For several years now there has been a legal battle in Texas over whether a Bible display at the Harris Count Courthouse is constitutional or not. The government lost in U.S. district court and appealed; now they have lost 2-1 before a panel of the 5th Circuit Court. Harris County plans to appeal and the Supreme Court's current make-up appears to be favorable.

The Houston Chronicle reports:

“Its recent history would force an objective observer to conclude that it is a religious symbol of a particular faith located on public grounds,” a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 2-1 decision.

Although secular in purpose when it was erected in front of the old civil courthouse in 1956, former state District Judge John Devine and his court reporter, Karen Friend, changed the character of the monument when they refurbished it in 1995, the majority said in a 24-page opinion. ... Jolly, writing for the majority, said that the original purpose of honoring Mosher was secular, but that purpose was changed in 1995 when Devine and Friend placed a neon light inside the monument to outline the Bible.

The court seemed to think that the old version of the display would have been constitutional, but it’s difficult to understand why that would be so. The Supreme Court has upheld displays that include obviously religious documents if it’s part of some larger context which isn’t religious. Thus a Bible might be displayed as part of a larger secular display — I’m not sure what sort of legitimate display might reasonably include a Bible, but in theory it’s possible. Even this, however, doesn’t seem to have been the case with the Harris County Bible display.

I don’t find the argument that honoring someone is a valid “secular purpose.” By that standard, why can’t a state erect a Catholic memorial for the “secular purpose” of honoring all the charitable work done by a pope, or perhaps Mother Teresa? The effect of such a memorial would be obviously religious and it would clearly promote a particular religion, but so long as the government claims they are “honoring” someone, everything is now secular and constitutional?

Kay Staley, an attorney and real estate broker who successfully sued the county over the Bible’s presence, said, “I’m delighted they upheld the Constitution.

“It says we are a country of many religions, and the government should not be promoting one over another,” Staley said. “We are not a Christian nation. We are a nation of many religions or no religion.”

In his decision, Lake also ordered the county to pay Staley $40,000 in attorney’s fees and expenses.

Randall Kallinen, Staley’s lawyer, noted that all three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents. “The most conservative appeals court in the United States believes the monument is a violation of the establishment clause and the First Amendment,” he said.

This is why the Bible display was unconstitutional both before and after the changes: it clearly promoted particular religious beliefs and a particular set of religious scriptures. The government simply doesn’t have the authority to do this. I don’t know what Bible translation was used, but obviously one translation was chosen over all others and this represented an endorsement of that translations over all others. This was a form of favoritism towards those denominations of Christianity which use that translation over denominations which don’t use it.

Chris Campbell objects to this decision:

I do believe that Staley is wrong in saying that the government is promoting Christianity just by having this display. Isn’t the government promoting atheism by not having any kind of display of any religion? Isn’t that against my constitutional rights?

This is a common argument offered by Christians who want the government to promote and endorse their religion, but it’s bizarre and I have trouble figuring out how anyone could sincerely believe it. Where is the logical connection between the premise “the government is not endorsing any religion” and the conclusion “therefore, the government is endorsing atheism”? Even if one falsely assumes that atheism is the same as irreligion, there is no way to logically move from the premise to the conclusion.

If we accepted Chris Campbell’s argument, then it isn’t possible for the government not to violate people’s constitutional rights: if they promote one religion, they violate the rights of people who aren’t members of that religions; if they don’t promote any religions, then they are violating the rights of people of all religions. That’s clearly nonsense, however. If you adopt a position which leads to the conclusion that the government can’t act in a way that doesn’t violate people’s constitutional rights, then that should clue you in to the fact that there is something flawed in your position.

The government has no authority to single out any religions, religious beliefs, or religious doctrines for special favoritism, endorsement, or support. This means that the government must stay out of religious disputes and let the people deal with them on their own. This also means that the government doesn’t have the authority to pick out some translations of the Bible, the Qur’an, the Upanishads, or any other religious document for favorable treatment, promotion, or endorsement.

Is this display making a law that says Christianity only? Does it prevent Muslims, Mormons, or Buddhists from meeting or worshipping their own gods? Is this lawsuit really about religious freedom or just hatred of Christianity?

The presence of the Bible doesn’t prevent non-Christians from following their own religion, but that isn’t the standard by which violations of the Establishment Clause are decided. If the government prevents members of some religions from “meeting or worshipping their” gods, that would be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Thus Chris Campbell is using a red herring to distract attention from the real issue, Establishment, to something else, Free Exercise.

I think this is why Chris Campbell has a lot to say about “hatred of Christianity” but next to nothing about the constitutionality of establishing a religion. It’s a standard tactic used by many Christians to insist that denying special privileges to Christians, Christian beliefs, and Christian institutions constitutes anti-Christian animosity and “hatred” of Christianity. Apparently, you “hate” Christians if you don’t think that they, their beliefs, or their religion should be promoted or endorsed by the government.

The constitution gives us the right to have things like this display not prevent us from having it.

Chris Campbell is making an error here which many Christians make, and it suggests a basic misunderstanding of the Constitution. To put it simply, the Constitution first outlines the functions and authority of government then, though the amendments, describes rights which individuals have. Another way of saying that “individuals have these rights” is to say “the government has no or restricted authority in these areas.” After all, any “right” is a right against government action. My right to “free speech” is a corresponding limitation on the authority of the government to interfere with my ability to speak and express myself. My right to “free exercise of religion” is a corresponding limitation on the authority of the government to interfere with my ability to exercise my religious beliefs.

So the Constitution ensures that individuals have a right to express and promote their religion. The Constitution does not ensure that the government has a “right” to express and promote the religion followed by some or even most individuals. On the contrary, the Constitution denies the government any authority to get involved in such religious matters — civil and religious authority are separated, such that the government does not have authority over religious matters.

This means that the Constitution does not give Christians a “right” to have government displays which promote and endorse their religion. Christians have rights as individuals to have private displays — on their lawns or in their churches, for example. Christians can also put up private displays on public property, so long as it’s a place where such displays are generally permitted and so long as all groups have the same rights and privileges.

Too often, Christians seem to imagine that if they have a right to do something as an individual, then they also have a right to get the government to do the same thing on their behalf. That appears to be what Chris Campbell is arguing and I’ve seen the same thing argued many times in the past. It’s a bad argument, however, and depends upon a failure to understand the difference between individual rights and the scope of governmental authority. Many of these same Christians also believe that, if they are in the majority, then they should be allowed to insert their Christianity into the government and make it part of the foundations of government authority. I don’t think that these two problems are completely separate.

 

Separation of Church & State:

• Separation of Church and State 101
• Secularism 101
• What is the Separation of Church and State?
• Religion's Place in the Public Square
• Myths About Church/State Separation

 

Christian & Religious Privilege:

• Religious Privilege
• Christian Privilege
• Hidden Christian Privileges
• Christian Supremacy