Mauzy met with the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) to search for ways to make a court lose unrealistic. The city made a monument policy, establishing the Bloomfield City Hall lawn as a public forum to display privately funded historical monuments and placed a sign on the lawn stating, “any message hereon is of the donors and not the City of Bloomfield and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the City.” They even added the Gettysburg Address, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence to the lawn, all were placed behind the Ten Commandments.
Prior court rulings have not been consistent, in regards to displaying Ten Commandments on government property. The 2005 Supreme Court case of Van Orden v. Perry ruled, having the Ten Commandments situated outside the state capitol building was not unconstitutional because there were many other monuments in that area and it displayed the identity of a Texan. That same day, the Supreme Court ruled that it was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion to have the Ten Commandments on display inside a Kentucky courthouse, leading to confusion and mixed results in lower court rulings.
I believe the original court ruling to be correct and it to be a promising sign that the United States Supreme Court denied this case, showing the importance of Church and State separation. Having a monument may not seem like a big deal, but its larger implications for what the authors of the Constitution meant when they wrote, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Clearly showing some perforation for certain religion and the government should have no part in promoting a religion.
The only reason I was going was going back and forth with my opinion because the monument was privately funded, but some things Mauzy did and said convinced me otherwise. A question the ACLU asked Mauzy was, Do you believe this lawsuit is an attack on your religious liberty?” Mauzy answered, “Yes, I believe I do.” If the original intent for the monument to be built was secular, then I do not understand how this one can be attacking his religious liberty. And, when asked what religion Bloomfield was endorsing, when talking to councilmen who opposed the monument, Mauzy replied, “If you don’t like living here, you can go somewhere else.” I do not like how Mauzy treated the original protesters, basically telling them their opinion did not matter, never thinking there was a chance he would lose this case, giving off the sense if you are against this monument, you will not be treated as an equal. The location of the monument, putting up the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and Gettysburg Address, behind the Commandment and not putting them up until the Commandments statue was created, clearly shows he is promoting a certain religion and that he was doing his best to cover up that fact.
For as diverse of country we are, it is becoming increasingly important to recognize diverse perspectives and noticing that if one sees something such as a Ten Commandment statue, in a public location, it can make those people feel inferior, when the intent of our founders was to ensure situations, like this, between the church and state, do not happen. The major issue now it to make sure courts are consistent with their rulings.
Prior court rulings have not been consistent, in regards to displaying Ten Commandments on government property. The 2005 Supreme Court case of Van Orden v. Perry ruled, having the Ten Commandments situated outside the state capitol building was not unconstitutional because there were many other monuments in that area and it displayed the identity of a Texan. That same day, the Supreme Court ruled that it was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion to have the Ten Commandments on display inside a Kentucky courthouse, leading to confusion and mixed results in lower court rulings.
I believe the original court ruling to be correct and it to be a promising sign that the United States Supreme Court denied this case, showing the importance of Church and State separation. Having a monument may not seem like a big deal, but its larger implications for what the authors of the Constitution meant when they wrote, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Clearly showing some perforation for certain religion and the government should have no part in promoting a religion.
The only reason I was going was going back and forth with my opinion because the monument was privately funded, but some things Mauzy did and said convinced me otherwise. A question the ACLU asked Mauzy was, Do you believe this lawsuit is an attack on your religious liberty?” Mauzy answered, “Yes, I believe I do.” If the original intent for the monument to be built was secular, then I do not understand how this one can be attacking his religious liberty. And, when asked what religion Bloomfield was endorsing, when talking to councilmen who opposed the monument, Mauzy replied, “If you don’t like living here, you can go somewhere else.” I do not like how Mauzy treated the original protesters, basically telling them their opinion did not matter, never thinking there was a chance he would lose this case, giving off the sense if you are against this monument, you will not be treated as an equal. The location of the monument, putting up the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and Gettysburg Address, behind the Commandment and not putting them up until the Commandments statue was created, clearly shows he is promoting a certain religion and that he was doing his best to cover up that fact.
For as diverse of country we are, it is becoming increasingly important to recognize diverse perspectives and noticing that if one sees something such as a Ten Commandment statue, in a public location, it can make those people feel inferior, when the intent of our founders was to ensure situations, like this, between the church and state, do not happen. The major issue now it to make sure courts are consistent with their rulings.
6 comments:
I totally agree with Brian, and the court has made clear the fact that free speech in a public forum is the most protected form of expression. This case does share similarities to Van Orden v Perry but the fact that this was privately funded shows that there is not a direct endorsement of religion by the government. The fact the monument was privately funded removes the majority of controversy even though it is the only monument within the area the court was wise to not take up this issue as they would likely vote in the same stance of lower courts.
I have to agree with Brian and Harrison too. The privately funded part is necessary to make the initial statement that most to all controversy is null. I do not think that it is endorsing one religion by having a privately funded monument outside of the court. There is no law saying that other groups may not privately fund another religious monument of their choice and place it there, so I do not see a direct correlation necessarily with their initial court decision. The consistency of rulings is where I have my problem.
Whereas a publicly funded monument would undoubtedly violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, I believe a privately funded monument, approved by the City of Bloomfield, neither establishes nor promotes a religious belief. Though I do acknowledge how Non-Christian members of the community would be outraged, they would have every right to express their own freedom of speech if they wanted to too. Thus, I don't believe this monument enforces or establishes a religious ideology; one of their inalienable rights is the freedom of speech and the free exercise thereof. As long as they can afford the funds for it, it is approved by the City Board, and there is no hateful or derogatory connotation, in the eyes of the law, the monument can stay.
The issue in this case for me is not about where the funding comes from. All religions are a part of history and I don’t see a problem with having religious monuments displayed. I think it would be unfair and exclusionary to only have one religious monument but I do not think it would sway someone’s opinion either way or pursued them towards a religion. With that said, for me the problem lies in where the monument is being displayed. City hall is representative of the government or state and all things lawful. Religion is not lawful and should not be included in a place of law. There also needs to be a clear separation between church and and state and having a monument there associates one particular religion with the state. This is compounded by the location of the other monuments there, such as the Constitution monument and the Gettysburg Address monument, which are clearly associated with the state or government.
I agree with your analysis of the case. The court’s denial sets a blatant precedent for this case and other cases like this, the government must be free of entanglements from the church. The act of putting a religious statue, clearly in favor only addressing the beliefs of one religion, says something much louder than that of which is on the statue.
I'd have to agree with all those who have argued the presence of a religious monument on public grounds in a clear violation of the establishment clause. While I do think the two 2005 cases set an unclear precedent for religious monuments, I believe the logic of previous SCOTUS ruling shine light on why this monument would be a violation of the establishment clause. If we look at the logic of the case of Engle V. Vitale the court ruled the practice of any religious activities, even those that are non-denominational, are a clear violation of the establishment clause. While this case was ruled in schools, I believe the logic can be applied to public grounds. The monument is clearly a promotion for the Christian faith. The logic resulting from Engle V. Vitale would indicate the government can make no promotion of any religion using government resources. Furthermore, the use of public grounds, land maintained by tax dollars, means this monument's upkeep will ultimately be paid for with public dollars.
Post a Comment