Federal Judge Deborah Batts ruled that the object –
two steel beams in the shape of a cross that survived the collapse of the World
Trade Center on 9/11 – may be displayed in the memorial museum without
violating the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. (American Atheists,
Inc. v. Port Authority of NY and NJ).
The court acknowledged that many Americans see these
steel beams as a symbol of religious hope and meaning.
After all, during the recovery at the site, worship
services were held in front of the cross. And in 2011, when it was moved back
to Ground Zero from the grounds of a nearby church where it had been
temporarily housed, a priest led a ceremonial blessing of the cross.
But for First Amendment purposes, it doesn’t matter
how many citizens see the cross as the Cross. What counts constitutionally is
how the government uses the object.
As Judge Batts explained in her decision, a
“reasonable observer” would understand that the cross is part of an historical
exhibit in a memorial museum that includes hundreds of secular artifacts. In
that context, viewers are highly unlikely to see the cross-shaped beams as
government endorsement of Christianity.
American Atheists calls this ruling an “injustice”
and vows to appeal.
At issue in this case – and in the growing number of
cases challenging all religious symbols in public spaces – are two very
different views of “separation of church and state.”
Judge Batts, correctly in my view, holds that the
First Amendment separates church from state, but not religion from public life.
In other words, the Establishment clause prohibits
the government from setting up a religious shine at Ground Zero, but does not
bar a publicly supported memorial museum from including religious objects or
images that inspired recovery workers, victims’ families, and the general
public.
By contrast, American Atheists advocates an
“absolute separation of church and state,” which would appear to call for a
society in which public spaces are entirely religion-free zones.
But “separation” taken this far is no friend of
religious liberty.
For James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and other early
supporters of church-state separation, authentic religious liberty requires
that government remain neutral toward religion while simultaneously upholding
the right of religious people and institutions to participate fully in the
public square of America.
Ignoring the role of religion – in this case by
excluding an artifact with religious significance from a publicly financed
museum – is hardly “neutral.” On the contrary, such exclusion sends a message
of government hostility to the religious.
The First Amendment does not guarantee atheists or
anyone else “freedom from religion.” Frequent exposure to religious symbols and
messages is inevitable in our religiously diverse society.
The First Amendment does, however, guarantee
“freedom from government -imposed religion” – a core condition of liberty of
conscience.
Including the “Ground Zero Cross” in the 9/11
Memorial Museum acknowledges the religious meaning of that tragic day for
millions of Americans – without in any way creating a state establishment of
religion.
About the author: Charles C. Haynes is director of
the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W., Washington, D.C., 20001. Web: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/.
E-mail: chaynes[at]freedomforum.org.
This article was published by the First Amendment
Center.
No comments:
Post a Comment