Opinion ID: 172243
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Improper Reliance on the Motivations of a Private Citizen

Text: The court erroneously imputes the motives of a private citizen to the commissioners for the purpose of finding a government endorsement of religion, placing considerable importance on the fact that the reasonable observer would be aware of [the private donor's] religious motivation for seeking the erection of the Monument. Green, 568 F.3d at 800. However, a truly objective inquiry would not impute a private citizen's motivations to the commissioners simply because they accepted his proposal. While the reasonable observer might have been aware that Mr. Bush had religious motivations in proposing the monument, the reasonable observer would not make the logical leap that the commissioners must therefore have shared his religious motives. Such a leap needlessly imputes a religious motive to the government, as it ignores the fact that the commissioners discussed the historic importance of the display and stated that the monument should be permitted based on the county's policy of neutrality in accepting displays. See Green, 450 F.Supp.2d at 1275-76, 1292-94. Moreover, the court comes perilously close to engaging in a subjective inquiry that penalizes private citizens for their religious beliefs, improperly using the Establishment Clause as a sword to justify repression of religion [and] its adherents from any aspect of public life. McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618, 641, 98 S.Ct. 1322, 55 L.Ed.2d 593 (1978) (Brennan, J., concurring). We should not be using the fact that the private donor had an unalloyed religious motivation, Green, 568 F.3d at 801 n. 10, as proof certain that the Establishment Clause has been violated. Sadly, we seem to have reached the day where we construe the Establishment Clause, meant to protect religion, so as to discourage people of faith from participating in the civic arena. See Michael W. McConnell, Establishment and Disestablishment at the Founding, Part I: Establishment of Religion, 44 Wm. & Mary L.Rev. 2105, 2206 (2003) ([O]ne of the principal arguments against establishment was that it was harmful to religion.... Disestablishment `advanced' religion.). The court suggests that, while the motivation of a private citizen is irrelevant under the purpose prong of the endorsement test, it is significant for the effect it has on the reasonable observer's view of the monument. Green, 568 F.3d at 801 n. 10. This is a distinction without a difference. Under the purpose prong, we must scrutinize the government's intent; thus, where the challenged conduct is the selection or display of artwork, the artist's inspiration or intent is irrelevant. Weinbaum v. City of Las Cruces, 541 F.3d 1017, 1031 (10th Cir.2008). Similarly, under the effect prong, what counts is whether the reasonable observer would conclude that the government's objective act has the effect of advancing religion. Accordingly, whether a private citizen subjectively intends that the monument have the effect of advancing religion is irrelevant to an objective effect inquiry.