A creche, built in 1993 by Boy Scout Troop 318 sits in Broad Street Park in Claremont, N.H., Tuesday, Dec. 18, 2018. Resident Sam Killay, an atheist has objected to the display of the symbols on city property saying that they violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. (Valley News - James M. Patterson) Copyright Valley News. May not be reprinted or used online without permission. Send requests to permission@vnews.com.
A creche, built in 1993 by Boy Scout Troop 318 sits in Broad Street Park in Claremont, N.H., Tuesday, Dec. 18, 2018. Resident Sam Killay, an atheist has objected to the display of the symbols on city property saying that they violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. (Valley News - James M. Patterson) Copyright Valley News. May not be reprinted or used online without permission. Send requests to permission@vnews.com. Credit: James M. Patterson

Ah, the holidays. The glittering lights. The gathering of loved ones. The reconnection with family and friends. The warm exchange of season’s greetings.

The threats of physical violence on social media.

That, according to Claremont resident Sam Killay, is what happened to him and his wife last week after he asked the City Council to end the tradition of religious holiday displays in Broad Street Park. As Valley News correspondent Patrick O’Grady reported on Wednesday, Killay argued that the nativity scene and menorah that are displayed in the public park, along with toy soldiers, colored lights and Christmas trees, are “inappropriate and partisan religious displays” and constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

“This, to me, has every appearance of an official endorsement of religion, which is a clear violation of the principle of the separation of church and state,” Killay, who is an atheist, told the council.

Cue the outrage machine.

Killay’s own Facebook page apparently is difficult to find, so his wife’s page filled up with menacing posts, one of which said, “He is going to swallow his teeth.” Another angry post received 250 “likes.” Killay’s wife also received harassing instant messages and was called names — and she’s not even entirely on board with her husband’s protest. “She is not part of (what I am doing),”  Killay told O’Grady, “and is even against some of what I am asking for (from the council.)”

So let’s see if we have this straight: Some people who would defend the public display of symbols celebrating the religious miracles of Hanukkah and the birth of Jesus Christ, along with secular symbols of the holiday season, are mounting that defense by spewing anonymous hate on the wrong person’s Facebook page, threatening a violent assault and cheering on other threats.

It’s a good thing Santa checks his list twice — doing so helps him find out who’s been naughty. And if Killay’s wife follows through on filing a report on the harassment, the police may find out, too.

Killay, 36, said he is willing to give the City Council time to address his concerns, but may consider his legal options if the council fails to act. He may also seek permission to put up satanic symbols in the park to accompany the creche and the menorah, although that seems insincere since Killay is an atheist, not a worshipper of Satan. In any event, the council is not scheduled to meet again until Jan. 9, by which time the displays likely will have been taken down for the season. In the meantime, as Councilor Scott Pope told O’Grady, the council can gather more information to develop “a policy that supports our community in a positive way.”

What Pope and the other councilors will find, of course, is that municipalities have been caught in the middle of this debate for years, and the standards set by the courts — including in the so-called “Creche Cases” decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1980s — are somewhat subjective. Attorney Ian Smith, of Washington, D.C.-based Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, told O’Grady that the approach most likely to survive a First Amendment challenge such as the one raised by Killay involves ensuring that the symbols exhibited on public property appear as a “unifying display.” That is, if the religious and secular symbols are arranged in such a way that the display acknowledges the season and the holidays and their history and does not lead a reasonable person to see the display as endorsing one particular religion, or religion over nonreligion, then it likely will pass constitutional muster.

In the case of the Broad Street Park display, the nativity scene and the menorah are on one side of the park and the Christmas trees and toy soldiers are on the other, which Smith said could be problematic. Bringing these displays together probably won’t appease Killay, but doing so may offer the city legal protection.

Councilor Claire Lessard suggested encouraging other houses of worship in the city to put up displays in the park, but to ensure a “unifying” effect, why stop there? There are lots of community groups, social service organizations and nonprofits that find this an important and effective time of year to spread their message and connect with the community. Why not open up the park to displays by organizations and institutions from across Claremont, religious and nonreligious alike, in celebration of the season, of the city and of each other?

That could truly be a “unifying display” of community spirit.