A Study of Court Cases on Religious Symbolism in the State
In recent cases around the nation, the role of symbols of faith have come under question. There are two clauses of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights cause controversy in the issue of government to religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, as was the case in many other countries at the time. However, it is less clear if the Establishment Clause was meant to prevent the federal government from supporting Christianity in general. The narrow interpretation argues that the First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights prayed to open the legislative assembly and voted to apportion federal dollars to establish Christian missions in the Indian lands. The broader view of the clause point Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who suggested establishing "a wall of separation" between church and state.
In 1947, in Everson v Board of Education, the Supreme Court began to rule on this issue. In his majority opinion Justice Black wrote Constitution maintains a "wall of separation" between church and state, however, the aid would serve the secular interest in getting kids safely to schools. The case is noteworthy for its extensive discussion of the purposes of the Establishment Clause, and for the fact that all nine justices agree that the clause was intended to do far more than merely prohibit the establishment of a state religion.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
In 1970, Aronow v United States found that “In God We Trust” to be compatible with the establishment clause. The decision stated, “It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency ‘In God We Trust’…is excluded from First Amendment significance because the motto has no theological or ritualistic impact … it has ‘spiritual and psychological value’ and ‘inspirational quality.’”
1973's Anderson v. Salt Lake City Corp. found a granite monolith inscribed with the Ten Commandments and other symbols representing God and Christ to be primary secular in nature and therefore constitutional.
The Supreme Court decided in 1983 in Marsh v. Chambers that legislative prayer is constitutional based on historical usage. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote that the Continental Congress opened its sessions with prayer in 1774, during the years of the nation's founding. “Clearly the men who wrote the First Amendment Religion Clause did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that Amendment, for the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress,” he stated.
In the 1984 Lynch v Donnelly, a crèche included in an annual Christmas display was constitutional. Justice O’Connor concluded that the crèche did not violate the establishment clause and the crèche must be viewed in light of its setting, which included nearby traditional Christmas displays like a Santa Claus house, reindeer and a sleigh, a Christmas tree, lights and carolers. The Supreme Court viewed the crèche in the context of the Christmas season and noted that “the display depicts the historical origins of this traditional event long recognized as a National Holiday.”
Four states have mottos referring to God. Ohio’s motto was challenged. “With God All Things are Possible” is a direct quote from Matthew 19:26. In 2001, the court found the motto to fit within "ceremonial deism" because it “is merely a broadly worded expression of a religious/philosophical sentiment that happens to be widely shared by the citizens of Ohio.”
In March 2002, a federal court in Pennsylvania ruled that a plaque of the Ten Commandments placed on the exterior of a courthouse was unconstitutional. Three months later, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision because there was no evidence that the county had endorsed any religion using the plague. For example, it hasn't taken any action involving the plaque since its erection, and the county never held a ceremony to commemorate the anniversary of the plaque or installed lights to draw attention to it at night. To a reasonable observer, the plaque would be a part of an historic monument and not as an endorsement of religion.
Many cases were challenging the display of the Ten Commandments, and the district court noted that, “When, the Ten Commandments are an incidental or essentially inconspicuous part of a larger secular display or are integrated within a larger secular goal, Courts generally find a secular purpose and, thus, no violation.”
In May 2003, Court of Appeals ruled that a Georgia court clerk's seal that included an outline of two stone tablets with Roman numerals I through X did not violate the establishment clause. The seal's small size (one inch in diameter), and also the presence of other symbols in the seal (a sword, something the court found to be "among the most recognizable symbols of the secular legal system"), led the court to conclude that its use does not violate the establishment clause.
In recent legal action, courts in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming have allowed the Ten Commandments to be displayed on public property and consistent with the Supreme Court’s concept of ceremonial deism, the phrase, “under God” in the Pledge was upheld based on historical usage in 1992. The 2003 case, Newdow v. United States, the Supreme Court voted along the same lines.
The general view has been that religious expressions in government are not unconstitutional because of historicity and the fact that the expressions are not used to promote state religion.
