9.30.2008
Religious Monuments Case Coming Up
The Washington Times reminds us that the Supreme Court's upcoming docket (they resume hearing cases in October) will feature a case that could have far-reaching implications for minority religions.
"Religious doctrine is on the docket with Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, in which the Supreme Court is asked whether the city of Pleasant Grove, Utah, can display the Ten Commandments on a monument in a city park as a matter of free speech. The small Summum sect argues that if the city displays the Ten Commandments, it also should display their belief's Seven Aphorisms. City officials refused, which sent the dispute to the Supreme Court. "The betting money is that Pleasant Grove will come out ahead in this," said Tom Goldstein, a partner in the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld."
I discussed Pleasant Grove City v. Summum in some depth back in April. The court's ruling could ultimately decide if local government can control which (religious) monuments are erected, or if public parks should be treated more as an "open forum".
"The outcome of this case is going to be a big deal for religious minorities. Remember the battles over Pagan inclusion in government-sponsored religious displays in Green Bay and Ohio? A SCOTUS decision here could all but force local government bodies to enact a fully-open policy concerning religious displays on government-controlled property. In other words, the local city council or mayor couldn't pick and choose which religious displays are worthy to be placed with a Nativity Scene or Ten Commandments monument. It would be all or nothing."
Pleasant Grove has an interesting defense of claiming that ruling against them would hamper government's right to free speech.
"Pleasant Grove argues that its selection of privately donated monuments for display in Pioneer Park fits within this long tradition of government speech. As the speaker, the city argues, it is under no obligation to modify its message to accommodate Summum’s speech; instead, Pleasant Grove 'is entitled to say what it wishes' through its monuments and can 'take legitimate and appropriate steps to ensure that its message is neither garbled nor distorted.'"
In other words, if you force them to remove the Christian monument, or force them to include other religious monuments, it would damage their rights to "free speech". This argument is echoed in a massive number of Amicus briefs from state governments, veteran's organizations, and conservative Christian advocacy groups. Meanwhile, Americans United, assorted Humanist groups, and several liberal religious groups have filed Amicus briefs arguing that this case shouldn't be heard on free-speech grounds, and is instead all about the Establishment Clause.
"The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, said the case raises an important conflict over the value of religious neutrality. “It’s not the government’s job to display the symbols of any faith,” Lynn said. “When government officials allow religious groups to place permanent monuments on public land, the government is accountable for the message. “Our government,” he continued, “should not -- and, under our Constitution, may not -- pick-and-choose among religions. This principle stands at the very heart of church-state separation.” The AU brief asserts that government cannot play favorites among religions and deny a minority religious request because of discomfort with the less-known religious views."
In other words, concerning religion in the public square, government should just stay out of it altogether. Interestingly absent among the many briefs are Hindu, Buddhist, and Native American groups (groups that have banded together in the past to file Amicus briefs).One wonders what assorted religious minority communities think of this case. Would they welcome a win for Summum here? Or would they prefer the stance taken by Americans United?
A win for Summum seems increasingly unlikely, but would a win for Pleasant Grove City mean a win for Christian religious expression to the exclusion of other faiths? I guess we'll have to wait and find out. Opening arguments are scheduled for November 12th.
Labels: law, litigation, Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, Religious Freedom, SCOTUS
4.26.2008
A Monumental Issue
While we wait for the Supreme Court to decide if public parks and lands are an "open forum" for donated monuments (specifically religious monuments), another case has arisen dealing with many of the same issues. It seems that the Red River Freethinkers in North Dakota are suing the city of Fargo after refusing to allow them to erect a "sister monument" next to a 10 Commandments monument on the City Hall mall.
"Opponents of Fargo's Ten Commandments monument have filed a civil lawsuit against the city, asking that the granite marker be removed. The attorney for the Red River Freethinkers, Bruce Schoenwald, filed the complaint in federal court Friday. It accuses the city of "unconstitutional conduct." The lawsuit contends the Freethinkers' rights were violated last year when Fargo refused to allow the group to put up its own monument near the Ten Commandments monument on city property. The Freethinkers also are seeking unspecified damages and attorney fees."
