A Massachusetts city in the Greater Boston area commissioned a pair of 10-foot-tall bronze statues heavy with cultural and historical significance to honor police and firefighters outside its new public safety headquarters.
Since the statues also carry religious significance — one depicts the winged archangel Michael stepping on the head of a demon, and the other depicts Florian, a third-century firefighting Roman Christian — the American Civil Liberties Union and a handful of secularizing activist groups joined local thin-skinned critics in suing to block the installation last May.
According to the ACLU, having the two statues as the sole adornments on the building’s facade “would undermine religious pluralism in Quincy and violate the Massachusetts Constitution’s long-standing requirement that the government remain neutral in matters of religion.”
‘Let Quincy pay tribute to its firefighters and police.’
The ensuing legal battle has reached the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which heard oral arguments on Wednesday in the case Fitzmaurice v. City of Quincy.
The defendants’ thesis, as outlined in their opening brief to the court, is that symbolism on government property should not become “illegal simply because some citizens perceive it to have religious meaning.”
Some of the court’s justices, Democrat-appointee Gabrielle Wolohojian in particular, did not appear to be entirely buying what the attorney for the city from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty was selling at the outset despite considering his arguments in a city already replete with public art evoking persons, symbols, and themes of religious significance, including multiple statues of Moses.
RELATED: Young men flocking to Christianity in record numbers
Education Images/Universal Images Group/Getty Image
The court proved particularly fixated on whether Florian and Michael’s special recognition as saints by the Catholic Church was actually an issue in this case and raised as possibly relevant in a lower court’s insinuation that the statues’ primary champion, Quincy Mayor Thomas Koch, was untrustworthy and had worked clandestinely to get the statues funded and installed.
The court was not, however, overly receptive to the ACLU’s arguments in favor of denying Quincy first responders their statues, which have been defended in recent months by a plethora of organizations, including the nation’s largest firefighter and police unions, various faith groups, and esteemed constitutional scholars.
One justice questioned whether:
- such legal concern-mongering constitutes a “heckler’s veto” that is here at risk of being normalized;
- the plaintiffs were effectively asking the state’s high court to “provide less protection than the Supreme Court on free exercise,” or “allow more hostility to religion than the Supreme Court would tolerate”; and
- the statues endorsed a particular religion — an especially dubious claim given Florian’s secular, historical significance and the archangel Michael’s significance in multiple distinct faiths as well as in popular culture and literature.
Tom Bowes, president of Quincy’s Firefighters Local 792, said in a statement, “For generations, Florian’s legacy has inspired the brave men and women who run toward danger when others need help. We hope the court allows Quincy to honor that tradition and the first responders who live it every day.”
Joseph Davis, senior counsel at Becket and an attorney for the city, said, “In this country, public art doesn’t become off-limits just because it may make some people think about religion. We’re confident the justices will apply that commonsense rule here and let Quincy pay tribute to its firefighters and police.”
Eric Rassbach, another attorney at Becket, said in the wake of the hearing on Wednesday that the ACLU’s argument largely “relied on the supposedly dead legal standard known as the Lemon test, which SCOTUS abrogated.”
“For decades, the unusuable Lemon test produced confusion and split decisions in cases involving religious symbols,” continued Rassbach. “That changed in 2019, when SCOTUS ruled 7-2 in [American Legion v. American Humanist Association] that the First Amendment does not require removing a WWI memorial cross and made clear that Lemon no longer applies.”
While the Supreme Court rejected the relevance of the test articulated by SCOTUS in its 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman ruling as a way of guiding the court in identifying Establishment Clause violations, Norfolk Superior Court Judge William Sullivan previously leaned heavily on it in the Quincy case.
“It would be a bizarre move for Massachusetts to revive a test that failed so badly at the federal level, especially since Lemon has no grounding in the Commonwealth’s Constitution,” wrote Rassbach. “That document takes a different approach: It recognizes the vital role of religion in public life while guaranteeing equal protection for all religious denominations. That’s a far cry from forcing cities to scrub anything that smacks of the religious from all public property.”
The court is expected to deliver its decision sometime this fall.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Read the full article here
