|
Speak Out
When do religious symbols on public land violate the First Amendment?
By John Vettese, Student Voices staff writer
The Bill of Rights protects against government endorsement of religion. It’s actually the first words of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
When people say “separation of church and state,” that sentence is one of the things they’re talking about. Referred to as the establishment clause, it is often found at the center of Supreme Court debates over issues like sculptures of the Ten Commandments in town squares or crosses on public land.
The latter was discussed by the court this week – or rather, it was not discussed, as the justices announced they would not be taking up two cases involving memorial crosses along the highway in Utah. Their 8-1 decision to decline the case upholds the 2010 ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said that the crosses amounted to state endorsement of religion and had to be either removed or dismantled.
The case centered on 14 white crosses along various stretches of the state highway system in Utah. Each 12-foot cross was erected near a location where a Highway Patrol trooper had been killed, and included the officer’s name, rank, badge number, year of death, a photograph, a brief biography, and the Highway Patrol’s official logo. Officials told the court that the crosses were meant to symbolize “death, honor, remembrance, gratitude, sacrifice, and safety.” The memorials were donated by a private organization, and the state had no say in which memorial symbol would be used – in each case, the cross was selected by the officer’s family.
The state was sued by the Utah chapter of American Atheists, who said the crosses amounted to a state endorsement of religion. Utah officials said the cross is a “recognized symbol of death,” not an endorsement of Christianity. A federal district court agreed with the state, but a 10th Circuit appeals court panel unanimously reversed the decision.
Senior Circuit Judge David Ebel called the cross “the preeminent symbol of Christianity” and wrote: “This may lead the reasonable observer to fear that Christians are likely to receive preferential treatment from the Utah Highway Patrol – both in their hiring practices and, more general, in the treatment that people may expect to receive on Utah’s highways.
“We agree that a reasonable observer would recognize these memorial crosses as symbols of death,” Ebel continued. “However, we do not agree that this nullifies their religious sectarian content because a memorial cross is not a generic symbol of death; it is a Christian symbol of death that signifies or memorializes the death of a Christian.”
When the case was appealed to the Supreme Court this fall, eight of the nine justices decided not to review the appeals ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter, writing, “Today, the court rejects an opportunity to provide clarity to an establishment clause jurisprudence in shambles.”
In other words, the court has been inconsistent in its rulings on religious monuments on public sites, and Thomas said the justices dropped the ball in clearing up the matter. Thomas pointed to two Ten Commandments cases – in a Texas case, the monument was permitted to stand because it was on land surrounded by other monuments, which made it more historic than religious; in the other case, a Kentucky courthouse had to take down its display because the justices decided it sent a clearly religious message.
Because of this, Thomas wrote, the constitutionality of religious symbols on public land is “anyone’s guess.”
What do you think?
When do religious symbols on public land violate the First Amendment? Do you think Utah’s highway crosses imply a state endorsement of religion? Does the Supreme Court need to clarify its stand on religious symbols on public property? Were the justices right in rejecting the case? Why or why not? Join the discussion!
|
Join the Discussion
|