Home > Portfolio > Writing Sample: Issue Paper
Writing Sample: Issue Paper
Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued over a religious painting in a courtroom. While I don’t always agree with the policies and actions of the ACLU, this paper will show why in this case, their suit is firmly grounded in a defense of our Constitution.
On July 3, 2007, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Slidell, LA, on behalf of an unnamed defendant over a display in the Slidell City Courthouse. In the lobby of the court hangs a painting of Jesus presenting the New Testament, and underneath the painting the message reads, “TO KNOW PEACE, OBEY THESE LAWS.” The suit claims that this is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. On June 20, after receiving complaints, the ACLU asked the city to voluntarily remove the offending display, but the city refused and the ACLU filed the suit.
A local priest has identified the painting as depicting “Christ the Savior” holding out towards the viewer a Russian translation of the New Testament, opened to passages that deal with judgment. This depiction dates to the 16th century and is part of the Russian Orthodox sect of the Christian religion. According to the suit, not only does this display endorse the Christian religion above all other religions, but it specifically endorses Eastern Orthodoxy above all other faiths in the Christian religion itself. Vincent Booth, president and acting executive director of the Louisiana ACLU chapter stated, “We did not file this lawsuit because the ACLU is anti-religion … We did file this lawsuit because we believe this display is clearly in violation of the law.”
The suit names as defendants the city of Slidell, St. Tammany Parish and City Judge James Lamz. The ACLU commented that St. Tammany Parish is being made part of the lawsuit because it partially funds the court. The city and parish are being represented in the case by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian civil rights group. The Fund has agreed to take on all costs of the defense.
Michael Johnson, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said the painting has been on display at the courthouse for nearly a decade and hadn’t provoked any complaints prior to the ACLU’s recent objections. Local talk radio host Jeff Crouere puts it another way: “What is sad is that the ACLU is pursuing a matter that was never a controversy in the past. In fact, in the ten years that court has been in existence, no one has ever complained and no one has ever been able to point to an incident of discrimination based on religion. It was a manufactured crisis to get headlines for the ACLU.” Johnson states that his group believes the painting sends an inclusive message of equal justice under the law. According to him, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that similar displays in public forums are constitutional.
In order to understand the basis of this lawsuit and form an educated opinion on the case, we must read and interpret the Constitution, based on the meaning derived from its passages over the years by the Supreme Court.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States contains the following clause:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The first section of the clause is commonly referred to as the Establishment Clause, while the second is called the Free Exercise Clause. This case revolves around the court’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause. The framers of the Bill of Rights wrote this clause to prevent the government from setting up and funding a state-sponsored religion at the expense of all other faiths and beliefs. Some believe that this is the only purpose of the clause, and that funding and supporting some religious programs is not a violation of the intention of the clause. Some hold to the position of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, proposing a “wall of separation” between church and state.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has through the years supported both positions, only serving to further muddy the issue. The first case to come before the Court and be decided based upon the Establishment Clause was Everson v. Board of Education in 1947. This case involved a state law that reimbursed parents for the busing of their children to parochial schools, and in a 5-4 decision the Court upheld the Constitutionality of this law. The majority opinion said that the law served the secular purpose of getting children safely to school, while one dissenting opinion pointed to the fact that only public and Catholic school children were eligible and not other private schools. All opinions, however, agreed that the Establishment Clause was clearly intended as more than just to prevent the establishment of a state religion.
The next year, in the case Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District, the Court ruled against one state’s practice of inviting religious instructors into public schools to give optional religious instruction, but a few years later, in the case of Zorach v Clauson, the Court decided that giving public school students "release time" so that they could attend religious programs is not a violation. The specific issue of school-sponsored prayer has been through the court quite a few times, and the general consensus of the Court seems to allow individual prayer or meditation in school as long is not endorsed or promoted by any faculty or staff.
This brings us to the issue in this case, namely does this display violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? After examination of both sides of the argument and of precedence set forth in previous court cases, the answer to this is a resounding and unequivocal yes.
