June 3, 2004

Why do I oppose the cross and altar at Countryside Home?

Below is a summary of the most common questions I've heard regarding my complaint, followed by my responses. I am unable to attend tonight. My son's graduation ceremony is taking place at the same time.

Sincerely,

John J. Foust

Why are you doing this?

Because of the protections of the First Amendment, this country has strong churches and religious belief.  We are all free to believe what we want. I am defending the rights of citizens and Countryside residents to practice their beliefs without imposing them on others – now and tomorrow.

When I saw the Christian cross and altar in the new Countryside Home, I knew they were out of place in a public facility. Both the U.S. Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution speak strongly and clearly about the freedom to worship. There are dozens of cases prohibiting the placement of religious symbols in public places, as decided by the Supreme Court, Federal District courts and state courts.

Again and again the cases say that the government must be neutral when it comes to religion. Why? Because there are few issues as deeply personal and potentially divisive as religion. This is also a difficult issue because Countryside Home is a residence. It is literally “home” for many people and they too have a right to religious expression. Countryside was built and supported with public funds, so the County also intended it to be a public space for visitors and any groups that want to use it. Everyone's religious rights must be respected and considered. The County can't favor one religion over another.

Why didn't the County dismiss this objection immediately?

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The Wisconsin Constitution also prohibits government involvement in religion in even more detail and plain language. Article I, section 18 says “The right of every person to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any person be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, without consent; nor shall any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship; nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or religious or theological seminaries.”

Based on this, the Board of Trustees and the County's attorney recognize that I have a relevant point.  They knew my complaint could not be dismissed out of hand. The Board of Trustees discussed this question with the County's attorney at every monthly meeting since February 2004.

Apart from myself, no member of the public attended these meetings. The public, including Countryside residents, are welcome to attend and the agendas are publicly posted. You can read the full text of each of my statements to the Board at my web site at www.goJefferson.com.

Donated funds were used, doesn't that matter?

No. Regardless of the source of funds, the County's actions must comply with Federal court decisions regarding religious expression. When donations are made to the County, they become government funds. Using these funds for religious purposes certainly compounded the problem.

It is misleading to suggest that donated funds made it legal to buy the cross and altar. It is also misleading to suggest that specific donations covered the entire cost of the cross and altar.

The cross, altar and lectern were purchased for $6,000 in March 2003 with money from the Resident's Fund, normally used for tasks such as decorating and maintenance of the aquarium and aviary. Two $1,000 donations earmarked for the $1,000 cross were accepted in September and December 2003. No specific donations were made for the $3,000 altar or the $2,000 lectern.

There is a law that says Countryside Home can have a chapel.

There is no law about that. It is misleading to suggest there is. If there was a law, this issue would be easier to solve. Instead, the Board is trying to reach a solution with the advice of the County's attorney, based on interpretations of court decisions involving the First Amendment and the Wisconsin Constitution.

Countryside Home is required to provide religious services.

Yes and no. Yes, there is a Federal nursing home regulation “F248” that requires that Countryside's therapists insure that residents have an activities program that lets them express their religious, cultural and recreational interests. It requires access to activities, not for the staff to select the religion and do the preaching. It does not state exactly how to do this, so it is not reasonable to stretch “F248” to justify a purchasing a cross and altar for the multi-purpose room. This minor regulation does not provide a loophole in the Constitution.

There is no danger of non-compliance. Countryside easily complies with “F248” because residents have plenty of access to religious, cultural and recreational options. It is misleading to suggest there is a regulatory danger if the cross and altar were not present in public view at all times.

As a public facility, Countryside could also be in trouble if it was not even-handed when it came to religion. The permanent presence of one religion's icons has a chilling effect on anyone who does not share that belief. It implies government support for one religion.

What does this cross and altar say to a prospective resident of Countryside who isn't Christian, or to a public user of this space? Countryside Home needs to be open to residents of all faiths – Christians of all varieties, Jews, to believers and non-believers – today and tomorrow.

If Countryside Home was a private facility, there would be no debate. Private nursing homes are free to decorate and worship as they please.

Why do you want to remove the cross and altar?

I think we can all agree that Countryside residents are free to decorate their private rooms with religious symbols. Any resident's room can have a cross and altar if they wish. The dispute is about what can be placed in the public space, and how this particular cross and altar were purchased with County funds in 2003.

I fully support the use of the multi-purpose room by religious groups. These church services are a dedicated and admirable volunteer effort of our community's clergy. They fulfill the spiritual needs of those residents who wish to attend their meetings. I want religious groups to be able to use this space just like any other group. Generally, the religious services only use half of the room for a few hours a week. They do not have the right to leave their symbols in place during the rest of the week when the room is used for other purposes.

I see a simple solution. I think it is reasonable for Countryside to provide a non-public storage place for these religious groups to store the crosses, altars and hymnals they need for their weekly services. The clergy can put them in place as needed. The altar is already on wheels. The cross could be put on a portable stand. They shouldn't be left out when bingo, exercise classes or mayoral forums are using the multi-purpose room.

The County should attempt to un-do the funding conflict by giving the cross back to the donors, and asking other donors to come forward to buy the altar. In this way, it will be clear they are not County property.

Where can someone go to pray during the day?

When the new facility was designed, the Board decided not to create a separate chapel space. This is unfortunate. The multi-purpose room is not a good chapel. It is never a purely private space and it is often in use for other activities, including watching television. The room's divider can only be closed by staff.

Residents, families and clergy have nowhere to go for privacy. This problem is independent of the cross and altar problem. To bridge this gap, perhaps Countryside needs to create a new space for private meditation.

What's wrong with the idea of a curtain or cover for the cross and altar?

As Countryside Administrator Earlene Ronk put it, she “doesn't want to be the curtain police.” She also thought it was a bit sacrilegious to use an altar as an ordinary table to hold bingo prizes. Others may believe it is disrespectful to cover the cross with a curtain.

The curtain proposal still leaves the cross and altar in a favored position. It would be far too easy for someone to forget to cover them after a service. Some residents are not mobile enough to be able to remove and replace the cross curtain and the altar cover. The long-term result would be that they would remain uncovered.

You don't live at Countryside. Why are you interfering?

The new Countryside Home is a public place, built and operated by the County with taxpayer dollars. It is a public benefit like roads, police and sewers. As a citizen, I have the right to question whether the County is acting within the boundaries of the U.S. and Wisconsin Constitutions and their interpretation by the courts.

The old Countryside Home had a chapel with a cross and altar.

Yes, it did. I never saw it although I visited the old facility several times. The old facility made many transformations in the last century and it does not surprise me that it had a chapel. However, the new Countryside Home must comply with today's laws, not yesterday's traditions.