An interesting development in Poland, where the new left-wing party,
“Palikot’s Movement,” which got some 40 seats in the most recent election, has demanded the removal of the crucifix that hangs in the Polish parliament (picture of the parliament at right, wooden crucifix at far left). The reason given for the demand is that the presence of the crucifix violates the constitutional guarantee of a secular state. The story reports that at least some of the resistance to removing the crucifix stems from its political and cultural importance in recent Polish history, including the role of the Catholic Church in overthrowing communism. — MOD
The Display of Catholic Images at The Catholic University of America
It is hard to know what to make of this story (h/t Professor Bainbridge). What is most curious about it to me is the allegation by Professor Banzhaf that Muslims were compelled to “perform their prayers surrounded by symbols of Catholicism — e.g., a wooden crucifix, paintings of Jesus, pictures of priests and theologians which many Muslim students find inappropriate.”
It seems to me that there are two issues: (1) are there rooms on the CUA campus which do not contain such images or items (and, I suppose, were students prevented from gathering to use them for prayer)?; and (2) is the reference to these items’ “inappropriateness” one which is specifically limited to their inappropriateness as places of Muslim prayer, or is it a more general sense that displaying these images and items at CUA is inappropriate per se?
As to the first question, in my wonderful year at the law school at CUA, I can think off-hand of several rooms which did not display the complained-of images and items. Indeed, I can even think of a few such rooms at the Salesian house near campus where I was lucky enough to sleep. It does not seem to me that it would be difficult to find such a room on the CUA campus, though perhaps the claim is that the University willfully barred the students from access to these rooms.
As to the second question, I can understand that Muslims might not want to pray in a room bedecked with Catholic images. On the other hand, if the claim is that these images are “inappropriate” for display tout court, I am not sympathetic to that claim. — MOD
UPDATE: Please see this story, which reports that not a single Muslim student at CUA has complained either to the University or to Banzhaf. At this point, as Banzhaf says, the complaint is written on Banzhaf’s behalf alone despite his attempt to solicit CUA students to sign on. The standing requirements for filing a complaint like this must be quite generous.
Another Ten Commandments Case
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding religion in America’s public schools are widely disregarded. No matter how many times the Court rules that officially-sponsored school prayers are unconstitutional, for example, the prayers continue. The same pattern holds with regard to public Ten Commandments displays – though here, the Court bears much of the blame. The Court has issued three decisions on public Ten Commandments displays over the past three decades, but they turn on very specific facts and fail to announce an easy principle. For example, in two decisions issued on the same day in 2005, the Court held that a display of the Commandments in a Kentucky courthouse was unconstitutional, because reasonable observers would perceive an endorsement of religion, but that a display of the Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds was constitutional, because, well, the display had secular elements and hadn’t seemed to bother people. One could forgive local officials for being confused.
A new Ten Commandments case has arisen in Giles County, Virginia, where the ACLU is suing the local school board in federal court for ordering that the Commandments be placed in the lobby of a local high school. The school board argues that it has displayed the Commandments along with other historical documents, like the Declaration of Independence, that show that the school is not endorsing religion as such. But the Supreme Court has been particularly suspicious of displays of the Commandments in public schools, and the facts suggest that, as in the Kentucky case, officials in Giles County surrounded the Commandments with secular documents only after some parents complained Read more
Sukkahs in TriBeCa
Tonight, according to the New York Times, the Community Board for New York’s neighborhood of TriBeCa (if the Times spells it that way, so will we) votes on whether to allow a Jewish group to erect a sukkah, a ritual hut associated with the Jewish autumn holiday of Sukkot, in a neighborhood park. It’s not clear how the Board will vote. A few members apparently have concerns about allowing religious symbols like the sukkah in a public park. As a legal matter, the sukkah is probably acceptable. Once the state opens up a public forum for private speech, it cannot discriminate on the basis of content. The state must treat religious and non-religious speech equally — and it seems that the city does allow private speech in Duane Park. Also, although the Supreme Court’s case law on religious displays is famously unpredictable, past decisions suggest that a private group may erect a religious display on public property as long as reasonable observers would not conclude that the state had endorsed the group’s religious message. So it might be a good idea for Chabad, the group seeking permission for the sukkah, to include some sort of disclaimer that makes clear that the sukkah is not an official city structure. However the Board decides, this case could well reach the courts. — MLM