Latin Cross in Public Park Violates Federal and State Constitutions

By Kozlowski, James C. | Parks & Recreation, January 1999 | Go to article overview

Latin Cross in Public Park Violates Federal and State Constitutions


Kozlowski, James C., Parks & Recreation


On August 20, 1996, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued two opinions, described below, which addressed the issue of whether a large cross in a public park is unconstitutional. In each instance, the federal appeals court held that this type of structure in a public park violated either the federal or state constitution. In so doing, the court found that a large cross in a public park was unconstitutional because it implied a governmental preference or endorsement of a particular religious symbol and message.

Establishment Clause Analysis

In the case of Separation of Church and State Committee v. City of Eugene, 9335094 (9th Cir. 1996), the issue before the federal circuit court of appeals was "whether the City of Eugene, Oregon, violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution by its ownership and display of a fifty-one-foot concrete Latin cross in a public park on Skinner's Butte." The facts of the case were as follows:

The City of Eugene (City) maintains a public park on and around Skinner's Butte, a hill cresting immediately north of the city's downtown business district. The land was donated to the City and has been maintained as a public park for many years. From the late 1930s to 1964, private individuals erected a succession of wooden crosses in the park, one replacing another as they deteriorated. In 1964, private individuals erected the cross at issue in this litigation. It is a fifty-one-foot concrete Latin cross with neon inset tubing, and it is located at the crest of Skinner's Butte. The parties who erected the cross did not seek the City's permission to do so beforehand; however, they subsequently applied for and received from the City a building permit and an electrical permit.

Since 1970, the City has illuminated the cross for seven days during the Christmas season, five days during the Thanksgiving season, and on Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Veteran's Day.

The cross has been the subject of litigation since the time it was erected. In 1969, the Oregon Supreme Court held that the cross violated both the federal and the Oregon constitutions because it was erected with a religious purpose and created the inference of official endorsement of Christianity.

Soon after, the City held a charter amendment election and, on May 26,1970, the voters, by a wide margin, approved an amendment to the City charter designating the cross a war memorial. Pursuant to that amendment, the cross was deeded to the City as a gift, and a bronze plaque was placed at the foot of the cross dedicating it as a memorial to war veterans. The Eugene city charter provides that the "concrete cross on the south slope of the butte shall remain at that location and in that form as property of the city and is hereby dedicated as a memorial to the veterans of all wars in which the United States has participated."

After the election, the parties who erected the cross brought suit to have the Oregon Supreme Court set aside its earlier decision. The court did so on the basis of the "changed circumstances" that had occurred since its earlier decision was decided, holding that "the cross no longer violated the state and federal constitutions."

The Separation of Church and State Committee (Separation) then brought suit in federal district court alleging a violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of City. In so doing, the district court held that "the cross has a secular purpose, does not advance religion, and does not foster an excessive entanglement with religion." Separation appealed.

As noted by the federal appeals court, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." In determining "whether governmental practice has the effect of endorsing religion," the federal appeals court cited the following "Establishment Clause analysis" enunciated by the United States Supreme Court:

Whatever else the Establishment Clause may mean (and we have held it to mean no official preference even for religion over non-religion), it certainly means at the very least that government may not demonstrate a preference for one particular sect or creed (including a preference for Christianity over other religions). …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Latin Cross in Public Park Violates Federal and State Constitutions
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.