Daily Press News Editor
DELTA — A dispute between Montrose artist Sharon Marolf and the city of Delta over religious artwork has been resolved, according to an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund.
|
Advertisement |
City officials did not confirm whether the case had been resolved. Harvey, however, said he’d received a letter dated June 1 from the city which read: “The City of Delta and the recreation director hereby consent to the restoration of Ms. Marolf’s artwork...”
Marolf had filed suit in federal district court just last week, seeking an injunction against the city, a declaratory judgment that the city had acted unconstitutionally and unspecified damages.
“We believed that refusing to allow Ms. Marolf to display her artwork simply because it displayed a religious point of view violated her constitutional rights,” Harvey said.
“We ultimately filed a lawsuit. The city took a closer look at the law and realized they had opened up an area that allowed artists to express themselves and refusing to allow Ms. Marolf to express her religious point of view violated her free speech rights.”
Harvey said the city agreed to re-hang Marolf’s painting, “Big Black Umbrella,” which depicted her granddaughter and a quotation from the 127th Psalm, “Children are a heritage from the Lord, a reward from him.”
Harvey said Delta also agreed to re-hang Marolf’s abstract, “Circles/Squares,” which contains a scriptural passage.
Delta City Attorney Mike Schottelkotte confirmed there was a lawsuit, but said he couldn’t confirm whether it had been resolved, or whether the city had in fact agreed to re-hang the paintings.
Delta City Council had not made a decision, Schottelkotte said, though he anticipated it would at a meeting Tuesday night. Council, he said, intended to take up the matter in executive session. “They can’t make decisions outside of city council meetings.”
According to Marolf’s complaint, the paintings were hung as part of a Delta Fine Arts association exhibit. The DFA has had numerous public exhibits within city buildings without, the Alliance Defense Fund argued, any guidelines from the city concerning what could be displayed. The complaint listed other religious artwork reportedly displayed in city-owned buildings over the years, including a depiction of hands holding rosary beads, an image of Jesus, depictions of angels and Native American spiritual symbols.
Harvey said Monday the city had mistakenly believed that since it had opened the hallway of the recreation center for the display of artwork, it could limit what was displayed there. “That’s not what the law says. The U.S. Supreme Court said the city has no obligation to open an avenue of expression, but once it does so, it cannot discriminate. In this case, that’s what they did.”
He said the current climate concerning religious expression in public places might have scared Delta city officials.
“I don’t think the city acted out of animus against Ms. Marolf or her religious viewpoint,” Harvey said. “Part of what we come up against is there’s this culture of fear and intimidation that makes cities fearful they’re going to get a lawsuit if they allow someone to publicly acknowledge their faith. Often, that fear causes them to overreact and their reaction actually crosses the line and violates free expression rights.”
He said Delta had acted quickly to resolve the matter.
“I’m very happy to be hanging it back up,” Marolf said Monday. She anticipated the pieces could be taken back to the rec center June 12.
The decision to pull her artwork had taken her by surprise, she added. “I never had a problem like that before. We felt that we needed to take a stand. It is against the First Amendment.”
• Be respectful of others, the writer and the subjects in the story.
• Be relevant. Keep your comments on point.
• See the guidelines for TalkAbout. Perhaps your comment is best for that community forum, available from the home page, instead of commenting on a particular story.
Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. Montrose Press is not liable for messages from third parties.
DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in montrosepress.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Montrose Press. Montrose Press does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Montrose Press spokespersons.
Thank you for your comments!