Constitutional Law, Courts, Free Speech, Religion

Federal Judge Issues Ruling That Bloomfield City Hall Must Remove Ten Commandments Monument

Submitted by Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor

rembrandt-ten-commandmentsU.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.

99 thoughts on “Federal Judge Issues Ruling That Bloomfield City Hall Must Remove Ten Commandments Monument”

  1. Pingback: Federal judge rules that a Ten Commandments monument must be removed

  6. Annie,
    There are plenty of intelligent people in this blog; I’m more concerned with knowledge, primarily in the area of American Civics. My public education in the 60’s and 70’s didn’t do much to promote it and as we all know, nothing exists after we complete our K-12 education to emphasize its importance for good citizenship. This should be a lifelong pursuit and I’m not embarrassed to admit I’ve only been doing it for 7 years.

    I believe the constitution has enough flexibility to allow for the ebbs and flows of national passions but that passion invariably creeps into government. This is where a civically-knowledgeable and energetic electorate is supposed to go to work and we fail miserably. When competing interests play tug-of-war with the constitution we still have a way to determine the appropriateness of the actions: does it equally secure unalienable rights for every citizen? If not, then no amount of “moral” justification can make it constitutional.

  7. I saw a cartoon recently that went something like this:
    “One thing I can say about the atheists, not too many of them are blowing themselves up for science.”

  11. Annie,
    There are plenty of intelligent people in this blog; I’m more concerned with knowledge, primarily in the area of American Civics. My public education in the 60’s and 70’s didn’t do much to promote it and as we all know, nothing exists after we complete our K-12 education to emphasize its importance for good citizenship. This should be a lifelong pursuit and I’m not embarrassed to admit I’ve only been doing it for 7 years.

    I believe the constitution has enough flexibility to allow for the ebbs and flows of national passions but that passion invariably creeps into government. This is where a civically-knowledgeable and energetic electorate is supposed to go to work and we fail miserably. When competing interests play tug-of-war with the constitution we still have a way to determine the appropriateness of the actions: does they equally secure unalienable rights for every citizen? If not, then no amount of “moral” justification can make it constitutional.

    I make every effort to honor this oath; it’s as simple as that:

    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any political party, organization or individual that does not demonstrate a commitment to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

  12. isnt it amazing how they are removing any acknowledgement of GOD from society? just as its amazing that one side thinks theirs ideas and plans are better then everyone elses. what a wonderful world we live in. history based on lies, religion used to keep the masses controlled, brain washing to keep the people separated and divided so they can be conquered with no fight. and by gosh its all working out so well!!!!!

  13. These two members, of course have had their backgrounds checked and are legally in the united States of America? America was founded on religion and there is no law that you can not endorse a religion, in fact, you have a right to your own beliefs and what you do in your home. The monument was not an endorsement but was showing respect to America’s forefathers.

  15. Of course someone put the Ten Commandments on government property. Of course Judeo/Christian symbols are the only ones permitted. And of course they’re being removed. Everyone is happy. “The” Ten Commandments were put in for the very purpose of having them removed, or at least challenged, because then someone gets to “defend” the Christian God who is so unjustly being attacked.

    Some folks really get off on wrapping themselves in God’s battle cloak, and, since nobody ever really buys into the whole “War on Christmas” nonsense, they need to look for other opportunities to demonstrate their holiness.

    So the the law does what the Constitution must, the Christian Soldiers have their glory even in defeat, and no one even notices that the federal government is still secretly storing the real Arc of the Covenant hidden in an unmarked crate somewhere in a vast nondescript warehouse….

    1. fiver – I am declaring a War on Wicca. From this day forward all Wicca events are under attack from my group.

  16. Bettykath,
    No doubt JohnO is intelligent. I suspect he thinks I’m dissing his intelligence, but that isn’t the case. What I notice about him and other Constitutionalst zealots is that they seem to have a one sided take on it and when someone disagrees with their take they take it as a personal affront.

  17. If John O and the other John are one and the same, what a strange and interesting life he must have.

  18. Annie, John O sometimes has comments that I agree with that clearly identify him as a person of distinction and intelligence. The other John, well, what can I say?

  19. “Sorry John O, but you have proven time after time that you put your own “twist” onto the Consitution,”

    At least I consider it. Give it a try sometime.

    Thank you Bettykath for your input.

  20. Sorry John O, but you have proven time after time that you put your own “twist” onto the Consitution, just like some do when interpreting the Bible. The very same thing that fundamentalists and zealots do in every walk of life. I am pretty darn sure that you DO NOT KNOW more about laws and the Consitution than this Federal Judge, even though you may imagine you do.

Comments are closed.