A small Ohio town is embroiled in a debate over religious expression on public property.
This is around this time of year when Susan Conley of Pataskala, Ohio puts up her seasonal nativity scene. In years past, she’s hosted the nativity on private property, but this year she hoped to erect it at an upcoming winter farmers market, which is hosted at a city-owned park called Veterans Green.
The result? Her permit to host a nativity on city property was denied.
Nativity or Not?
City officials were seemingly taken off guard by the request to put a Christian display on public property.
“Brand new” is how Pataskala mayor Mike Conlon described the request. “We just said, 'Hey, you know what, [we're] staying with our normal policy, not mixing religion on city property,” Conlon explained. “Your permit is approved, but you cannot do the nativity. You will have to find another location.’”
That prompted a response from First Liberty Institute, a conservative religious-rights legal group known for taking on high-profile Establishment Clause cases.
They sent Pataskala officials a letter alleging that turning down Conley’s permit “violates the Constitutions of both the United States and the state of Ohio.”
"Should the City decline,” they warned, Ms. Conley will need to sue to vindicate her constitutional rights.”
Political Support Rolls In
Conley found some valuable allies in her fight against city hall.
On X, Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy pledged his support to Conley, calling the city’s response “chilling”. “In recent years, Christianity has been unfairly targeted by secular political leaders,” he wrote. “In the future, it could easily be other faiths too. But it’s always wrong, unconstitutional, and un-American.”
City Hall’s Change of Heart
Facing backlash both public and legal, Mayor Mike Conlon approved Conley’s display for the upcoming winter farmers market. Conley approved the nativity on the grounds that it be clear that the nativity is clearly marked as not being sponsored by the city – terms which Conley and her team agreed to.
Faith-based holiday displays on public property are nothing new, and they often land local governments in tricky constitutional waters. Some communities allow them freely as long as equal access is offered to all groups, while others avoid them altogether to steer clear of potential lawsuits.
This small local disagreement is part of a much broader national trend: if a city allows one religious group to erect a holiday display, it must legally allow all of them – including those from minority or controversial faiths.
Over the last decade, Satanic organizations have taken full advantage of this equal-access principle. The Satanic Temple and similar groups have successfully placed displays in state capitols and city halls across the country, often featuring symbols like the Baphomet, pentagrams, or cheeky “Happy Solstice” signs. Their stated goal isn’t to promote devil-worship, but to emphasize the importance of government neutrality.
These installations have sparked fierce debates, counter-protests, and even vandalism.
What do you think? Should cities allow all religious displays, ban them entirely, or take a different approach? Would you support a nativity display on city property? And if so… how would you feel about a Satanic display? When it comes to religious freedom, is it all or nothing?
2 comments
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
Yet again another incident were the people fail to actually read the first Amendment many of us fought and bleed and died to protect. It says "Congress shall make no law" respecting or denying the "free exercise" (actions) thereof. Public property belongs to the public not the government and the public should have the say over who can do (actions) what on public property. Governors and mayors work for the public and should not have the dictatorship of the community.
If you allow one, you must allow them all. Christians would be the first to protest a Satanic display for the Winter Solstice. Vivek Ramaswamy’s involvement is just a political stunt. One of the replies on his tweet said, "Thank you for supporting Christianity even if they don’t give you the same respect."
I’m not even sure why he got involved. The mayor already approved it.