In the lobby of a state-run courthouse sits a Christian painting that directs the viewer “TO KNOW PEACE, OBEY THESE LAWS.” The image of Jesus Christ peers at the viewer as he commands you to read a section of the New Testament dealing with judging correctly and wisely while the above phrase sits prominently beneath it. If it was just a generic painting of Jesus holding a Bible placed in an inconsipicous location, it would be well within the federal court’s jursidication to rule that this does not imply a support or establishment of a specific religion. But the implication of this specific display is that the court is dealing with upholding Christian laws at the expense of government laws, and that the way to receive justice in the court is to follow Christianity. This is a blatent violation of the Establishment Clause, one of the most egregious violations in recent memory. By saying that obeying Christian laws is the way to “peace” the Slidell City Courthouse is effectively establishing Christianity as the state religion.
The shortsightedness of the opponents to this lawsuit is overwhelming. Statements like this one from Crouere are typical of the reaction from the community:
The ACLU is acting like a bully and trying to force the court to make an action that is counter to the wishes of the vast majority of citizens in the community. … Real violations of civil liberties are not a focus of the ACLU; instead headline grabbing controversies are their forte.
If we were to apply the laws as Crouere and others wished, then a display that said “Jews not welcome” would be acceptable as long as “the vast majority of citizens in the community” agreed with the statement. The simple fact that most believe something does not make their belief true for everyone, and to use the majority rule to promote discrimination of the minority is akin to blatant racism. Also, members of this community seem to think that since no one complained in the 10 years it has been on display it should be left alone. “It’s mighty late to decide they don’t want it,” said Jacqueline Battiste, of Slidell. “Something should’ve been done a long time ago. What makes it so different now?” The difference is that a person rightly felt discriminated against by this display and whether it was 10 minutes after it went up or 10 years, the ACLU, acting on behalf of this individual, has every right in this country of pursuing action against this offense.
Some people make this an issue of “Us against the ACLU.” “You know, [the ACLU] is picking on a small community,” said Randy Lee, 60, of Slidell, a self-described Christian fundamentalist. “Christians are seen as very passive. It’s time for Christian people to stand up and say, ‘Hey!’” Since a devout born-again Christian who bases many of his decisions on what he perceives as the word of God runs the Executive branch of our government, I’m not sure where this man is coming from. In this case, the ACLU is standing up for the minority against the majority “mob rule” mentality of the community. Slidell Mayor Ben Morris went so far as to compare the ACLU to "book-burning Nazis" and the Taliban in Afghanistan. If any party to this lawsuit was behaving as the Taliban, it is the town of Slidell. The Louisiana ACLU president Booth said the ACLU thinks governments shouldn't favor one religion, as the Taliban do. He said the mayor's statement was "ironic and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what the Taliban is about."
The fact that the state’s defense is bought and paid for by a Christian organization points to the hypocrisy of the defendant’s position. These are the same defendants that claim the painting isn’t meant to represent any one religion in particular and is something you might find in a museum, while at the same time, as a reporter from the Times-Picayune observed at a rally held in defense of the display:
The rally lasted about an hour and was peppered with prayer and shouts of "Hallelujah!" and "Praise Jesus!" Toward the end of her speech, the Rev. Kathleen Javery-Bacon, of the Holy Ghost and Fire Revival Ministries in Slidell, raised her arm to the sky while chanting, "Jesus! Jesus! Jesus" as the crowd echoed her cry.
While this rally served to galvanize the community, Booth went so far as to praise residents for holding it, calling the decision to protest against his organization "wonderful" and saying the event illustrates the freedoms available to people in the United States. In my view, the rally also served to underscore the untenable position of the city and so mainly benefitted the ACLU’s case.
As highlighted over the course of American history, the government has taken varying positions on the issue of religion and government. However, in every case I examined, the Supreme Court has ruled that any state act or position that works to endorse or promote religion, and especially to endorse one religion at the expense of another, is a clear violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Therefore, I firmly believe that this case will be upheld and the display removed, even if the case makes its way to the Supreme Court.
