The Freedom From Religion Foundation's letters to Mayor Bill Castle and the City Manager/Oshkosh Common Council can be found here and here. Yesterday the Northwestern had a story about 86-year-old Jean Gams, the Oshkosh citizen who first contacted the FFRF about the statue.
Neither the Mayor, City Manager, or any Council member communicated to the public at the last council meeting that there was any opposition to the statue from within Oshkosh, even though the FFRF's letters are clearly written "On behalf of our Oshkosh membership and complainants." Anyone who attended the last council meeting or even watched it on television would come to the conclusion that the opposition was coming merely from the Madison-based person who wrote the letter to the Mayor. I attended the last council meeting and that's the conclusion I came to.
Anyone who has been reading this blog knows that I am approaching the angel statue issue in two ways: (1) trying to understand the constitutional issue of religious symbols and public space and (2) what this event says about leadership and government processes in the city of Oshkosh. #1 can hopefully be resolved without a lengthy, expensive, divisive court battle. #2 will have to be resolved at the ballot box in the next few election cycles.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I have read through and followed your discussion on this topic. I am by no means an expert at First Amendment law. I am familiar with the legal debate and agree with the general proposition that the if the city were to erect a purely religious icon on public lands, the legal precedents would appear to support the FFRF supporters position (and require the city to spend literally tens of thousands of dollars to defend).
And, those who cite the constituion (the language "or prohbiting the free exercise of" inregards to religion)either forget that the courts interpret the consitution (and have interpreted it very broadly in regards to religious freedoms) or simply glom onto a word or phrase (like the "right to keep and bear arms" and ignore the preface words of "A well regulated militia...").
As I indicated earlier, I wish I were more of an "expert" inthis field of law, but I am not. With that said, I am stuck on the first part of the Amendment to the US Constitution which states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...(I will ignore the "Congress shall" language since it is clear from the Constitiution that the Amendments apply equally to all levels of government). How is an angel effectively supporting the establishment of a religion. I can see where a statue of Jesus certainly appears to support the establishment of Christianity, DAvid would support Judaism, Buddha, Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, etc...But an angel? Is angel not unlike "Kleenix". Kleenix was a brand, but due to the nature of the product, it morphed into a descriptive word for a disposable hanky. Cola is the same thing. We have a "City of Angels" (Los Angeles), girls are named Angel, we call little babies "our angels". No particular religion lays sole claim to the use of angels in their religion (as you and other posters have noted).
While I agree that a more traditional religious icon (or the ten commandments, for example) would clearly violate the separation of church and state as that is interpreted by the courts; but, could this be different? It's too bad we could not simply resolve this question without having to spend tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars... I'm certainly not ready to spend $100,000 to answer that question, and I hope the city agrees. Nevertherless, I enjoy the debate!
There have been great arguments over the divestment of meaning of “angel” over the past few weeks in this blog, and while I feel it is clear that the connotation of the word has changed over time, there is definitely a lot of gray area involved.
A quick Google search reveals television shows, movies, bands, and business names among the links on the first page. Mark listed some other instances where we use the word as part of our secular vernacular. However, it’s difficult to make the case that calling the statue a “Christmas Box Angel” isn’t endorsing a particular religion. Furthermore, as an atheist, I do find religious meaning in the word “angel” and, like Jodi, don’t feel that those who are religious should be telling others how they should feel.
What is clear in this case is that the Advisory Park Board and the Oshkosh Common Council dropped the ball in a big way. It shouldn’t have been out the realm of possibility for anyone that this statue could end up in the courts. These kinds of issues have been in the national spotlight for some time now and shouldn’t be sneaking up on anyone.
Mark,
Thanks for participating in the blog!
Because of the "Congress shall" language in the First Amendment, the amendment had little legal force in states and municipalities from 1789-1925. During that time period states and local municipalities would engage in blatant violations of free speech, yet because their doing so had not been the result of a federal law, Courts would throw out the cases. Judges would argue that the First Amendment only says that the feds can't censor your speech or force a religion on you--the states can do anything unless their own Constitutions prevent it.
