背景资料

本案着眼于宾夕法尼亚州匹兹堡市中心两次假日展览的合宪性。一个是站在阿勒格尼县法院“大楼梯”上的托儿所，这是法院中一个非常突出的位置，所有进入者都能看到。

托儿所里有约瑟夫、玛丽、耶稣、动物、牧羊人和一位天使的塑像，他们手持一面巨大的横幅，横幅上写着“Excelsis Deo中的Gloria！”它上面刻着最高的荣耀。旁边是一块牌子，上面写着“这个展览是由圣名协会（一个天主教组织）捐赠的”。

另一个展览是一个街区之外的一座由市和县共同拥有的建筑。这是一座18英尺高的光明节圣殿，由一群鲁巴维彻·哈西迪姆（犹太教的一个极端正统分支）捐赠。与menorah一起的是一棵45英尺高的圣诞树，树下有一块牌子，上面写着“向自由致敬”

一些当地居民在美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）的支持下提起诉讼，声称这两种展示都违反了法律。上诉法院同意并裁定，这两个展览都违反了第一修正案，因为它们支持宗教。

快速事实：阿勒格尼县v。美国公民自由联盟大匹兹堡分会

• 案情：1989年2月22日
• 决定发布日期：1989年7月2日
• 请愿人：阿勒格尼县
• 答辩人：美国公民自由联盟，大匹兹堡分会
• 关键问题：两个公共赞助的节日展示——一个是耶稣诞生的场景，另一个是menorah——是否构成了国家对宗教的认可，这将违反第一修正案的确立条款？
• 多数决定：布伦南、马歇尔、布莱克门、斯卡利亚和肯尼迪法官
• 反对：大法官伦奎斯特、怀特、史蒂文斯和奥康纳
• 裁决：显示器的位置和消息传递决定了它是否违反了建立条款。克列什教堂的突出展示，直接用词赞美耶稣的诞生，发出了一个明确的信息，即该县支持并推广这一宗教。由于其“特殊的物理设置”，menorah显示屏被视为符合宪法。

法院判决

1989年2月22日进行了辩论。1989年7月3日，法院裁定5票对4票（罢工）和6票对3票（支持）。这是一个深刻且异常零碎的法院判决，但最终法院裁定，尽管托儿所违宪，但menorah展览却不违宪。

虽然在法庭上，罗得岛州的一个城市在节日展示中展示了一个托儿所，但由于匹兹堡的展示没有与其他世俗的季节性装饰结合使用，因此，法院采用了三部分柠檬测试法。林奇建立了被称为“塑料驯鹿规则”的世俗环境，但托儿所失败了。

由于这一独立性以及托儿所占据的显著位置（从而表明政府的认可），布莱克门法官在其多数意见中认为，展览具有特定的宗教目的。托儿所是由一个私人组织创建的事实并没有消除政府对展览的明显认可。此外，陈列在如此显眼的位置强调了支持宗教的信息。

最高法院说：

...the creche sits on the Grand Staircase, the "main" and "most beautiful part" of the building that is the seat of county government. No viewer could reasonably think that it occupies this location without the support and approval of the government. Thus, by permitting the display of the creche in this particular physical setting, the county sends an unmistakable message that it supports and promotes the Christian praise to God that is the creche's religious message... The Establishment Clause does not limit only the religious content of the government's own communications. It also prohibits the government's support and promotion of religious communications by religious organizations.

然而，与托儿所不同的是，展出的米诺拉并没有决定要传达纯粹的宗教信息。menorah被放置在“一棵圣诞树和一块向自由致敬的标志”旁边，法院认为这很重要。这种带有米诺拉标志的展览并没有认可任何宗教团体，而是将这些节日视为“同一个寒假季节的一部分”。因此，整个展览似乎不赞成或不赞成任何宗教，而且米诺拉被允许保留下来。关于menorah案，最高法院说：

...it is not "sufficiently likely" that residents of Pittsburgh will perceive the combined display of the tree, the sign, and the menorah as an "endorsement" or "disapproval ...of their individual religious choices." While an adjudication of the display's effect must taken into account the perspective of one who is neither Christian nor Jewish, as well as of those who adhere to either of these religions, ibid., the constitutionality of its effect must also be judged according to the standard of a "reasonable observer." ...When measured against this standard, the menorah need not be excluded from this particular display. The Christmas tree alone in the Pittsburgh location does not endorse Christian belief; and, on the facts before us, the addition of the menorah "cannot fairly be understood to" result in the simultaneous endorsement of Christian and Jewish faiths. On the contrary, for purposes of the Establishment Clause, the city's overall display must be understood as conveying the city's secular recognition of different traditions for celebrating the winter-holiday season.

