Thursday, February 17, 2022

Private Stone, Government Ground: City of Bloomfield v. Felix


In 2007, the city council of Bloomfield, New Mexico wrote out a plan that allowed private citizens to fund certain monuments to be displayed on the City Hall lawn. Kevin Mauzy, a local Bloomfield Councilor, outlined the plan and the Bloomfield council unanimously accepted it. Such monuments included the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, the Bill of Rights, and, more controversially, the Ten Commandments. Each monument would have the donors' names on it along with a short description of its significance in American history. This changed five years later, when in 2012, two Bloomfield citizens took offense to the display because of their Wiccan beliefs and sued the city over it. Their argument was that, in displaying the Ten Commandments monument, the Bloomfield government violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

    The main question at hand is this: Was the privately-funded display of the Ten Commandments monument on government grounds a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

    The federal district court that took the case eventually ruled against the city, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreeing that the Ten Commandments monument should be taken down. The case was appealed once more, however the Supreme Court declined to look at it, leaving the case at a loss for Bloomfield.

    I believe that if the Supreme Court had looked at this case, there would be many precedences in order to make a constitutionally sound decision. This is not the first time the Ten Commandments had caused controversy, as seen by the cases of McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry, both decided in the early 2000s. McCreary centered itself on three Kentucky counties in which public schools and courthouses displayed framed copies of the Ten Commandments. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that these copies were unconstitutional because of the intent of these displays, which were to advance religion. This is contrasted in part by Van Orden v. Perry. Van Orden was about a citizen suing a Texas government which had erected a monument of the Ten Commandments on government grounds. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the statue was constitutional because the Commandments were meant to convey a historical meaning rather than a religious one. Therefore, the intent of the religious symbol matters. If the intent in displaying it is to advance religion, then it is unconstitutional. 

    Ergo, Van Orden confirmed that the government may put up potentially religious monuments of historical importance on government property. What about Bloomfield? Through private donations, is this monument constitutionally viable to exist on government ground? To answer this question, I refer back to precedence. The case County of Alleghenty v. ACLU, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter concerned itself with two publicly-funded displays, one Jewish and one Christian. The justices ruled that the Christian display was unconstitutional on government grounds because of the words "Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ," on it. Meanwhile, the Jewish display was ruled constitutional because it did not encourage any form of worship. Rather, it was a passive symbol. This case is important because the ruling establishes that forms of religion are allowed on government ground, but only as passive objects. Although the difference in funding is clear, the main role of the monument itself is not.

    With these rulings adjacent to the issue, I believe there is enough to functionally figure out the issue itself. The questions I want to pose are this: while the government's intent is to beautify the city, is the Ten Commandments monument a passive or active object of religion?

    My answer to this question is that if the Supreme Court chose to review this case, they would rule that the intent of this is historical importance, and that this is a passive object of religion, and thus the monument would be allowed to stay up. The Establishment Clause is not being violated because, in this case, the Ten Commandments are being used in a historical context. However, rest of you may reach a different conclusion on this matter. I say this answer because of the inscriptions on the pieces, which reflect the donors' names along with a short paragraph of its significance in American history. If a reasonable onlooker saw this monument among the other well-known documents of the United States, and read the small inscription that told of the historical significance it had, then it would be a natural conclusion for the onlooker to make that these Commandments are there for a historical reason, not a religious one. 

6 comments:

  1. I agree with your analysis and the intimate decision of the court. I believe the reasoning behind not hearing this specific case is because the matter had already been settled through the previous court cases as you previously mentioned. The Ten Commandments are practically the foundation of all Western civilization's legal code. And the commandments don't necessarily support the foundation of any religion in particular, even though it comes from the Jewish and later the Christian faiths. The commandments are wholly neutral and secular, teaching natural human rules for living a good life. Further, the state has obviously remained neutral by allowing more than just Christian monuments through having a Jewish monument and taking down a Christian one that held a message of praise to their specific God. Also, these monuments serve as historical testaments to the evolution of law in the western world, which serves a public interest of informing the populace as to how far and where we have come from as a civilization.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do not believe that the Ten Commandments monument was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for multiple reasons. To begin, this monument is privately funded, which means that the government is not involved in any financial way. While we have seen issues relating to government funded establishment of religion, that is not the case here. In fact, Max states that each monument includes the name of the doner and a brief paragraph relating to its historic significance. In addition to this, the Ten Commandments were being presented with other founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Gettysburg Address). The Ten Commandments were not being displayed single-handedly. For this reason, I believe this monument is strictly being used to convey historic meaning. If this monument was displayed alone, I would argue differently. It is also important to note that God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but that does not make this an establishment of religion. While the Ten Commandments may differentiate itself from these other historic documents because it is spoken by God, there is no coercion or forced adherence to these commandments. Rather, the display is meant to retell history. Any passerby can ignore the sentiments from this document. For all of these reasons, I believe that the privately funded monument of the Ten Commandments does not violate the Establishment Clause.

    ReplyDelete
  3. While I understand that the monument was privately funded and it is a passive object of religion, but I also believe that in the context of the other monuments that were put up, this does constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause. The 10 commandments is a specifically religious object and although many western laws are based on the ten commandments, I believe this still is an example of the state establishing a religion. To show the 10 commandments in the same place as things such as the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights makes it seem as if the 10 commandments are part of the state which violates the separation of church and state.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree that the private funding of the Ten Commandment statue does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The statue is privately funded and includes a blurb about the historical significance of the document. For this reason, the government is enabling citizens to exercise free speech on a public forum. I also agree with Emily's point about the reference to God in the Declaration of Independence (which does not qualify as an establishment of religion). I think that the Ten Commandments are not unjustifiably placed. As with the Bill of Rights, these are moral codes which informed our laws. I do not believe the statue places a burden on the Establishment Clause. Both documents have historical and religious references that lead back to the founding of the nation. Hence, there is a secular purpose in this statue.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree that this monument does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. While it is complicated because it is clearly a religious symbol on government property, your analysis is convincing in the way that it is historically significant. Additionally, the prior court cases you used as support were helpful, as they prove that prior precedent has established that religious symbols are allowed in certain cases. Finally, I think it is extremely important that the funding is through private donors, not the government, and the name is clearly displayed. Overall, your research is useful in conveying a strong argument.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In this case, I agree with Max in saying that by displaying the Ten Commandments on this ground, no one is promoting the religion and is just simply promoting a historical context. The slippery slopes here lies is what is the definition of "promoting a religion". I can see why someone who disagrees with Christianity could become offended and view the display of the Ten Commandments unconstitutional because it is displayed on a government ground. This is where it is important to look into the fine print and see that this was on a private ground rather than a public one and also the historical context is located on the display.

    ReplyDelete