Then in 1925 (in the case of Gitlow v. New York), the Supreme Court said that the First Amendment freedoms are part of personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. In other words, in 1925 the Supreme Court said that the First Amendment applies to all levels of government and not just the feds.
Even if the First Amendment were not binding on the states, the Wisconsin Constitution's protections (I cited them in a previous entry) are actually stronger.
I think it would be sad and represent a complete lack of leadership on the part of the city government if this ends up in court. Instead of drawing lines in the sand, the Mayor should be trying to bring the parties together and at least open up a dialogue.
Reasonable people ought to be able to sit down together and work out a solution. That we might end up in court on the basis of a conflict that is being played out largely in the newspaper and in blogs is absurd.
Tony-
To make sure things are clear, I did not receive the letters until the night of the council meeting (approximately 5:45 p.m.). In fact, I'm fairly certain we all received them that night, with exception of Mayor Castle and the letter that was sent directly to him. It's difficult to comment on something without having specific knowledge about it. As a side note, FFRF should have sent copies to all council members rather than expect City Hall to make copies for us.
I hope this provides some clarity as to why at least I didn't comment on the letters, and I assume it's probably the same reason for the other councilors.
-Bryan
Bryan's comment about FFRF not making copies for each council member instead of expecting city hall to make copies for distribution is petty more than anything else. I would suspect that more often than not people have city hall make copies for council members but even if they don't it sounds like Mr. Bain has missed the point on this one.
I don't understand why the statue couldn't be a child instead of an angel?
The most upsetting thing about this "discussion" is how so many people are willing to throw out the constitution in favor of "majority rules". I find that truly frightening.
Maybe the city council, not unlike their workshops on other topics that have a fiscal impact on the city (such as the budget) could sponsor a similar debate on its council floor. They could invite 3 or 4 members of various groups to argue both sides (legal, moral, spiritual) and air the positions of the FFRF supporters and the pro-angel statue group.
In a sense, they could have a "free" argument of the issues, rather than spend the money on lawyers (though lawyers offer a certain degree of utility and deserve every dollar they get, the city can best spend those dollars on garbage collection and pools). So far, the only arguments on this issue have been a letter to the newspaper, a letter from FFRF to Mayor Castle, Castle's knee jerk response, and this blog (with an emphasis on the blog). Such a meeting would be unusual, but that does not mean it can't be useful.
I, for one, would find it extremely beneficial. And, the council could manage the forum (invite the speakers-including the city attorney, define the subject matter for discussion, and define the time allotted to argue the issue). It does not have to be a free-for-all.
As a previous poster pointed out, the most relevant and even-handed discussion on this topic is coming from this blog. And, no offense Tony, I am not sure there is an extremely large audience that is sharing in the information and discussion (unless you tend to attract great numbers of lurkers). Thanks for the information on this topic.
Mark,
The blog has been getting more traffic since the angel controversy surfaced, but I agree it is probably not an extremely large audience.
I think that since the FFRF has made it clear that they will file suit if plans proceed to place the statue in the park, the ball is in the court of the council to decide if it wants to expend tax dollars to defend a decision that does not appear to have been fully thought out before they voted. A forum will help clarify issues, but it will not shake the FFRF from its core position so ultimately the council is going to have to decide (a) do they ask city staff to work with the Compassionate Friends group to find a different site or (b) do they allow the lawsuit to proceed and spend money defending the council vote in court.
Even if it were to turn out that the law were on the side of the put the angel in the park group, I think that group needs to ask itself the "what price victory?" question. Does it really make sense to embroil a symbol that is meant to comfort grieving parents in an adversarial political and legal context?
This will never happen, but it would be really helpful if the city council, at its next meeting, admits collectively that they made a mistake. They don't even have to say that the mistake was in not recognizing the possible state/church issue here. Rather, the mistake was in areeing to place a donated piece of art in a public park without having in place any clear standards for determining what art gets accepted and what art doesn't. If nothing else, this controversy has made it clear that such standards are necessary.
Post a Comment