debate in Loudoun County over the use of county courthouse grounds for holiday displays.
The fracas there began with a decision last year by a county commission to ban public displays at the site. The county then rejected a request from a group that wanted to place a Christmas tree there.
County supervisors subsequently overturned the commission's decision and adopted a policy governing displays at the courthouse. Now, those rules are up for review after officials were confronted with public concerns about some of the messages contained in the displays.
Marshall sought Cuccinelli's view on whether Loudoun County must prohibit religious and secular holiday displays on public property. No, Cuccinelli said.
"Where the county already has provided a public forum or limited public forum, it will usually lack the right to exclude a religious display of reasonable duration based solely upon content," Cuccinelli wrote, adding that even in the absence of a prior forum the county "is free to create a nondiscriminatory forum for recognition of holidays, including Christmas, it if makes clear that the county itself is not communicating a religious message."
That interpretation is seconded by the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, a group not often aligned with the attorney general on legal questions.
"The law on this is well established and Cuccinelli has made a fairly accurate statement of what the law is," observed ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis.
"The dilemma for local governments is that with the First Amendment it's all or nothing," Willis added. "So they either have to welcome all expression, which probably means they're going to be allowing some expression they don't like, or they don't allow any of it."
In Norfolk, the city festoons the tree in front of City Hall with lights but no religious displays. Virginia Beach has provided space for public displays at Mount Trashmore that have included both a Christmas tree and a menorah.
Julian Walker, (804) 697-1564, julian.walker@pilotonline.com

Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo

Some one please get me my bucket!
Please Dear God! Deliver us from Cucinelli! Day in, Day out this with this mad man is driving us all nuts!
A true defender of Religious Freedom
It's great to see that Cuccinelli, the VA Attorney General, is in favor of freedom of religion. Do I take this to mean that he is wading in favor of the Islamic Center construction project in NYC? After all this project is not even asking for a religious display on public property, but is merely asking for construction of a religious project on private property. I'm surprised that he would stand up for principles in the hotly debated emotional issue of religious freedom.
Makes sense
I rarely agree with our current AG, but I do completely with him on this issue. Any and all religious faiths should be able to put up what they want on public grounds just so long as any and all faiths ARE allowed to do so without protest or complaint from any of them. That, is government non-interference with religion.
holiday decorations
This sounds awfully complex, considering all of the religions in this country.
i think only islamic
i think only islamic displays should be allowed , and anywhere they want them to put them...and if we dont like it,, then according to Sharia law they have the right to kill us...woohoo!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hail Satan
Now the Satan worshipers can put up a display at city hall. Cooci is rewriting the Constitution.
I find it hilarious...
that when an actual liberal/progressive idea is forwarded by a conservative, the liberal/progressives will find any way to demean it just due to their hate of conservatives.
Oh and this guy, Chris33...he's actually trying to use the Constitution arguement. As much as he and his ilk enjoy destroying the foundations that our country was built upon via the Constitution.
Laughable.
since you ddn't read the article, how do you know
Whoever read you the article and/or the opinion lied to you.
If you had read the article or opinion then you would have seen that what the AG said was that IF THERE IS ONE then ALLOW ANY. That is exactly what the USSC has said.
When you read the article and find what you said is true then cite what it says.
Cuccinelli: religious displays on public property OK
TeaPartyGOP: religious displays on private property NOT ok
Depending on...
.... the religion.