Supporters of the cross filed an immediate appeal once the city's decision was made. Attorney Helen Brinkman, who represents the Grand Haven residents, argues the cross was part of an open, public forum, and to take it down would violate the public's constitutional right to free-speech. Furthermore, she claims it be discrimination on the basis of religion. After all, the cross was donated by a private religious group and the first Amendment states that the government cannot hinder the beliefs and practices of one religion.
Ultimately, the question at hand is whether or not the Dewey Hill cross is an establishment of religion.I believe that, yes, the Dewey Hill cross does in deed violate the First Amendment right of the Constitution. The cross stands alone upon the hill, and there has been no true secular purpose claims to it other than free exercise and expression.
This case immediately reminded me of McCreary County v. ACLU, in which the ACLU sued 3 Kentucky counties for publicly displaying the Ten Commandments in isolation. The holding of the court stated that commandments were "undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths," and that the government "acts with ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion."
In both cases, there was a clear and direct promotion of religious symbols. Both the Dewey Hill cross and Ten Commandments, were displayed in public settings. I personally believe that the location of the cross is indistinguishable, as it is right upon the hill and looks over the town. It is also crucial to note that there are no other religious monuments accompanying it, and the only other symbol near it is the American Flag. Are these two symbols commonly correlated with one another? Does the flag imply that a cross in a nationally held religious belief? Therefore, I can't help but condemn that a religious cross and an American Flag, located right next to each other, establish a religion
Moreover, the fact of the matter is that it serves no secular purpose. Supporters of the cross claim its an open and public forum. The First Reformed Church of Grand Haven donated it to commemorate those who served in the Vietnam War. However, as noted by the judges: "the defendant did not allow individuals to place private messages, even messages limited to a certain topic, on the Dewey Hill monument when the lifting mechanism was raised, the Dewey Hill monument is government speech and forum analysis is inapplicable to it." Therefore, the claims of a secular purpose do not apply here, and it remains that the intentions of this cross were to advance a religion.
The cross has since been converted into an anchor. Not only do I believe it is a better representation of the message of the monument in the first place, to salute our veterans, but an anchor is far more neutral and can therefore apply to a greater scope of beliefs. Additionally, the American flag, one of the most important symbols of our nation, stands in front of it. This furthers the true message of the monument, and is far more neutral. Conclusively, I coincide with both the rulings of the District and Supreme Court that the Dewey Hill cross violates the First Amendment guarantee. Though I acknowledge to not allow the cross to be raise would be discrimination, the monument does not abridge by a secular purpose and instead advances a religious message. Therefore, the state has a compelling interest to just remain facially neutral and eradicate the cross completely.
6 comments:
I agree with you that the cross display violates the Establishment Clause. Although it was donated by a private group, the cross being placed on public property and the governments allowance of this implies the government approves its clearly religious message. Additionally, as you mentioned, the monument was intended to promote a secular message, that being to commemorate those who served in the Vietnam War. Surely all of those who fought in the war were not religious individuals, and even those that were religious undoubtedly did not all subscribe to the faith that the cross promotes. By including the cross in the monument, the secular purpose of the monument is lost and the honor is limited to only those veterans who were of one particular faith.
It is interesting to me that this case coincides with the previous case ruling you mentioned in McCreary County v. ACLU, as in they both ruled in favor of the secular purposes presented. However, in Van Orden V. Perry, the court ruled a monument of the Ten Commandments constitutional, on reasonings that could be helpful to rule this cross as constitutional. One could argue that because this cross is not funded by the government or tax money, it truly is a privately funded form of expression. Additionally, if understood correctly, this cross is only occasionally raised on Sundays and for specific events, not causing a tremendous burden upon the viewers that disagree with the message the cross holds. However, nonetheless, however substantial the burden be or on what specific day it arises, there still is a burden upon those who must view the cross in malalignment with their views with no secular purpose presented, understandably being unconstitutional.
I agree the cross was an establishment of religion and the new anchor is a much more fitting symbol to commemorate those who served in the Vietnam War. Using a cross was an unnecessary addition of a religious symbol to an otherwise secular purpose, when the same purpose of honoring those who fought could be achieved through creating a statue with no religious meaning. I think, as you said, it is important to note that the cross was a stand alone monument and could not be interpreted in anyway other than having religious meaning. In some ways, it would have been disrespectful and gone against the secular purpose to allow the cross to remain, as many of those who fought in the Vietnam war undoubtedly were not of the Christian faith and pushing that to be the symbol of their sacrifice is problematic in itself.
I agree that the cross is clearly breaking the Establishment of Religion Clause. Even though the cross was privately funded, the placing of the cross on public property promotes a religion. If the cross were on private property and privately funded it should not matter how many people can see it, how big it is and where on the property it is located. If it was in the center of town at a church, the church would have every right to put the religious symbol, however big, on their property. In this case, the cross is on public property, so regardless of whether it is big or small, it promotes religion and is therefore in violation of the Establishment Clause.
I agree with you that this cross, displayed on public property, is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The fact it is placed on public grounds automatically puts the government in a position of endorsing this religious message. Even though it was donated by a private group with a stated intended secular purpose for commemorating ones who served in the Vietnam War, having the monuments symbol stand as a cross immediately takes away this intended secular purpose. Additionally, having the symbol hold such religious ties could be misconstrued as a commemoration to those that identify with the displayed faith, taking away from other soldiers, making this statue not only not secular, but also not neutral.
At first I didn't see much harm in the cross being where it is. In the first picture it kind of seemed like it was in the middle of nowhere and it kind of reminded me of when you see crosses along roads or highways where someone was possibly in an accident. But when you said that it's up on a hill that looks over the entire town I can see how this could be an Establishment Clause violation. Crosses in public parks seems like an obvious violation because it's seen as the city endorsing a religion. I agree that the anchor is a much better representation of the purpose the monument was serving and is more constitutional.
Post a Comment