My earlier posts involving First Amendment rights have dealt with the lukewarm support that is shown for the free speech rights of speakers with whom one disagrees.1 In this post I am going to branch out a bit to the free exercise of religion (although free speech also applies to this example).
In an article published this past Monday, NJ.com reports that some residents of the Ocean Grove section of Neptune Township are concerned that the new beach pier that the religious organization that owns the land in the community is planning to construct to replace the prior pier that was destroyed by Superstorm Sandy, gasp, “too closely resembles a cross.”2
The article quotes a local resident, Doug Grote (described therein as a “retired” Methodist minister), whose follow-up guest column was published on NJ.com on Tuesday, as saying that the cross-shaped pier feels like “Christian bullying,” and reports that he has sought unidentified “intervention” by local and state officials.
As the article notes, Ocean Grove was initially founded as a religious retreat. The land is owned by the “The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of The United Methodist Church” (OGCMA).((The OGCMA was formerly named “The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of the Methodist Episcopal Church.”))
Ocean Grove is no longer a separate municipality. Although a Borough of Ocean Grove was established from part of Neptune Township following a referendum in 1920, it was dissolved following a court decision in 1921.((The Story of New Jersey’s Civil Boundaries 1606-1968.)) Therefore, Mr. Grote’s references to the “citizenry” of Ocean Grove is inaccurate at best.
The OGCMA continued to exercise certain governmental powers until the legislation providing for such powers was declared unconstitutional in 1979.((State v. Celmer, 80 N.J. 405. The article inaccurately characterizes the decision as “declar[ing OGCMA’s] charter unconstitutional.” The decision did not dissolve the OGCMA, but ruled that its “Board [of Trustees] cannot exercise essential governmental functions, make law or force compliance with its rules through the establishment of a municipal court and police department.”))
The OGCMA remains the owner of the land upon which it intends to construct the pier. According to the article, the pier has received the governmental approvals required for its construction, for which the OGCMA is paying with $750,000 of its own funds and another $550,000 especially raised for the purpose.
But apparently private ownership and religious expression are not enough for some. The article quotes a member of the local zoning board as saying that the cross-shaped pier necessarily represents Christian nationalism.
Although the cross is certainly a–if not the–preeminent symbol of Christianity, it is a basic shape (two line segments intersecting at more or less right angles) that long pre-dates its association with Christianity and continues to be seen in many places today (e.g., street intersections, the plus “+” sign, and a lower-case “t”) without any religious connotation. Indeed, the article quotes OGCMA’s president as responding to a question of whether the cross-shape is intentionally religious by saying merely that the shape is “highly functional.”((I do think this response is a bit too cute, but nonetheless accurate. The addition of the perpendicular arm of the cross to the pier increases its surface area without the need to extend the pier (which, I suspect, is probably not permitted) and thus increases its utility.))
Mr. Grote’s position is even more critical:
To me, any political power that would appear to bully its captive, vulnerable, secular citizenry into accepting a sectarian cross as the center of its cultural life is a likely human rights violator. With the pier’s construction set to begin soon, I fear that my faith’s lovely cross may soon become as toxic as a Trojan horse for Ocean Grove, Asbury Park, and all of New Jersey.
So, let’s do what democracy does best: Let’s let the politicians, the journalists, faith leaders, and advocacy groups ask the OGCMA to hold on to its $550,000 for a while until matters are investigated, all of its citizenry are consulted, and approve the cross-shaped pier, or not, just like democracy ought to work.
So, OGCMA’s right to religious expression on its own property must be subordinated to the sensibilities of those who do not share its religious views?
Jay Bohn
August 25, 2022
Post script
Mr. Grote’s guest column was published in today’s Star-Ledger, along with a follow-up on the original article that is also available on NJ.com.
The follow-up article continues to sow confusion about the OGCMA’s role by saying: “Under a complex charter, the association has authority over the land, beach and boardwalk in Ocean Grove, which is a small seaside section of Neptune Township in Monmouth County.” This statement implies that the land, beach and boardwalk are not the private property of the OGCMA and that somehow the association continues to exercise governmental authority rather than having the same rights as any property owner.
The follow-up also quotes another local resident as seeking political intervention: “It is time for our leaders, who are actually elected, to get involved to ensure that the protections afforded to us under the 1st Amendment to the U.S Constitution are not violated.” (You see, my First Amendment rights are more important than yours.)
J.B.B.
August 28, 2022
- Free Speech is a Bitch; Free Speech, but Not for All Ideas. [↩]
- The same article appears on page 1 of Tuesday’s edition of the Star-Ledger under the title “Pier plan in religious town crosses into controversy. [↩]