J-Hal is an ignoramus

Thanks to a quick Google search, I've learned that my post from Saturday needs an addendum.

It turns out the holiday display in question also includes Hanukkah and Kwanzaa symbols -- I didn't see 'em -- and was the focus of a federal case that was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals -- 3rd Circuit in 1999. We'll let Circuit Judge Samuel Alito, now a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, expound. Here's an excerpt from his opinion:

"This appeal concerns the constitutionality of two JerseyCity 'holiday' displays. The first, which featured a menorahand a Christmas tree, was annually placed in front of City Hall for several decades. In 1995, the District Courtpermanently enjoined the City from continuing the practice of erecting this or any substantially similar display, see ACLU of N.J. v. Schundler, 931 F.Supp. 1180 (D.N.J. 1995), and a prior panel of our court affirmed that decision. ACLU of N.J. v. Schundler, 104 F.3d 1435, 1444-50 (1997). Jersey City subsequently moved for relief from that order under Rule 60(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, contending that the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 117 S. Ct. 1997 (1997), had undermined the panel's reasoning. The District Court deniedthis motion, and we now affirm that decision.

"Jersey City also challenges the District Court's most recent decision regarding a modified holiday display that the Cityput up after the original display was enjoined. The modified display contained not only a creche, a menorah, and Christmas tree, but also large plastic figures of Santa Clausand Frosty the Snowman, a red sled, and Kwanzaa symbols on the tree. In addition, the display contained two signsstating that the display was one of a series of displays put up by the City throughout the year to celebrate its residents' cultural and ethnic diversity. We find this modified display to be indistinguishable in any constitutionally significant respect from the displays upheld by the Supreme Court in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), and County ofAllegheny v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) (hereinafter 'Allegheny County'), and we therefore hold that Jersey City's modified display is likewise constitutional."

Read the full opinion, if you're into that sort of thing.

So, I see two morals to this story. One, don't blog without the facts. Two, if you're a public entity desperate to display the little Lord Jesus asleep in the hay, put a menorah in his hand and make sure he clearly embodies the Seven Principles of Blackness.