Federal Court Strikes Blow to Atheist Activists Attacking Religious Monuments
A federal court ruled on Feb. 19 that a religious monument in a Florida city park does not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. In an important victory for religious liberty, the 11th Circuit decided that the Bayview Cross, a 34-foot Latin cross erected in 1941, can remain standing. The monument represents the city of Pensacola’s history and serves as a symbol of hope. It was originally built to commemorate Easter sunrise services, a traditional Christian holiday.
In 2016, an atheist group sued to have the cross removed from the park and argued that it violated the establishment clause. Surprisingly, a district court judge ruled in the group’s favor and said the monument must come down because “the City’s maintenance of the cross violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.”
Becket, a religious liberty organization, took on the case in defense of Pensacola and the Bayview Cross, arguing that while the establishment clause is certainly vital, a monument with religious undertones showcases historical value and authenticity and is not an attempt by the city to establish a formal religion.
At first, on appeal, the 11th Circuit Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling because even though it seemed like the judges wanted to keep the monument up, they were bound by Supreme Court precedent. Then, the city of Pensacola asked the Supreme Court to review the case, and while that was pending, the Supreme Court ruled on American Legion v. American Humanist Association, a similar case regarding an old, historic cross monument. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a 32-foot Latin cross sitting on a piece of public land in Bladensburg, Maryland, did not violate the establishment clause despite another nonreligious group’s arguments.
Now, this federal court has essentially tossed out its own previous ruling and made a new decision based on the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision. The new federal court decision also noted that an atheist group suing the city over a monument that’s almost 80 years old, causing significant expense and commotion, just because the group is “offended” is “just plain wrong.”
#5: Two judges concurred, noting that letting plaintiffs sue merely because they’re “offended” by a symbol is "just plain wrong." This issue of “standing” may be the next frontier in religious-symbol cases. More here: https://t.co/D9sViITfzX 10/
— Luke Goodrich (@LukeWGoodrich) February 19, 2020
(Read more from “Federal Court Strikes Blow to Atheist Activists Attacking Religious Monuments” HERE)
Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE
