Submitted by Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
U.S. District Court Judge James Parker of the New Mexico District ruled a monument displaying the Ten Commandments must be removed from the Bloomfield, New Mexico City Hall.
A lawsuit was filed in the district on behalf of two members of the Wicca Religion by the American Civil Liberties Union against the city. Judge Parker’s ruling stated the city had violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to United States Constitution.
In his ruling, Judge Parker wrote in part:
“…The Ten Commandments monument is government speech regulated by the Establishment Clause because the Ten Commandments monument is a permanent object located on government property and it is not part of a designated public forum open to all on equal terms…In view of the circumstances surrounding the context, history, and purpose of the Ten Commandments monument, it is clear that the City of Bloomfield has violated the Establishment Clause because its conduct in authorizing the continued display of the monument on City property had the primary or principal effect of endorsing religion.”
A statement from the ACLU read in part:
“This decision is a victory for the First Amendment’s protections against government endorsed religion,” said ACLU of New Mexico Executive Director Peter Simonson. “We firmly support the right of individuals, religious groups, and community associations to publicly display religious monuments, but the government should not be in the business of picking which sets of religious beliefs belong at city hall. We hope that the Ten Commandments monument will find a new home on private property in the city where people can continue to enjoy it.”
“Bloomfield residents come from many different religious traditions, and the government should never discriminate amongst them by lifting up one above the other,” said ACLU of New Mexico Legal Director Alexandra Freedman Smith. “Not only does this monument run afoul of the First Amendment, but it sends an exclusionary message to members of the community who do not subscribe to the particular set of religious beliefs inscribed there. The government belongs to us all, and it should not marginalize community members because of their faith.”
There have been several cases filed on similar merits such as in the Sixth District and there are more likely to come forth, likely commensurate with any newly constructed monuments. Some backers of the monuments believe that the United States was founded on such values and, alternatively, the commandments are also secular tenets benefiting a peaceful society.
For further reading:
The lawsuit’s complaint may be read HERE (pdf)
The court decision may be read HERE (pdf)
By Darren Smith
Sources:
Jurist
American Civil Liberties Union
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Squeeky, I’m certainly not asking anyone to respect Anton LeVay and Satanism, I think it’s silly. Nor am I demanding that Judeo Christian beliefs have any kind of preference, as you are.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Doesn’t the establishment clause become violated by specific statute and not by belief? The point being, we can be secure in our unalienable rights, regardless of who we elect to public office. This would mean a government comprised predominantly of Wiccans or Baptists, Muslims, Atheists, etc. should not be feared because the laws they create or enforce cannot violate the first clause.
This ruling certainly seems to use violating the first clause as a defense to violate the second.
Comment eaten about 10 :00 above. It was a good comment or I wouldn ‘t mention it twice.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@annie
You are projecting your fears onto me. I do not want a theocracy. You are a Christaphobe.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
If the purpose of a monument is to memorialize and to create a reflective atmosphere, then all religions should be given equal opportunity and space to display the tenents of their belief. To do otherwise gives the appearance of favoritism.
Shame on you Squeeky for having fixed principles.
Yes it does Annie..the STATE is the religion.
Squeeky what is blatant is your Theocratic stance on almost every issue. Sorry but our government does not have a State Religion…yet.
Hey! I want a raise, hear that DNC? Hear that Mr. president?
@paulS
Must be. On the Hobby Lobby case she could invent all kinds of reasons why the Court was wrong for “respecting religion” and now she ‘s demanding respect for Anton Lavay ‘s bullpoop. It ‘s so blatant it ‘s almost funny.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – Annie gets here talking points from the WH and if it is not on the sheet she really cannot address the issue.
Since our laws are based on Judeo-Christian laws, I have never, as an agnostic, seen a problem with the Ten Commandments, being on the lawn of the courthouse with the statues of other historical dudes or dudettes. No one really follows the darn thing any more anyway, so what is the big deal.
@annie
I do have to give you Brownie points for once again making multiple comments without addressing any of the points made or arguments raised. Are you a real person, or are you a computer program which mimics the debate process?
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Well Squeeky, I believe the Court has spoken and it didn’t say what you wanted, it reflected the Constitution.
@annie
BS, annie. You are once again reliving whatever childhood trauma you experienced in church and turning this into an outlet for your anti -Christian Crusade.
The Decalogue is PRE -CHRISTIAN. A court does not have to pretend it is no different from Lavay’s crap in this circumstance. You may wish to pretend so for your own purposes, but a court is not required to live in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, although most people would tell you it does. It appears in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist congregation that feared the central government would establish a state religion.
Squeeky, there may be huge difference in the tenets of the faiths, but they are all faiths. One can’t be endorsed by the state above the other, it’s unconstitutional, just as this ruling indicates. I know it disappointing to those who may want to make Christianity the State religion.
@annie
No, you are completely wrong. There is a difference. Your intention is to blur the diffence and destroy the value system. You, in effect, are saying there is no difference between Tennyson ‘s Lady of Shalott and one of my Irish Poems because they are both “poems. ” You are performing a shallow and sophmoric analysis.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Comment Eaten Alert! Helfen mir.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@annie
The Decalogue is pre -Christian. There is no “Paganism” in the sense of an organized set of beliefs. There was a widespread “Great Mother” belief system but it widely varied from area to area and even village to village. But even those societies had the same basic rules of the Decalogue, or they would not have been able to exist as an organized society.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky Fromm, I retrieved your comment at 10:21.