The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that La Crosse may keep its Ten Commandments monument in Cameron Park — as long as it is on private land with two fences around it and a disclaimer that the city does not endorse the religious sentiments expressed on it.

Two out of three judges on the appeals panel ruled in favor of the city. But they did not rule that having a religious monument in a public park is constitutional. What they said instead was that the city's sale of the approximately 20-foot by 20-foot piece of land to the Eagles Club, along with the fences and the disclaimer signs, were sufficient to differentiate the private land on which the monument sits with the public parkland surrounding it.
The court cited a case in Marshfield, Wis., where a statue of Jesus was placed in a public park. After the placement of the statue was challenged by the Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation — the same advocacy group that challenged La Crosse's monument — this same appeals court ruled that the land on which the statue stood should be sold to a private entity. In addition, the court ruled in that earlier case that the statue should be fenced and clearly marked with signs noting that the city does not endorse the religious expression signified by the statue.

It was the same reasoning applied to the La Crosse case. The court specifically noted in the La Crosse case that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of a religious icon on public property.

In Indiana cases where religious monuments were on public property at the state Capitol in Indianapolis and a municipal building in Elkhart, this same court ruled that those monuments violated the First Amendment's prohibition of government "establishment" of religion.

We argued, along with La Crosse Mayor John Medinger, that the monument would be better moved to private property.

The city had two opportunities to do that. The Eagles Club offered to take it back, and Christ Episcopal Church offered to put it on its property on Main Street.

But the city turned both of those offers down, opting for the sale of land, the fences and the disclaimer signs instead.

Now, the court has upheld this "victory." The monument may remain behind its fences and disclaimer signs — on land that used to be public parkland — as long as some other court does not rule against it in any future challenge.

The mayor referred to this as a hollow victory. We agree. The monument would have been better served on a church lawn along a more heavily trafficked street — without the fences and signs that obscure it from view.

More Opinion:

Advertisement