Yes.
No.
No.
Correct.
This topic is a sore point for me, because it’s so obviously, blatantly done with no regard for the Constitution. It happens often; most recently and memorably (IMO) to a small religious group called Summum in Utah.
Here’s the thread about the initial court case filed in 2008.
And here’s the thread about the 2009 SCOTUS decision saying that yes, the city of Pleasant Grove, UT can deny Summum’s request to erect a statue in a park that already houses other religious statues.
A lot of Protestants don’t believe in that sort of thing, perhaps because they take the Ten Commandments fairly literally.
It seems that Summum has filed another lawsuit in late 2011, basically seeking the same thing they were denied in 2009. Are you ready for the argument that the ACLJ will use to try and deny? It’s the same reasoning that Justice Alito used in writing the majority opinion the SCOTUS used in 2009: [
](http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20090305.html)
Here’s the ACLJ attorney:
[
That 10 Commandments monument was put up in 1971, so much later than the Jesus statue in Montana. I gather that the argument Summum is trying this time is different than the public forum argument they made in 2009, but I doubt it will have a different result.
I’d sure love to see someone try and get a Flying Spaghetti Monster monument erected on public land tho. The court case would be hilarious and saddening at the same time, but it’s entertainment value might be worth it as we could watch a lot of people tie themselves in knots trying to explain why it shouldn’t be allowed.
That’s essentially the same argument that Justice Samuel Alito offered in his opinion for the high court in 2009.
I am reminded from past study of the Austin case. The court ruled a Christian cross on the city seal passed the Lemon test. The cross was more of a “historical” symbol than religious.
http://openjurist.org/947/f2d/147/murray-v-city-of-austin-texas
As a side note, in the Supreme Court chambers itself is a frieze of the 10 commandments along with other “historical” moments of the “Law givers” over time.
It’s not at all clear if this was really originally a “war memorial”:
I really think the “Oh, it’s a war memorial!” dodge is more insulting than if these people would just say “Yeah, it’s a big old cross/Statue of Jesus which is obviously a monument to Christianity, but gosh, it’s been up there since those dim and misty days of yore–er, 1955–so it has ‘historical significance’.”
The war memorial thing though, is basically saying “As a memorial to all the American servicemen who fought and bled and died defending our freedom in World War II–Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and atheists alike–here is a big old statue of Jesus! Thanks, Corporal Solomon!”
As noted, it belongs to the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization.
It would be more accurate to say that the Supreme Court chambers includes a representation of Moses, along with Menes (legendary first king of Egypt), Hammurabi (credited with one of the earliest known legal codes), Solomon (also from the Old Testament, and famous as a judge), Lycurgus of Sparta (credited with reforming the Spartan constitution), Solon and Draco of Athens (both famous lawgivers), Confucius, Octavian Caesar AKA as the Emperor Augustus, the Emperor Justinian (who ordered a major codification of Roman Law), Muhammad (for Sharia Law–nobody tell the Oklahoma Lege!), the Emperor Charlemagne, King John of England (on account of the Magna Carta), King Louis IX of France (a canonized Christian saint, credited with creating the first court of appeals), Hugo Grotius (Dutch legal scholar), Sir William Blackstone (famous English professor of law), John Marshall (a Chief Justice of the United States, author of Marbury v. Madison), and the Emperor Napoleon of France (for the Napoleonic Code), the obvious theme being “great lawgivers of history” (including some more-or-less legendary guys), and including members of various pagan traditions (Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans), Jews, Christians, a Muslim, and a Chinese guy.
The exterior of the Supreme Court Building also includes a representation of Moses, Confucius, and Solon, representing lawgivers from “three great civilizations” (ancient Israel, ancient China, and ancient Greece).
(More info on the Supreme Court building can be found here.)
There’s great benefit to a system that protects people’s basic rights, but no basic rights are at issue in this case. The existence of a statue does not violate anyone’s basic rights. If you can find any passage in the Constitution that says “All individuals shall have the right to destroy any statue which they do not like” (or words to that effect) then I will agree that you have a basic right to destroy this statue, but otherwise I will not.
It’s not equivalent because you by yourself do not constitute a democratic majority.
See above.
Look, people, it’s not ITR champion’s fault that none of you can read. It’s all right there in the text: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion unless a democratic majority says it’s alright.”
The relevance of this escapes me. Would it be illegal to put up a statue with a Jewish theme under these circumstances? Jews are certainly not a majority of the U.S. population, even though their faith predates Christianity by centuries and is arguably its wellspring.
Really? That seems like crediting Kaiser Wilhelm for the Treaty of Versailles.
The Constitution does not say that, nor have I ever claimed that it does. What I’ve claimed is that the Constitution says nothing at all about statues, and therefore a statue is not a violation of the Constitution. Needless to say, a statue is not an establishment of religion.
No, it would not.
(As a side note, if the federal government did decide that all memorials with religious symbols or significance on any government property needed to be destroyed, that would require many Holocaust memorials to be destroyed, because many of them contain Jewish symbols. Luckily, the ACLU and other anti-free-speech groups haven’t demanded that those be destroyed. Yet.)
I was thinking more of this one.
So the number of worshipers isn’t important? So a flying spaghetti monster statue is legal?
Thanks for the link, but I have toured the SC building on my many trips to DC.
I even sat in on an oral argument in 1975 and saw some greats of the court including Thurgood Marshall, William Rhenquist, William O. Douglas and CJ Warren Burger and even Harry Blackmun.
Former President and Ohioian William Howard Taft, afer his service as CJ, was instrumental in getting the Court it’s own building.
For what it’s worth, when I’m not not collecting stamps, I spend a lot of time installing invisible pink uniform statues on government property all over the place. If you want them to become visible to you, you have to chant the name Dawkins three times (non-blessed be he) and your eyes will evolve to see the right wavelengths.
Since the Establishment Clause applies to the states, even state courts can decide what object/action violates it.
The Constitution is SILENT on acts/words and objects that could trigger the EC, that is one function of Article 3 and inferior court’s to determine.
Outside the question of religion, I am curious how an organization gets a free “lease” on government land for what appears to be over 55 years. If they actually rented it out to the KoC for a fair price and they wanted to erect a statue, I wouldn’t see a problem.
Are we having a failure of communication here? I’ve taken the position, throughout this thread and others, that the First Amendment protects freedom of religion and expression and speech throughout the United States of America. I have never deviated from that position. On private property, the private individual makes decisions such as what statues to erect. On public property, such decisions are made democratically. I am opposed to all attempts by the ACLU and other anti-free-speech groups who demand that the First Amendment be interpreted as a call for censorship on both private and public property. Is my position difficult to understand?
Well, it’s that you muddy the waters when you say things like “It’s not equivalent because you by yourself do not constitute a democratic majority.”
What does “democratic majority” have to do with this issue at all? Is a possible future where Christians no longer comprise a majority of the U.S. population relevant?
Besides, are you claiming that this specific issue was decided “democratically”? Did the Federal Government put the issue to a vote before leasing out the small parcel of land?
They dreamed him up.
