In Grass
Lake, Michigan, The Michigan Association of Civil Rights Activists (MACRA) have
filed a complaint due to the presence of a cross on state owned property. The
cross has been there for nearly 70 years, and is referred to by local Reverend
Melvin Parker, the president of the Ministerial Association as what gives the
community “more unity”. Despite the historical context and the pleas of
Christian supporters, Civil Rights Activists are calling this use of state land
for the place of the cross as unconstitutional. Mitch Kahle, co-founder of
MACRA asks, “What authority did the state think it had to allow a permanent
religious symbol on public land?”. He also stated that he expects the courts
will rule in their favor as “[they] are not favorable to crosses on public
property”. Although this attack against the placement of the cross was started
by a complaint of a longtime resident, this isn’t the first time the cross has
come under fire. In 1992, criticism arose after a photograph of the cross was
published. It was ruled back then that no violation of the separation of church
and state had occurred. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) granted a
permanent-use permit in 1992 that allowed the Lake Ministerial Association to
place the cross on Sackrider Hill in the Waterloo Recreational Area as long as
the association existed. Kahle comments that decision by saying, “The letter
and permit are disturbing because they demonstrate significant entanglement
between religion and government…it is always unconstitutional for the state to
appropriate, authorize, approve, or otherwise allow the erection and
maintenance of sectarian religious symbols on public property”. In the
meantime, the cross remains, and Easter Sunday service will be held on
Sackrider Hill with the cross proudly displayed. The Lake Ministerial
Association has also launched its own petition asking the DNR to “reject the
complaint lodged by anti-cross activists”.
Regardless
of historical context and the previous permits given to the Lake Ministerial
Association, this is a violation of the Establishment Clause. Grass Lake, MI is
allowing for one religion to be privileged above others, by allowing this
blatant symbol of Christianity to be placed on state owned land. It may be the
views of the majority in Grass Lake, MI that they prescribe to Christianity and
think the cross should remain there, as has been seen by the outcries of many
religious townspeople. However, the Establishment Clause was created to protect
religious minorities and to prevent the excessive entanglement between State
and religion. Removing the cross from state owned land does not significantly
burden the Lake Ministerial Association, nor does it violate their
Constitutional rights to free exercise. The cross can be placed on church owned
land, where it can be enjoyed by those who share the same religious beliefs,
and where it will not infringe upon the religious freedoms of others and not be
in violation of the Establishment Clause. If the Lemon Test was applied to this
allowance of religious symbolism on state owned land, it would certainly not
pass. There is no secular purpose, as the cross is clearly linked to particular
religious faiths, the presence of the cross is advancing one particular
religious belief over others, and there is excessive entanglement as the cross
is on state owned land. There can be parallels drawn to Lynch v.
Donnelly (1984) in which the court ruled in favor of allowing the
crèche to be displayed. However, in Lynch v. Donnelly there
was a secular purpose and the crèche was determined to be depicting the origins
of the Holiday. In this case, the only secular purpose argued is that it
promotes unity, but there must be a better way for promoting town unity than
via a Christian symbol. Furthermore, while it can be argued in that Christmas
is not an entirely sectarian holiday, as it was in Lynch v.
Donnelly, Easter is the most important day in the Christian religion
and revolves around the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If the cross is allowed
to stay on state owned land, and this is not ruled to be a violation of the
Establishment Clause, then there is a dangerous precedent for the level to
which states can sponsor certain religions.
10 comments:
The appropriate judicial response to this case would be applying the Lemon Test to determine whether this cross establishes a religion. I agree with Abby that this action does not pass the Lemon Test, and should be ruled as unconstitutional. However, I could also see a scenario where the court rules that it is constitutional. It was not mentioned in the post, but the cross was put up by a church and I imagine it is maintained by that same church to this day. Since there is no direct payments from the coffers of the municipality that support this cross, it is forceable that the court could also rule this constitutional.
I'd agree with Abby's assessment of this situation. This placement of a cross on government land has no clear secular purpose. The precedent established by Lynch V. Donnelly indicates religious symbols can be placed on government property if there is a clear secular message. In this case, a lone cross on a hill is a powerful sectarian symbol which provides religious minorities with no secular service. Allowing this cross remain on public ground is a clear violation of the establishment clause. While I could see the Church arguing there are not grounds to sue due to the fact they maintain the cross, I think this argument would be moot. The government uses tax dollars to maintain the public ground around the cross. As a result, the ground cannot be used for the promotion of any religious message. While a reasonable observer may be able to avert their eyes, the message this would send to any religious minority in the area would harm the pluralism and diversity which has made this country so great.
