The main question in this case is whether the crosses constitute an establishment of religion. Crosses are typically a religious symbol, and they are on public property owned by the city. The party who is raising the concern over the establishment of religion has never visited the town of Elizabethton and were misinformed about the crosses, as there are apparently another set of crosses across the town that are on private property. Outside of this confusion, though, Heineman continues to argue that there do not appear to be any other messages or meaning besides an endorsement of Christianity. This case is similar to the case Stone v Graham in which the Supreme Court ruled that a Kentucky law requring the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public classroom was a violation of the establishment clause. There was an argument that the Commandments had a secular purpose and there would even be a print at the bottom of each, pointing out this purpose in the legal code of the law of the US. In Elizabethton, the crosses may be allowed if there is a secular purpose behind them. Also, there are arguments that the town residents will be incredibly upset if these crosses are taken down, as they are an important symbol in the community. There have not been complaints from residents before, and the ones bringing this complaint are from outside the area.
In my opinion, I believe this is considered a clear establishment of religion. Constitutionality is more important than feelings or emotions, so it may be upsetting to the residents if they are taken down because many believe in what the crosses represent, but I find it difficult to see the secular purpose behind them. A court does not want to rule on centrality, but a cross is the most important symbol in the Christian faiths. Also, the crosses are on public property, hence, there is no separation of church and state. Tradition plays a role, as the town is clearly very religious and traditional with the Christian faith, and there were no complaints by minority religious groups beforehand. However, the placement of the crosses is not neutral, as it clearly supports the Christian faith. I think it can be argued that there is no compelling state interest to take down the crosses because there was no violence or evidence that people were opposed to them before this out-of-state group interferred. Regardless, this case comes down to the fact that there is a religious symbol on public property.
If the crosses are allowed to stay, this becomes a slippery slope. The establishment clause helps protect minority religious groups from being subjected to majority opinions. In this case, it appears that the government in the city is supporting religions of the cross, disregarding other faiths. Interestingly, in American Legion v. The American Humanist Association, the Supreme Court recently ruled that a cross in a memorial park honoring veterans in Bladensburg, Maryland, was not considered an establishment of religion. In this case, the Park and Planning sector of the government even paid for repairs to the cross. The court argued that the cross passed the Lemon test, not advancing, inhibiting, or endorsing religion because it has a historical importance. The difference here is that the cross was part of a memorial, instead of just a plot of public land on a hilltop. If the government allows these crosses, they can start allowing more religious symbols or religious messages to be passed around in an unconstitutional manner. I think it is unconstitutional to allow for such a blatantly religious symbol to be allowed to sit on public property in view of an entire town.
Sources:
https://www.wate.com/news/organization-calls-for-removal-of-elizabethton-crosses/
https://www.wkrn.com/news/tennessee-news/protestors-gather-in-support-of-elizabethton-crosses/
https://www.britannica.com/event/Stone-v-Graham
6 comments:
While I do not personally see the harm in these crosses, I agree with Katie in that these crosses are an establishment of religion. Additionally, I do not believe that they have a secular purpose. When considering the historical context of these three crosses, they were created and used for religious purposes. Katie talks about how they have become an ‘example of deep faith in the community in Carter County.’ This assertion makes it clear to me that they do not have a secular purpose. Despite these crosses being an establishment of religion, I do not think there is compelling state interest to take action because they pose no danger or harm.The members of the town have not expressed any concern, nor is there any mention of minority religious beliefs being threatened. Overall, I do not believe these crosses may be argued as secular because they were created to support the Christina faith, but I do not think there is reason to take them down unless more in-state residents express concern.
I agree with Emily's points. Although I see the value of societal cohesion imposed the crosses, there does not exist a secular purpose for such. They are not a monument honoring the war nor the lives lost, but rather a remainder of religious practice used during a historical event. Furthermore, these crosses are placed upon public land, thereby endangering the Establishment Clause. As, the crosses are clearly indicative of a Christian faith. So, there is certainly a lack of neutrality in this sense. However, like Emily, I do not see the necessity for their removal due to the only complaint being individuals out of the area. That being said, I do believe that this violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
I wholly disagree with Emily and the other commenters. Crosses are often used as a symbol of peace, and hope. Even though it is derived from the Christian faith, the crucifix can be seen all across the United States on state and federal-owned property, primarily used as memorials and tombstones for fallen soldiers at Arlington and other notable cemeteries. So my question is should those soldiers' graves be removed? Should we remove the WWI Muse-Argon Offensive Monument (giant granite cross) in our nation's capital of which tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers died to liberate from the German Empire? Further, as long as those crosses are used as monuments rather than being used as a tool for recruiting for the Christian faith, there is no "establishment" because a monument alone doesn't reasonably articulate the establishments of the tenants of religion just by using said religion's symbolism. Also, depending on the values of the society of the time, the erecting of a monument should be respected for its cultural and historic value. Likewise, to use a hypothetical, say that the pyramids of Giza were constructed on state property only 100 years ago. We know the pyramids of Giza were originally constructed for pagan religious purposes, yet we respect their construction as a monumental feat of engineering, and we value them for their cultural significance. So regardless of the monument's religious symbolism, the fact that it has historical and cultural value, it should be allowed to stand.
I agree with Paul in this case. I think the argument that the cross become more than a religious symbol is compelling, but I also do not see much of a difference between this case and the case involving the city of Boston refusing to allow a Christian organization to fly their flag above city hall. While this example is more of a memorial than a public forum, so long as state funds were not used to create the monument or maintain it, and state employees are in no way involved in it, I do not see crosses on state land being a violation of the Establishment Clause. So long as the government allows other religions to do the same thing, this is an example of state neutrality toward religion, not the recognition of it.
This is a very interesting and complex case. While I appreciate your perspective, I have to disagree. I do not think that having the crosses on public land constituents an establishment of religion. I agree with Paul in this case that crosses can be seen as a symbol of peace or remembrance. Additionally, this space is open to anyone in the town. There is no discrimination because it is open to people of all religions, to sit, reflect, or pray. Also, the crosses are not being paid for or maintained with taxpayer dollars. Thus, I believe there is greater public benefit in keeping the cross and that it does not create an establishment of religion.
This is a case that I see as very clear cut, the crosses should be left up and for multiple reasons. Not only have they been erected for a long period of time now, which demonstrates that it serve as no real threat to one's well-being, but they also serve a secular purpose. The crosses can be, and are often used for a secular purpose, such a honoring veterans. The use of the crosses for memorial purposes defines it as so. In addition, there was no state involvement, and no compelling state interest in removing the crosses. If the state were to require the crosses be removed, this might also allow for the state to interpret what is a compelling state interest in removing other religious figures that are no danger to the first amendment.
Post a Comment