Not until I heard the story today of the issue in my little town on NPR did I consider this matter worthy of a thread, much less the pit.
Hanover, PA dates back to the early 1800s, and at some time the Fraternal Order of Eagles donated a stone monument bearing the 10 Commandments to the Borough, said piece being placed in Wirt Park.
Along come the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. They complain that it’s there, that the Borough is supporting religious views. The piece of stone isn’t bothering anyone. Except them.
Other than Borough workers trimming around it, how is the physical presence supported by the Borough? Perhaps the Borough has non-Christian employees to which the stone is a stone, nothing more. Taxpayer money wasn’t spent to create it or place it, and if the nosy coalition wants to say it bears a cost of maintenance, I’d like them to demonstrate how it does so. :bite-me smiley:
Courts have consistently found that maintaining Ten Commandments monuments on public property violates the Establishment Clause. I find it hard to believe that there are too many municipalities around whose corporate counsels are not aware of this. Whether there is a financial aspect to the establishment is irrelevant.
When I read the Constitution I see the word “Congress”, not any “Any governmetal or publicly funded agency or private organization that may want to deal with any level of the government”.
The problem with Seperation folk is that they have taken a very simple edict and layered upon it a set of precedent and decisions that that have rendered the original text and intent irrelevant.
To me its like a set of legal “rumors”. Each court takes the previous court’s decision and adds their own little piece. Just a little. Before you know it the original message is lost.
Then the next thing you know the Boy Scouts can’t pick up trash in a city park and teachers can’t wear crosses (even though the Free Excercise clause CLEARLY gives them the right).
The sad fact is that there are some who are so arrogant in their mind and worldview that the mere notion of God offends them to the point that they would deny the vast majority of the simple right to even acknowledge God as the Founders of this country did:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
One of the interesting things about situations like this is that small towns sometimes make their decision on the issue by looking at the cost to the town of a protracted lawsuit. So the decision is made not based on anything other than potential cost.
The linked article does indeed concentrate on sunshine law issues. If the local paper had a linkable database, I would be happy to provide more in the way of cites, but you’ll just have to take my word for it.
When the first beef was raised, the Borough looked for an alternative home for the marker. That plan didn’t come to fruition.
The latest idea was to sell a 15 x 15 plot of ground from the park, including the monument, to a nonprofit who would see to the care and maintenance. That wasn’t sufficient for the nosybastards, according to the NPR article I heard today.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
Religion in the Public Schools
Religious Symbols on Public Property
Vouchers / Religious School Funding
Judicial Nominations
‘Faith-Based’ Initiatives / Taxpayer Funded Religious Discrimination
Not exactly, especially in cases where the monument is part of an historic property. We don’t tear down state owned historic churches just because they have a cross on the side. The park, which seems to have included the monument, was given to the borough in 1890.
I’m not familiar with Hanover. Danceswithcats, why don’t they just declare it historic and be done with it?
I hope you understand that I’m hesitant to take the word of Would-be Legal Scholars on the Internet over the word of experienced state, federal, and Supreme Court judges.
I mean, I realize being Some Dude on the Internet gives you a certain amount of pull, but I gotta go with the lawyers on this one.
The Constitution also says “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech”. If we construed the First Amendment as narrowly as you want to do for Establishment Clause purposes, we’d also have to do the same for the rest of the First Amendment.
The consequence of overturning that precedent would mean that a local police officer could arrest you for being a Christian and the Federal Constitution would be powerless to help you. After all, only CONGRESS is prohibited from prohibiting free exercise of religion, right? See where this is going?
What? The Free Speech right is only really lessened in those situations where exercice of the right endangers others’ right to Peace (hate speach, yelling “Fire” in a crowded theatre) and when the speech is patently false (lying, libel, slander, etc). A strict reading to overturn those precedents would in NO way lead to cops hauling Christians to jail, no matter how much you would like them to.
Besides, the 14th amendment:
Sorry, but once again a contrived extremist interpretion is rendered trivial by actually READING THE CONSTITUTION.
Amazing, JamesCarroll, that you mention the 14th Amendment without realizing its significance. The First Amendment is incorporated in its entirety into the Fourteenth, via the Equal Protection clause; thus, the Establishment clause definitely restricts local governments as thoroughly as it does Congress – just as the Speech clause does. NO government in the U.S. may establish – by law, executive act, or symbolic gesture – religion. Installing a monument or maintaining a recently (and yes, 1890 is RECENT) installed monument with the ten commandments on it is a statement by that government that it approves of those commandments.
Now, I agree with the ones about murder, theft, and perjury, but I’m not so crazy about that first one: “I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no other gods before me.” I don’t recognize the existence of this creature, and I don’t appreciate a local park trying to cram it down my throat. I also don’t appreciate the implication that “god said so” is the basis for outlawing murder, theft, and perjury – I happen to believe that we have reasons more sound than that. Now, I doubt that I would have gone to any trouble to try to get the monument removed, but that’s not because I don’t think it should be removed; it’s because I doubt my chances of success (and because I’m a lazy bastard who’d rather do his civics work at the ballot box).
Why is this argument always based on Christian values? Every Bible I’ve seen has them in the Old Testament. This would mean it’s also in the Jewish faith. So is the problem with Jews or Christians? I’ve seen Ten Commandment monuments in public squares, but not one has promoted either religion.
Maybe it’s a reminder that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Sorry to spew the truth, just the way it is.
Oh, and many scholars argue the church-state clause was that the Feds couldn’t declare an official religion. Not that religion is disallowed in all public matters. back to the US currency language
I feel it prudent to point out the term “creator”, not God. This could be the 8 legged creature called Serpitus that created the earth. Odd how you automatically equate it to the God of the Ten Commandments. The point of this statement by the founders of the U.S. was not about a religion or a particular God, it was the fact that men were endowed with a certain, shall we call it sentient, spark. This allowed them to create the very philosophy that inspired the creators of our country.
Besides that, even if you disagree with my POV, I wonder, since the “founding fathers” only mentioned men, do I take it that one should implicitly accept a patriarchy and that women are not endowed with the same rights?
If you say that the fore-fathers included women, or that we should, then I must assert that the fore-fathers included Serpitus, or we should. Henceforth, the Ten Commandments should only be allowed on public property if the Loyal Order of Serpitus can donate the 15 requisites of serpetine law to be posted in a public place.
Disclaimer: Any reference to an actual religion that worships an eight legged creator called Serpitus is purely accidental.
Thank you so much for once again demonstrating the indifference, or worse, contempt, many of the majority show for the minority.
Since you claim to read the Constitution, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you understand that that document is so crafted (and continues to be interpreted) for the purpose of protecting the rights of all. Not just theists. Not just atheists. Everyone.
Just to point out, 1890 is recent with regards to something in Europe, but not in the US. Our local library was built in 1901 and it is on the National Register of Historic Buildings. A park established 10 years before that can probably qualify for historic.
Not sure. I’ll do my best to check with the locals and obtain better insight over the weekend. My friends at the firehouse can see the monument from the watch desk at Wirt Park Station.