wfn.org | Court Strikes Down Christian State Motto

[PCUSA NEWS <PCUSA.NEWS@ecunet.org>]

Note #5882 from PCUSA NEWS to PRESBYNEWS:

3-May-2000
00179

	Court Strikes Down Christian State Motto

	Ohio Presbyterian is denounced for involvement in church-state lawsuit

	by John Filiatreau

	The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled last week that the state of
Ohio may not continue using its official motto, "With God, all things are
possible" -- Jesus's words, as reported in chapter 19 of the New Testament
Gospel of Matthew -- on its state seal, on its official Web site, pressed
into the concrete in front of the Statehouse in Columbus, or anywhere else.

	In a split decision, the three-judge court ruled that the motto violates
the constitutional principle of separation of church and state because its
words, "at a minimum, demonstrate a particular affinity toward Christianity
in the eyes and ears of a reasonable observer."

	The state had argued that the motto refers only to the same indistinct,
non-sectarian deity that is mentioned in a phrase that appears on United
States money -- "In God We Trust" -- and invoked in the blessing commonly
used after a sneeze.

	The state said it will appeal.

	One of the plaintiffs in the case was a Presbyterian minister, the Rev.
Matthew Peterson of Cleveland Heights, formerly a member of the board of
directors of the Ohio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

	Initially, the ACLU recruited what Peterson calls "a bunch of clergy,"
Christian and Jewish, to be secondary plaintiffs, but when the suit was
about to be filed, "The rest of the clergy pulled out," he told the
Presbyterian News Service.

	Peterson, a youth minister at Fairmount Presbyterian Church, mentioned that
he recently has received a spate of hate mail -- "vitriolic hate stuff," he
calls it -- most of which, he says, is bitterly anti-Semitic. A typical
sentiment: "You are a Jew-lover. Why don't you become a Jew?"

	"That was really unexpected by me," Peterson says of the anti-Jewish tone
of the abusive letters and e-mail messages. "I guess I was naive. I wouldn't
have guessed that. ... I was just so surprised by the tack that it took."

	J. Fred Jenkins, associate stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.), was less surprised. "The Jews have traditionally been better
organized and more aggressive in issues of this kind, and usually the
religious practice in question is Christian," he said. "Often it is Jews who
are involved in disputes of this kind -- although Jews may not be the only
people whose religious feelings are offended."

	The case has been working its way through the courts since 1996, when the
ACLU challenged the motto, arguing that it amounts to "an endorsement of the
Christian religion."

	A lower federal court ruled in 1998 that the state could continue using the
motto as long as it didn't attribute the language to scripture. District
Judge James Graham wrote that the words of the motto "do not state a
principle unique to Christianity" but "could be classified as generically
theistic."

	The ACLU's lead attorney in the case, Mark Cohn, said then: "We thought we
had presented some pretty persuasive arguments that a quote from Jesus
Christ from the New Testament was not an appropriate motto for the state of
Ohio."

	The latest opinion is complex and runs to 30 pages; Jane Fritsch of The New
York Times has observed that it "reads like Thomas-Aquinas-takes-the-bar."

	The Ohio legislature approved "With God, all things are possible" as the
state motto in 1959, on the suggestion of a 12-year-old boy in Cincinnati
who had noticed that Ohio was the only state that had no motto.

	There was a time when Ohio did have a motto. In 1886, the legislature
approved "Imperium in Imperio," which is Latin for "An Empire Within an
Empire." But that provoked a public outcry against the "pretentious feudal
meaning" of the phrase, according to the Ohio Historical Society, and the
legislation was repealed in 1887, after which, in Fritsch's words, "Ohio
remained motto-free for almost 92 years."

	The mottoes of some other states mention God, but Ohio's is the only one
that includes a direct quotation from the Bible.

	Judge Avern Cohn wrote for himself and Judge Gilbert Merritt: "We are
satisfied that the words of the motto cannot be treated as they were by the
district court. When Jesus spoke to his disciples, he was explaining to them
what was needed of them to enter heaven and achieve salvation, a uniquely
Christian thought not shared by Jews and Moslems." In his dissent, Judge
David Nelson said he found the motto no more troubling that the words "In
God We Trust" on U.S. coins.

	According to the Associated Press, Gov. Bob Taft promised to do "everything
within my power to uphold and defend the motto." He argued, "The state does
not use the motto to promote or advance any single set of religious
beliefs."

	Douglas Laycock, a professor of law at the University of Texas, told the
AP, "This is maybe the blandest statement about God that has ever been
struck down."

	"Advocates of the state motto attempted to drain the passage of its
theological significance in their effort to avoid the First Amendment
implications," said Raymond Vasvari, the ACLU of Ohio's legal director. "It
is just another example of how state sponsorship ultimately does no favors
to religion."

	At least a few Presbyterians suggested that Peterson ought to be censured
or otherwise disciplined by officials of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

	"I have to wonder if this individual shouldn't reevaluate his standing with
the Lord," one wrote. "Is he truly a God-fearing person who walks in
Christ's path? Or is he a self-serving publicity hound who would put forth a
liberal view just to advance his own being so that he is noticed? I think
the Presbyterian church leaders should take a hard look at this person and
see if he is deemed worthy to lead anyone, much less the flock of Jesus
Christ."

	Another wrote: "Thanks to Mr. Peterson, whose religious training presumably
led the ACLU to the phrase appearing in the Gospel of Matthew, as I doubt
they could have found it themselves, the Federal Court of Appeals has held
the motto is in violation of the ... First Amendment of the Constitution. Is
this the official church position? If not, it would seem Mr. Peterson is a
candidate for censure."

	Jenkins, a church historian, responded for the PC(USA): "There is a long
history favoring separation of church and state and not seeking government
support for preaching the Gospel. The position taken by ACLU is not
surprising and is not something that would lead to censure of a minister.
The notion of a separation of church and state was expressed in the
Constitution of the Presbyterian Church before it appeared in the
Constitution of the United States."

	"These are difficult cases," Jenkins added, "and ferreting them out for
correction is not a mission priority for the PC(USA). As they are with their
sermons, ministers are free to follow where they are led to express the
Gospel. The history of the subject leaves no doubt what our answer should be
if we are asked."

	Jenkins enclosed with his replies copies of parts of "God Alone is Lord of
the Conscience," a policy statement adopted by the 200th General Assembly in
1988. It says, in part:

	"We oppose the permanent or unattended display of religious symbols on
public property as violation of the religious neutrality required of
government. ...The ban on religious expression by government protects
religious choice from government intrusion. It also protects religion from
trivialization by government. Of necessity, seeking not to offend, not to
exclude and not to particularize, government religious expression would be a
vague and syncretistic civil religion."

	Peterson made a similar point in a letter to Jenkins: "My fear is that if
Scripture is appropriated by the State for its purposes, then it must become
(for them to use it legally) so secularized and so neutral ... that this
great theological statement on salvation ... would become some sort of
neutralized theological Deism rather than the Holy Scripture it is."

	Peterson said Thomas Jefferson and John Calvin both recognized that the
separation of church and state "is really important for the health and
well-being of both institutions."

_______________________________________________
pcusaNews mailing list
pcusaNews@pcusa.org

To unsubscribe, go to this web address:
http://pcusa01.pcusa.org/mailman/listinfo/pcusanews