Bridenbaugh v. O'Bannon (1993)
Government Observance of Religous Holidays: Good Friday as a State Holiday
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Can the government take a religious holiday and make an official state holiday out of it? Is it an establishment of religion when a religious holy day becomes an official state holiday? Good Friday is a Christian Holy Day which many Christians would surely like to have off, but does that mean that governments should grant it official recognition over and above the holy days of other religions?
Background Information
In accordance with state law, Indiana state employees are given a day off with pay Good Friday, a religious holiday, just as they are on a number of other, secular holidays. Good Friday has been a legal holiday in Indiana since 1941 and it is undeniably a religious holiday as it is the day when Christians commemorate the death of Jesus Christ, whom they believe to have been the Messiah.
Russell Bridenbaugh sued Frank O'Bannon, Indiana's Governor, claiming that giving state employees a paid religious holiday like that violates the constitutional separation of church and state. According to Bridenbaugh, singling out this particular religious holiday amounts to an establishment of that religious faith by the state - first, because it has no secular purpose and, second, because it has the primary effect of advancing religion.
Court Decision
On July 21, 1999, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Russell Bridenbaugh and found that the government may indeed give state employees a paid day off when that day is a religious holiday (even Good Friday) - but only so long as the state can provide a valid secular purpose which simply coincides with the obvious religious purpose of the holiday. According to the Court, the state has several secular purposes:
Indiana has officially stated that it continues to recognize Good Friday as a legal holiday in order to provide a spring holiday to state employees during a time period in which there would be over four months without a holiday. Indiana also presented evidence that it believes that it serves its interests as an employer to give generous holidays - including the Good Friday holiday - because holidays bolster employees' efficiency and morale. Additionally, Indiana submitted evidence that Good Friday is a good Friday for a long weekend, not only because it falls during a vacation-vacant period, but also because over thirty percent of the schools in Indiana are closed on Good Friday, and because forty-four percent of employers in a nine-state region, including Indiana, allow their employees to take Good Friday as a holiday.
Bridenbaugh tried to argue that most schools and most businesses are open on Good Friday, concluding that there was no particular reason to choose that Friday over any other unless it were for religious reasons. The Court disagreed, however, noting that there was no evidence that any other Friday was more popular and, hence, this one was at least as good as any ohter.
The Court did agree with Bridenbaugh's argument that by giving employees a paid holiday on Good Friday, the state essentially made it easier for Christians to practice their religion than members of other faiths. However, the Court did not agree that this was sufficient to prove a violation of the Constitution:
...the Establishment Clause does not prohibit Indiana from choosing Good Friday as the day for a legal holiday merely because that day coincides with what, to some, is a religious day. No court has ever held that the Establishment Clause is violated merely because a state holiday has the indirect effect of making it is easier for people to practice their faith. Rather, the Supreme Court has made clear that "not every law that confers an 'indirect, remote, or incidental' benefit upon religion is, for that reason alone, constitutionally invalid."
Circuit Judge Fairchild dissented from the above reasoning of the majority, arguing that the state did not provide sufficient support to conclude that the choice of Good Friday was made for purely secular reasons. Fairchild also insisted that the help given to Christians was not simply incidental:
Almost by definition the choice of Good Friday advances the Christian religion (except, perhaps for those Christians who are adherents of the Eastern Church, whose tradition often puts Holy Friday on a different date). Those employees who do not observe Good Friday and who wish to take time off on a different day of religious observance must make a request and use a vacation, compensatory, or personal day or leave without pay. Thus their making that choice imposes a cost. There are circumstances under which the request may not be granted.
Significance
This is one of a number of court cases which have established the validity of the government taking a religious holiday and making an official state holiday out of it. According to these decisions, the fact that such holidays favor Christianity and help Christians is simply an incidental element which does not infringe upon the Constitution or anyone's constitutional rights.
Further Information
Good Friday & Easter
Good Friday is a Christian Holy Day which many Christians would surely like to have off
from work or school, but does that mean that governments should grant it official
recognition over and above the holy days of other religions?
Back To: Court Decisions on Religious Liberty (main page)
-->