I see no secular purpose here other than to promote a religion; a clear violation of the Establishment Clause. The cross in and of itself is one of the most sacred Christian symbols. There is no relevant nor historical context associated with it, such as other monuments, symbols, or figures. Additionally, the cross clearly stands alone on public property and is geared towards the Christian members of the community; thus, signaling out the religious minorities in Grass Lake, another violation of the Establishment Clause. Just because the cross has been there for the past 70 years, does not make it constitutionally acceptable.
Applying the Lemon Test and reviewing the clear rights outlined in the Constitution, this cross displayed on public grounds is a clear violation. Due to the historical presence of this cross being rooted there for the past seventy years, it could be argued that it is a landmark to some. However, the complaints amongst citizens make it clear that this is a bothersome presence and a violation of their rights. In response to Will's point, I find it very interesting that the Church potentially pays for the up-keeping of the cross, despite it being technically on public grounds. I think that key factor will play an important role in the court's decision as citizens are not directly paying for the cross, but the land that it is placed on. Nevertheless, the Lemon Test in this case upholds, and it is unconstitutional, particularly due to the burden it is placing on the citizens of this town.
I would prefer no crosses on public property, but I am not certain that this constitutes as clear of an establishment of religion as everyone seems to suggest. The majority decision in Van Orden v. Perry (2005) rightly chose not to apply the Lemon test in regards to another religious monument on government property and instead chose to focus on the nature of the monument. I think this reasoning can also be applied here. If the cross was paid for and its upkeep is continually paid for by the church as Will has said then this is not a form of finical aid by the state. If the state decides that other religious groups are not allowed to erect their religious symbols on state ground then it would be a clear violation of the establishment. However, it is not clear that the state is not being neutral to all religious by authorizing the cross.
I am not sure that this vindicates Grass Lake, MI, but I do think it is worth considering.
I definitely agree that that this is an establishment of religion. One way to identify this as an establishment of religion would be to invoke the Lemon Test from the case Lemon v. Kurtzman. The three prongs of this test require that the action has a secular purpose, that its primary effect must not be to advance or inhibit religion, and that the action must not foster excessive entanglement between Church and State. I would argue that this case goes against all three of these prongs. Firstly, there is no secular purpose for the cross to be on public property. While some may argue that the cross is there for historical purposes, a cross is only a sign of a specific religion and is not something that has influenced secular law as the state of Texas argued the Ten Commandments did in the case Van Orden v. Perry. Secondly, the primary effect of this cross is very clearly to advance Christianity. Thirdly, because the cross is on government owned property, I would argue that the cross' location leads to excessive entanglement between Church and State. Having the cross on public property is not a neutral act by the State, and is therefore an unconstitutional establishment of religion.
I would agree with Max and Will that this case is not as clear cut as it may seem. If the state is not paying for the upkeep of the cross, simply having it on public land may not necessarily qualify as excessive entanglement as is suggested. I also think that the secular purpose of town unity could potentially be a persuasive argument to the court as long as the town is being neutral in the opportunity for other religious and secular groups to erect similar monuments. That type of equal opportunity would also constitute passing the second prong of the Lemon Test. Since the cross has been there for 70 years it would be interesting to see if it could be registered as a local historic landmark, and if that would therefore protect it from removal in the eyes of the court and local government.
I agree with Abby that the cross fails to pass the lemon test but I would say it could get closer than given credit for.
Although a stretch, one could argue that the cross provides the secular purpose of community unity. One may also contest that due to the crosses longstanding history, it could be considered a historic symbol, which grants it some freedom to stay on government property.
Due to it's remote location and minimalistic design, I find it hard to see how it's existence would inherently aid a religious cause. This is paired with the fact that it wasn't paid for by taxpayers, which is the main purpose of the specific prong of the test.
Excessive entanglement is, I believe where the cross fails the lemon test. It's placement on government owned land provides some degree of entanglement of religious values with government holdings.
The historical context, as well as the permits do give a little leeway into how individuals in the community might see the cross. However, in context to the Constitution, this is a violation of the Establishment Clause. Whether or not it was fun did by government officials or not, it is placed on state property which is technically an endorsement. I think it is important to note that there is a possibility that there will be a huge amount of individuals that could support the placement of it on the property, due to the previous 72 years of it being there. I expect it to be ruled unconstitutional though.
I agree with Kaitlyn, the history behind something is irrelevant to principle, and past violations are not healed over time. I'll agree with Sean, but I see little unity in the Christian cross, Jews most likely don't think of the resurrection of Christ as an American historical event to celebrate and band together behind. If one of those cool Coexist symbols were put up with it I would agree, but simply pandering to a majoritarian local culture is not what our rights are for. I am sure there would be issues if a Muslim put a star and crescent on this public land. Designating it as a historic relic with a plague stating the government's lack of endorsement or putting it in a museum may alleviate some of the grievance, but I'm not sure.
Post a Comment