John Witte Jr., director of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion and the Alonzo McDonald Distinguished Professor at Emory University, explains why the unanimous ruling of the court in favor of allowing government speech in which specifically Jewish or specifically Christian God-language occurs, beyond the bounds of “ceremonial deism,” is a helpful clarification. A key graph from Witte’s article:
A government "is entitled to say what it wishes" and may select certain views in favor of others, Justice Alito wrote for the court. It may express its views by putting up its own tax-paid monuments or by accepting monuments donated by private parties whose contents it need not fully endorse. In this case, city officials had earlier accepted a Ten Commandments monument on grounds that it reflected the "[a]esthetics, history, and local culture" of the city. The free-speech clause does not give a private citizen a "heckler's veto" over that old decision. Nor does it compel the city to accept every privately donated monument once it has accepted the first. Government speech is simply "not bound by the free-speech clause," the court concluded, or subject to judicial second-guessing under the First Amendment. Government officials are "accountable to the electorate" for their speech, and they will be voted out of office if their views cause offense.
HT: One Eternal Day
Comments