这是一个奇怪的结论，因为拥有menorah的哈西德教派Chabad将Chanukah作为宗教节日庆祝，并主张展示menorah作为其传教使命的一部分。此外，在宗教仪式上点燃烛台的记录也很清楚，但法院对此不予理睬，因为ACLU没有提出。有趣的是，Blackmun花了相当长的篇幅来论证menorah应该根据树来解释，而不是相反。对于这种观点，没有提供真正的理由，有趣的是，如果menorah比树大，而不是树比树大的实际情况下，会做出什么样的决定。

在措辞尖锐的异议中，肯尼迪法官谴责了用于评估宗教展示的柠檬测试，并辩称“……任何可能使长期传统无效的测试都不能正确解读[建立]条款。”，传统——即使它包括并支持宗派宗教信息——必须压倒对宗教自由不断演变的理解。

奥康纳法官同意她的意见，回答说：

Justice Kennedy submits that the endorsement test is inconsistent with our precedents and traditions because, in his words, if it were "applied without artificial exceptions for historical practice," it would invalidate many traditional practices recognizing the role of religion in our society." This criticism shortchanges both the endorsement test itself and my explanation of the reason why certain long standing government acknowledgments of religion do not, under that test, convey a message of endorsement. Practices such as legislative prayers or opening Court sessions with "God save the United States and this honorable Court" serve the secular purposes of "solemnizing public occasions" and "expressing confidence in the future." These examples of ceremonial deism do not survive Establishment Clause scrutiny simply by virtue of their historical longevity alone. Historical acceptance of a practice does not in itself validate that practice under the Establishment Clause if the practice violates the values protected by that Clause, just as historical acceptance of racial or gender based discrimination does not immunize such practices from scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment.

肯尼迪法官的异议还认为，禁止政府将圣诞节作为宗教节日庆祝本身就是对基督徒的歧视。针对这一点，布莱克门在多数意见中写道：

Celebrating Christmas as a religious, as opposed to a secular, holiday, necessarily entails professing, proclaiming, or believing that Jesus of Nazareth, born in a manger in Bethlehem, is the Christ, the Messiah. If the government celebrates Christmas as a religious holiday (for example, by issuing an official proclamation saying: "We rejoice in the glory of Christ's birth!"), it means that the government really is declaring Jesus to be the Messiah, a specifically Christian belief. In contrast, confining the government's own celebration of Christmas to the holiday's secular aspects does not favor the religious beliefs of non-Christians over those of Christians. Rather, it simply permits the government to acknowledge the holiday without expressing an allegiance to Christian beliefs, an allegiance that would truly favor Christians over non-Christians. To be sure, some Christians may wish to see the government proclaim its allegiance to Christianity in a religious celebration of Christmas, but the Constitution does not permit the gratification of that desire, which would contradict the "'the logic of secular liberty'" it is the purpose of the Establishment Clause to protect.

意义

尽管这一决定似乎并非如此，但它基本上允许存在相互竞争的宗教符号，传达了一种包容宗教多元性的信息。虽然一个单独的符号可能是违宪的，但它与其他世俗/季节性装饰的结合可能会抵消对宗教信息的明显认可。

因此，渴望节日装饰的社区现在必须创造一种展示，这种展示不会传递支持某一特定宗教而排斥其他宗教的信息。显示器必须包含各种符号，并包含不同的透视图。

然而，对于未来的案件来说，也许同样重要的是，阿勒格尼县的四名持不同政见者将以更宽松、尊重的标准支持托儿所和梅诺拉展览。这一立场在作出这一决定后的几年中获得了很大的进展。

此外，肯尼迪的奥威尔主义观点认为，不把圣诞节作为基督教节日庆祝就等于歧视基督徒，这一观点也很流行——事实上，通融主义立场的逻辑结论是，政府对宗教缺乏支持与政府对宗教的敌意是一样的。当然，这种歧视只与基督教有关；政府没有把斋月作为一个宗教节日来庆祝，但是那些同意肯尼迪不同意见的人对此完全不关心，因为穆斯林是少数民族。