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.
The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause
The Ten Commandments in a government building is an action that unduly favors one religion over all others.
bettykath – the Ten Commandments works for two religions, not one. So it would be establishing two religions over others, but I do not think it is doing that given the order in the case.
Well, here is an excerpt from the Memorandum and Order:
V. Conclusion
As noted in the proem, the Court considers this to be a very close case. The result could differ with a slight change in the facts. For example, had the Ten Commandments monument been established last in the series of monuments, after placement of the Declaration of Independence, Gettysburg Address, and Bill of Rights monuments, the First Amendment may not have been offended. Had the Ten Commandments monument been arranged at the rear of the
north lawn near the municipal building complex, with the other three monuments (consisting of six tablets) in front of it, the Ten Commandments monument may have passed muster. Had the Ten Commandments monument been installed without a dedication event or with a ceremony absent religious overtones, the ultimate conclusion may have differed. Had the City of
Bloomfield adopted the amended policy permitting monuments first, with language clearly allowing only temporary residence of a monument, the result might have changed. Any variation in the many factors in this proceeding could favor the Defendant instead of the Plaintiffs. Nevertheless, the Court decides that the legal precedent, by which it is constrained, mandates a
ruling that the Bloomfield Ten Commandments monument violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Right or wrong, the Judge followed precedent for the Circuit, but this is way too much over-analysis and nit picking in my opinion. If there is nothing inherently wrong with the 10 Commandments, then WTF difference does it make in what order it was erected???
Sadly, this is the kind of crap Courts now have to deal with.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
squeeky – I have to agree with you on the nitpicking of the order.
That cannot possibly be the extent of your constitutional curiosity, really? “The Federal Judge probably knows far more about the nuts and bolts of the Constitution than you do.” Duh! My doctor knows more about medicine, my auto mechanic knows more about cars and my accountant knows more about taxes. My job is to make informed decisions when I pick these people to represent my interests and not simply assume “they are the experts” and therefore infallible.
As to your claim I “lure people into debates about the Constitution”; well, this is what I consider a legal blog, go figure. I can go to any number of blogs extolling the virtues of progressivism (both R and D) but when I participate in a legal forum I expect to find people capable of supporting and defending the constitution. If you can’t; if you rely on credentials to rule your world then I’m afraid I have previously given you too much credit.
Charlie, it’s the lack of critical thinking that poisons.
Religion poisons everything.
JohnO, what you ‘do’ here is lure people into debates about the Constitution, then you continue on to argue ad infinitum the Consitution as YOU interpret it. The Federal Judge probably knows far more about the nuts and bolts of the Constitution than you do. My observation about you is this, you present yourself as some sort of ‘Constitutional Preacher’, displaying an almost religious zeal about it and that you are probably an extremist not worth engaging. The Federal Judge got it right, YOU got it wrong.
@JohnOliver
The Irish Poem is not really a good format for this, but you asked for it. But it’s a deep one with some word play.
Free Codex? Noh Way!
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
There once was a guy named Laozi (pronounced lau za)
“Holy Shite!” he now says, and “Un uh!”
“The Decalogue lay
Firmly in The Way”
“Like Confucious and Solon did, DUH!”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
It’s okay Annie. The difference between you and I is that I participate to learn. If you or Dredd or MA or JT or Squeeky, etc. can make a reasoned and logical argument that both supports the constitution AND does not infringe unalienable rights then I will support it. I have much to learn and that’s precisely what we should expect from these interactions.
You on the other hand have proven neither the capacity nor the courage to test your beliefs with the intent to improve yourself or society. That sort of willful ignorance is unconscionable and deserving of the tyranny it inspires. You might accept that fate but I do not.
See? LOL. I knew it.
Hey look, Annie is finally answering the…Oops, guess not. Thanks again Paulette.
Thank you Paulette. As I understand the intent of the clause; it is to secure the People from a government using the Law to establish a State religion or belief. This would not limit the public officials from the free exercise of their beliefs; they just wouldn’t be allowed to impose those beliefs through statute.
This is why taking an oath on the Bible, prayer and displays of religion should not be feared. We are protected by the first amendment from those beliefs becoming an act of law.
This is why IMO, a monument doesn’t rise to the level of violating the first clause. Where it becomes problematic is when other beliefs want equal representation and are not allowed.
Did he say Ten Commandments?
Thou Shalt Not Covet.
The BASIS of the welfare state is the fact that America’s parasites COVET.
If beneficiaries of welfare, food stamps, affirmative action, rent control, forced busing, etc., etc., ad nauseam, ad infinitum, SHALT NOT AND DID NOT COVET there would be no concept of welfare and redistribution. Self reliance would prevail and “what you have is enough.”
Imagine America without welfare, affirmative action, public school/college, HHS, HUD, Dept. Education and Labor, IRS, social services, etc.
Imagine America without 2 million + parasitic governmental workers, welfare recipients, rent control beneficiaries and affirmative action parasites.
Imagine freedom.
Let’s check with those dastardly American Founders.
Naw. They didn’t want no freedom ’round heah!
http://judgepedia.org/James_Parker
Before someone claims he’s a partisan Judge.
Does JohnO know the answer to his question HIMSELF? Or was the question an attempt to draw commenters into a debate about the nuts and bolts of the Constitution? I suspect John feels he is an expert and can make his point for allowing preference of a certain religion. I trust the Federal judge’s decision over one that John puts forth.
John, sorry but PR falls under my purview not law. However, here is the conclusion from an article entitled: The Ten Commandments Controversy:
A First Amendment Perspective http://archive.adl.org/10comm/print.html
“Opposition to state-sponsored posting of the Ten Commandments does not arise out of hostility to the timeless values conveyed in Exodus 20:1-17. Rather, it arises out of a profound respect for the diversity of religions in America today — those that embrace Biblical law and those that derive their ethics and values from other texts. By adhering to the principle and spirit of separation of church and state we best fulfill the Constitution’s legacy of religious liberty for all Americans.”
Dredd, can you answer John’s question re: specific statute vs belief?
Paulette, apparently Annie cannot answer the question I asked so perhaps you can give it a go. Here’s the question, again:
“Doesn’t the establishment clause become violated by specific statute and not by belief?”
Actually, anyone can answer.
Squeeky,
I was half-expecting one of your poems for this thread.
@annie
Sooo, it ‘s ok to historically commemorate when Rosa Parks refused to change seats on a bus, but not commemorate when the human race wrote down a set of rules, most of which are necessary preconditions of civilization. And the basis for this is your belief that we should also have to commemorate Anton Lavay ‘s silly nonsense.
You are just making up stuff to justify your personal beliefs. What sucks is that a federal judge fell this nonsense. I hope this decision is appealed.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
*tap* *tap* *tap*; is this thing still on?
Annie,
From my last post: “Doesn’t the establishment clause become violated by specific statute and not by belief?”