What would be engraved on this monument? A line from the Treaty of Tripoli, a historical document unanimously approved by the US senate and signed by our second president John Adams
"...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."
You can understand then why the City Commission, who were pressured by local Christians to not remove the 10 Commandments monument, would be hesitant to allow a "sister monument" that questions the status of America as a "Christian nation". Which brings us back to the case currently pending before the Supreme Court, Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum. This case should definitively decide if those overseeing public lands can favor one religious or philosophical monument over another.
"A SCOTUS decision here could all but force local government bodies to enact a fully-open policy concerning religious displays on government-controlled property. In other words, the local city council or mayor couldn't pick and choose which religious displays are worthy to be placed with a Nativity Scene or Ten Commandments monument. It would be all or nothing."
If the SCOTUS case ends up leaning towards public lands being "open spaces" the city of Fargo will have to either remove all religious monuments, or allow the Freethinkers their Tripoli monument. It will also further challenge the notion that displays of the 10 Commandments are somehow "not religious speech" because some Christians think our own laws were founded upon them. Recent SCOTUS rulings make it clear that 10 Commandments monuments are only admissible as part of "a broader moral and historical message."
Fargo's reluctance to compromise puts them on uneasy legal footing. They are clearly favoring one viewpoint over another, and it could end up costing the city quite a bit of money. Regarding the larger issue, the days of anti-Communist patriotic Christian fervor are over. The national mood that once allowed the government to insert "Under God" into the pledge of allegiance, and litter the landscape with 10 Commandments monuments (many of which were placed to help promote a film) is long past. The era of a religious "don't ask, don't tell" norm (if you weren't a Protestant Christian) has given way to a multi-religious society in an increasingly post-Christian world. Christians can retain their place in the public forum, in the interchange of ideas, but only so long as they are inclusive of other viewpoints and religions sharing that same space.
* John Adams, a Unitarian, also called the Christian cross an "engine of grief" and insisted that America was founded by "the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery".
Labels: law, litigation, North Dakota, Paganism, Religious Freedom, SCOTUS, Treaty of Tripoli
4.01.2008
Religious Displays Case Goes to Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has agreed to review a ruling involving religious displays and government property. The case, Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, involves the placement of a religious monument on government-controlled property (which already contains a Ten Commandments monument). SCOTUS will decide whether, under the First Amendment, the local government can control which (religious) monuments are erected, or if the park should be treated as an "open forum".
"If government creates an open forum, it can't pick and choose among religions," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "Government officials could have avoided this controversy by refusing to put up the Ten Commandments in the first place."
The outcome of this case is going to be a big deal for religious minorities. Remember the battles over Pagan inclusion in government-sponsored religious displays in Green Bay and Ohio? A SCOTUS decision here could all but force local government bodies to enact a fully-open policy concerning religious displays on government-controlled property. In other words, the local city council or mayor couldn't pick and choose which religious displays are worthy to be placed with a Nativity Scene or Ten Commandments monument. It would be all or nothing.
"...attorneys for the city argued that the appeals court's ruling will require cities and states to remove longstanding monuments or permit groups to display any monument in public places. Led by Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, the attorneys said acceptance of a donated monument does not require 'that a government park be turned into a cluttered junkyard of monuments contributed by all comers.'"
This could very well be an attempt by SCOTUS to settle this issue once and for all. The court has already ruled that isolated religiously-motivated displays are out, but that a religious monument can exist among a diversity of statues and monuments. Now the court will decide how much control a government body can have over which religiously-oriented monuments will be allowed on public property.
Arguments involving the case will be heard in October. Personally, I would rather we have a "cluttered junkyard" of religious monuments than an "orderly" singular endorsement of Judeo-Christian faith. If this case is decided in favor of a truly open forum regarding religious displays, perhaps Pagan groups should start saving up for a granite Nine Noble Virtues or Wiccan Rede. I think either would look great next to a Ten Commandments display, don't you?
Labels: law, litigation, Paganism, Religious Freedom, SCOTUS
