n. the legal determination that secular symbols in a government-sponsored year-end seasonal display (such as a Nativity scene) can mark it as not endorsing a specific religion or religion in general. Subjects:
English, Law, Religion
Editorial Note: Two relevant Supreme Court cases are Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) and County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989). Generally, such cases are related to maintaining the separation of Church and State.
Citations:
1992 Geoffrey R. Stone Bill of Rights in the Modern State (Oct. 15) p. 127: The Court held unconstitutional the nativity scene in Allegheny, which was tastefully displayed with a backdrop of greenery and poinsettias, but unaccompanied by secular signs of the season. Practitioners have dubbed the holdings in Lynch and Allegheny “the three-plastic animals rule.” 1998 Nancy L. Rosenblum Membership and Morals (Mar. 30) p. 77 @ (May 8, 2000): The “three plastic animals rule” in Christmas display cases seems to confirm that religious symbols must be disrespectfully cheapened to be widely acceptable. 2005 Jeffrey Rosen The New Republic (Mar. 4) “Big Ten”: In the past, the Supreme Court has subscribed to what lawyers call a “three plastic animals” rule for religious displays: If a crèche in a town square, for example, is surrounded by a wishing well and a laughing clown, it’s constitutional. The logic is that reasonable observers perceive unadorned religious displays to be endorsements of religion, while the addition of kitschy accoutrements turns the display into a celebration of Americana. 2005 Viola Huang @ Princeton University Daily Princetonian (Princeton, N.J.) (Dec. 14) “Eisgruber leads discussion on religious freedom”: In 1995, after ACLU sued, Jersey City added a six-foot-high Santa Claus, a three-and-a half-foot-tall Frosty the Snowman, a four-foot-high sleigh, Kwanzaa symbols and a sign explaining that it was celebrating the diverse heritage of the people of Jersey City. This has now come to be called the three plastic animals rule.