As
reported last week, a New Mexico federal district court dismissed a lawsuit by school parent Paul Weinbaum claiming that the city of Las Cruces, New Mexico unconstitutionally endorsed religion by adopting as the city's symbol an emblem consisting of three crosses surrounded by a sunburst. However, on the same day it decided that issue, the court handed down a second decision that kept alive some aspects of the dispute over the display of Latin Crosses to symbolize Las Cruces. In
Weinbaum v. Las Cruces Public Schools,
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83311 (D NM, Nov. 9, 2006), Paul Weinbaum challenged as Establishment Clause violations the Las Cruces schools' use of an emblem containing a sunburst and three crosses on maintenance vehicles; a sculpture depicting three stylized crosses displayed at the school system's regional sports complex; and the school board's policy on "Religion in the Curriculum".
In a lengthy opinion, the court found that neither the sculpture nor the school's curriculum policy violated the Establishment Clause. However it refused to grant summary judgment to the school board on the emblem claim. It said that the defendants, at least so far, had failed to produce any evidence on whether the predominant purpose in displaying the emblem was secular.
The court ended its opinion with an admonition similar to one at the end of its earlier opinion on the city emblem:
Mr. Weinbaum, a man of conviction, brought this suit hoping to make his community, a better, more welcoming, place. Sadly, it has come to the Court's attention that the opposite has occurred, that his child has been made to suffer for the position her father has taken. If that is true, or if, as a result of this decision it comes true, then shame on us all.
