The city of Quincy, located in the Boston area, has made its stance clear: it won’t be swayed by activist agendas. Some activists seem disturbed by America’s Christian roots and are working to erase public symbols of bravery and honor.
After facing a legal hurdle in October, Quincy is now appealing to the state Supreme Court to address the issue surrounding religious figures and symbols in the community.
Saints and Iconoclasts
Mayor Thomas Koch has commissioned renowned sculptor Sergei Eiranbekov to create two 10-foot bronze statues that will stand outside the new public safety headquarters, honoring police and firefighters.
Although Quincy has previously installed Eiranbekov’s sculptures without issue, these two statues are controversial due to their religious significance. One represents Saint Florian, a Christian firefighter from the 3rd century, while the other depicts the archangel Michael overcoming the devil.
This statue, in particular, has garnered supporters. Quincy Police Chief Mark Kennedy expressed that he felt “honored” by the Michael statue, while Tom Bowes, President of Quincy Firefighters Local 792, noted that “Florian embodies the values most important to our work as firefighters: honor, courage, and bravery.”
However, not everyone is pleased with the plan.
“If beautiful art has religious meaning for someone, it must be hidden from everyone.”
The ACLU, along with other organizations and a few local residents, filed a lawsuit in May to halt the statue installation.
The plaintiffs include:
- A Unitarian advocate for social justice.
- A self-identified Catholic who finds the “violent image” of good versus evil “unpleasant.”
- A synagogue member who fears the statues could heighten anti-Semitism.
- Episcopalians who argue that passing in front of such statues equates to “submission to religious symbols.”
- A disenchanted Catholic who remarked that the image of Michael stepping on the devil reminds them of George Floyd’s death.
The lawsuit claims that “displaying religious symbols affiliated with a specific faith on government property sends a disconcerting message that those who don’t subscribe to those beliefs are second-class residents who should not expect to feel safe or respected by officials.”
Interestingly, the complaint sidestepped discussions about Michael’s role in other faiths and culture while emphasizing his recognition by Catholics. Similarly, it downplayed Florian’s broader appeal beyond the Catholic faith.
Mayor Koch clarified that the choice of these figures wasn’t about promoting Catholic saints, but rather aimed to uplift community morale and highlight values like truth and justice.
The plaintiffs had a different interpretation. They argued in their complaint that the statues are not primarily secular and are meant to elevate one faith above others, marginalizing diverse beliefs.
Setback
A recent ruling from Norfolk Superior Court blocked plans to install the completed statues while the lawsuit is ongoing.
Judge William Sullivan noted that the complaint raised valid concerns about whether non-Christian community members might feel equal treatment when reporting crimes beneath these symbols.
Furthermore, the judge suggested that the statues did not serve a clear secular purpose.
Although the defendants argued that these statues would encourage first responders to perform their duties effectively, the court was skeptical about their necessity in maintaining the commitment and dedication of Quincy’s police and fire personnel.
The ACLU, while advocating for the installation of alternative religious displays, welcomed the ruling. Rachel Davidson from the Massachusetts ACLU expressed appreciation for the court’s recognition of the potential harm posed by the statues.
Further Developments
Recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court agreed to review the lower court’s ruling, an outcome both the city and the ACLU of Massachusetts seem to embrace.
Mayor Koch mentioned his eagerness to defend Quincy’s initiative to honor local first responders in the Supreme Court.
The city, backed by the Becket Fund for Religious Freedom, organized a rally to counter the activists’ claims, asserting that the statues’ installation is lawful.
The brief argues that the statues serve a secular purpose and that banning them due to perceived religious bias would conflict with the U.S. Constitution. It also contends that the plaintiffs have no standing, as simply observing art they find offensive does not constitute real harm.
Moreover, the brief states that forbidding these statues goes against Massachusetts’ longstanding tradition of displaying other religious symbols in public spaces, such as statues of Moses and Pope John Paul II.
“The ACLU’s approach seems tragically straightforward: If art is religious to anyone, it must be hidden,” stated Joseph Davis from the Becket Fund.
Davis added that the ACLU’s stance overlooks the nation’s civic traditions and historical court decisions, urging justices to affirm that art doesn’t have to be pushed from public view just because of its religious connections.
