Firm Foundation

The Louisiana ACLU is demanding that Slidell City Court officials remove a portrait of Jesus from the lobby of the court building, saying it violates the Establishment Clause.  It also objects to the words below the picture, which state: “To know peace, obey these laws.”  The presiding city judge, the Honorable Jim Lamz, issued a sharp statement rebuking the ACLU for not contacting the court before issuing its press release on the matter.  Lamz said the ACLU’s actions indicated that it was more interested in publicity than resolving the issue.  Is there anyone shocked by that?  The ACLU says it is giving the court until next Wednesday to remove the portrait or face a lawsuit.  The display has been hanging in the lobby of the courthouse since 1997, well before Lamz was elected presiding city judge.

The story is reminiscent of the ACLU’s challenge last year to a portrait of Jesus that had been hanging in a hallway of Bridgeport High School in West Virginia for over 30 years.  That picture was stolen by an unknown perpetrator and the high school went on to settle the case by promising not to display any item with religious content unless it had a valid secular purpose. 

In this case, the ACLU claims that the Slidell City Court would have to contain displays of every religious group in existence in order to be constitutionally allowed to display the Jesus portrait.  The Louisiana chapter’s Executive Director Joe Cook sounds like he has been talking too much to Jesse Jackson when he says, “If you can’t accommodate, you must separate; That’s the beauty of the First Amendment.” 

Cook obviously thinks this is clever, but it happens to be 100% wrong.  Even Supreme Court precedent, as disastrous as it is in this area, does not require such impossible “accommodation” for public displays of religion.  Ten Commandments monuments that have been upheld, for example, have been surrounded by several monuments or a few “secular” legal documents.  (See, e.g., Van Orden v. Perry, Plattsmouth v. ACLU, and Green v. Board of Commissioners of Haskell County).  There is absolutely no requirement that every religious belief must be represented in order for the display to be constitutional.

Beyond the SC’s precedent, as Firm Foundation persistently points out, under no plain reading of the First Amendment are religious displays barred from public buildings.  The relevant portion of the First Amendment provides: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  The Slidell City Court obviously is not Congress, so the clause should have no application whatsoever, but in today’s legal age this point is considered passé.  So, if the First Amendment is applied to the city court, is there any way the portrait could be considered a “law” under any ordinary understanding of that term?  Does hanging a portrait of Jesus “establish” the Christian religion as the official religion of the Slidell City Court?  The obvious answer to these questions is “no,” but the ACLU persists with the fiction that having the Ten Commandments hanging on a courthouse wall or a portrait of Jesus decorating the lobby of a court, in the words of ACLU attorney Katie Swartzmann, “clearly gives the impression that only believers in the law of Jesus Christ will receive justice in that courthouse.” 

To begin with, the “law of Jesus,” as much as there is such a thing, is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  By that doctrine everyone should expect to be treated completely fairly in the Slidell City Court because a Jesus portrait hangs in the lobby.  Nothing in Jesus’ teachings advocates giving favorable treatment to Christians over non-Christians.  In fact, Christians are commanded to think of others as better than ourselves.  (Philippians 2:3).  Beyond this, however, it is simply a logical fallacy to contend that because a certain piece of artwork is displayed somewhere it means that a person will act a certain way.  If an Alabama district attorney has a portrait of venerated University of Alabama coach Bear Bryant hanging in his office (a likely possibility in this state) it does not follow that he is only going to treat UA fans with fairness.  If the portrait in the court lobby was that of Mahatma Gandhi, would the ACLU assume that only Hindus and those who practice non-violence would receive justice in the courthouse?  I distinctly doubt it. 

The ACLU’s real problem is not with the supposed impression the display gives, but that it is a picture of the central figure in Christianity.  Rather than revealing the court’s alleged bias toward Christians, the fact that the ACLU objected to something that Judge Lamz says he has never heard even one complaint about actually illustrates the ACLU’s blatant and unrelenting bias against Christianity.  For years the organization has repeatedly threatened local, state, and federal government officials and entities throughout the country to excise any symbol or expression of Christianity from the public square.  All the while, it has flagrantly disregarded any public expressions of other religions. 

Reports from the week just passed provide two illustrative examples of this double standard.  First, the University of Michigan at Dearborn is set to spend $25,000 to install two footbaths for Muslims students to use before prayers.  Muslim leaders were considering raising the money privately until the ACLU of Michigan informed the school that it would not object to the expenditure of public funds because, the director of the Detroit ACLU said, the footbaths are a “reasonable accommodation” to resolve “safety and cleanliness issues.”  Second, a New York City councilman wants to change the city schools’ policy that permits the display in schools of menorahs as a symbol of the Jewish holiday of Chanukkah and the star and crescent as a symbol of the Islamic holiday of Ramadan, but permits only secular symbols, and not a creche or nativity scene, to be displayed as a symbol of Christmas.  The ACLU declined to speak out against the policy when it received national attention and it declined to support the lawsuit which was filed to challenge it.  (The policy was upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Skoros v. City of New York on the grounds of teaching “diversity,” and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case). 

Examples like these abound and should wake people up to the fact that, when it comes to public religious displays, the ACLU is not concerned about fairness in the courtroom or in schools or wherever else these symbols may be found.  It is concerned about removing any sign of the Christian influence on this nation.  Here’s to hoping that Judge Lamz refuses to bow to the ACLU’s tired legal tactics and instead stands up for the Constitution by unashamedly keeping the portrait on display for all to see. 

UPDATE: Judge Lamz has responded to the ACLU’s demand by saying that the court cannot possibly comply within the time frame of the deadline because he must determine whether display in fact violates the law.  He plans to consult with an “independent Constitutional expert” on the matter because, he says, it would be inappropriate for the court to take the ACLU’s interpretation of the law as fact.  In typical fashion, the ACLU is giving no quarter, as Joe Cook still says the group will file suit if the portrait is not down by next Wednesday. 

It is good to know that Judge Lamz is aware that the ACLU’s word is not gospel in these matters, but I wonder who he will turn to for an “independent” constitutional analysis.  Stay tuned for more details.