My mother lives in a Seniors HUD funded complex and there is an arrangement of christian pictures in the lobby that were put there by management. Does anyone know if this violates any court rulings? She finds it rather offensive to walk by a photo with a hand reaching down saying "saving grace" and another with a robed hand saying "sower of seeds of faith" . Yes to a christian these would be very unobtrusive but my mother is what most concider "pagan" Thanks in advance
Answer:
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.
I agree with Toodemo. There are two clauses in the first amendment that relate to religion: (1) free exercise clause and (2) establishment clause.
The free exercise clause generally prohibits the government from passing any laws that inhibit the free exercise of religion. Note that I said "generally" because neutral laws of general applicability that disparately affect one religion is constitutional so long as there is no discriminatory intent.
The establishment clause of the first amendment generally prohibits the government from taking any action that would promote, prefer, or inhibit one religion over another.
Your situation would likely invoke the Establishment clause. However, to prevail on the establishment clause of the first amendment, the first issue that must addressed is whether or not there is government action.
A number of factors must be examined to determine if there's government action. You say that this is a HUD funded complex. Is it privately run and HUD subsidized or is it run by the county? If the complex is county run, there is clearly government action. As such, the first amendment's establishment clause would be implicated. Accordingly, the complex may have violated the US Constitution.
Again, this is not legal advice. I would advise that you contact the ACLU near you. They do great work in ensuring that the US Constitution is upheld.
Tell mom to move. THere is no present state or federal law which forbids the display of religious artifacts under the Housing and Urban development statutes.
HUD subsidized housing is for the benefit of the individual, NOT the property which remains a private business. Therefore, unless you are complaining about the practice of denying access based on religion, your complaint doesn't fall under Federal Law.
sorry to say this but tough luck to you mother thinking these are offensive. The whole of the west is based on christianity the laws we live by day by day. I do not understand why a pagan would find them offensive. Infact I find it offensive that we as cristians have to constantly pamper to the wishes of the total minority groups.
May be the peopl ein the place will start objecting to your mother being their because she is a pagan. You would like that would you. All religions preach that we should respect others. remember that and you know somthing their are people who take comfort from these pictures. Your mother is being seffish if she cant se that... Further more. the pledge of allegiance.. ONE COUNTRY UNDER GOD.. I like many other are weary of the political correctness.
Your mother could always move to another facility.
Are you sure you didnt steal this question from some law school final exam in con law? Because it is a very interesting question that probably has not come to court yet. Obviously, the HUD connection brings into the First Amendment discussion. Nice touch.
As most of us know, there are several challenges to the use of religious depictions and artifacts in public places funded by Federal or state governments. I firmly believe that placement of any religious artifact violates the First Amendment. Yes, christians think that makes me anti christian. I'm not. I'm pro Constitution. Now, do the pictures in a HUD subsidized housing complex violate? The answer is that I'm not sure.
Cases like this often turn on the strength of the state connection. Did the government actually build the complex? Do state agencies manage the complex? Are the employees who maintain it employed by the state? If the answer to those questions is yes, there may actually be a constitutional issue here.
Now, if the only connection is funding, e.g. HUD financing, I think the state connection is so tenuous that a challenge would fail. Dont forget. These pictures probably represent the wishes of people living there. This is their home. If a Constitutional claim against the complex prevails simply because of Federal funding, the logical extension would be that a person who has federal funding to purchase their private home would not be able to express his or her religion in their own home. And this is most certainly not the intent of the framers.
Anyway, I dont have the answer. I know of no case that would support this claim, though that doesnt mean there isnt one. Great question and definite food for thought.
In my opinion, beings that it's not someone forcing religion upon her and they are simply pictures in a lobby, she should save tax payers and court workers a lot of time and just look the other way and let them use their time for more important things.
People are really pushing the limit these days.
And this is why we have all the problems in America... that's all i will say about that! This speaks for its-self!
Isn't this HUD facility also a place of work? What if an employee of this federally funded facility sees the pictures and is "offended" and files a complaint to his employer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment