In what is, by now, a pretty familiar narrative:
. . . in response to a threatened lawsuit by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the city of Steubenville, Ohio, decided to revise its official seal (left) to remove the silhouette of a local landmark, the chapel on the campus of Franciscan University
In this case it’s especially rich given the college’s role in almost single-handedly resurrecting what had been a crumbling Rust Belt town. In fact, that way of presenting the cross–as a symbol of local history rather than a religious image–may have been acceptable in U.S. courts, though it looks like the city simply threw in the towel rather than plod through expensive litigation:
I’m not sure the city was correct in estimating its chances. True, many lower courts have ordered the removal of crosses from city seals under the endorsement test, but the cases are very fact specific. The key question is whether a reasonable observer would see an official endorsement of Christianity, rather than a reflection of a community’s history. For example, the Tenth Circuit held a few years ago that the city of Las Cruces, New Mexico, could retain crosses on its seal in light of the fact that the city was named for crosses found in a local cemetery. [. . .] That’s one of the problems with the endorsement test. But was depiction of the cross here so awful an offense? Was there no more important Establishment Clause violation to address, somewhere in America?
(h/t: Mark Movsesian)
July 30th, 2012 | 3:51 pm
I can’t imagine that Steubenville would not have prevailed, and there must be many organizations (like ADF) that would have taken the case for free. FFRF should never have threatened to sue, but if all they have to do is threaten to get their way, how are they going to be stopped?
July 30th, 2012 | 9:28 pm
Well, the FFRF does say that a resident asked them to come in. Personally, I can’t see where I’d be particularly bothered, but some people are oversensitive to symbolism they dislike.
July 31st, 2012 | 9:18 am
As I discuss the HHS mandate with local residents and its violation of religious liberty, they often reply, “Well it is not like it will change the Rosary, not allow you to go to Mass, or change the Eucharist.”
It is remarkable how this argument is used against me here yet forgotten when the same happens in Steubenville. It is not like the cross on the logo forced atheists to change their beliefs or “freedom of worship.” Perhaps FUS could announce a study to move across the river and become FUW. I am sure the city of Steubenville and the state of Ohio would change some minds when the proposition of the school may move to WV.
July 31st, 2012 | 9:39 am
I’m a proud resident of Steubenville. Very happy that my local government did the right thing. Our city logo will look much better without that silly symbol on it.
July 31st, 2012 | 10:41 am
JQ Tomanek – Not letting the government put, say, a Rosary on its logo is a bit different from banning people from praying the Rosary, surely?
July 31st, 2012 | 4:11 pm
Ray, I agree. My point is that atheists feel a cross on a logo violates their practice of atheism whereas a contraceptive mandate doesn’t violate my practice of Catholicism because it “doesn’t change my beliefs.”
July 31st, 2012 | 4:32 pm
Lemmy,
I’ve visited your city once for a short time – kind of liked it. I’ve been on the Franciscan U campus for a conference once and found it to be, frankly, life-changing.
That silly symbol, that caused Father Damian to give his life away caring for lepers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Damien and Father Maximillian Kolbe to give his life away in exchange for a Jewish brother. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Kolbe.
August 1st, 2012 | 6:54 am
JQ Tomanek – Some atheists.
August 1st, 2012 | 10:22 am
“atheists feel a cross on a logo violates their practice of atheism ”
Nope. We believe it violates the establishment clause. This belief is consistently upheld in court.
If the university wants to promote their affiliation with the city, let them design a logo and purchase advertising to promote it. I would have no complaint with that whatsoever.
August 1st, 2012 | 10:51 am
For once I fully agree with David, the city should fight this battle and force the atheists to make them change the seal.
On another note Lemmy, the university had nothing to do with it. The city put the symbol on it’s seal because it recognized the fact that the university has played a very important role in the city, especially in the last twenty years. The town you live in has benefited in many worldly ways due to the university, those are the facts.
August 1st, 2012 | 11:12 am
If the university is important to the town, and the town wants to include an image of the university in the seal and that image includes a cross, I fail to see how that is a violation of the establishment clause. I feel very strongly about separation of church and state, but it certainly doesn’t require every image of a cross to be eliminated no matter how it is used. The establishment clause is not intended to make the country safe for vampires. Are we supposed change the name of St. Louis to Louis, or refer to Minneapolis and Paul?
August 1st, 2012 | 11:15 am
The Establishment clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.
So Lemmy and his ilk believe…
the city of Stuebenville, OH = “Congress”
and including a cross in their city logo = “an establishment of religion”
…and they berate religious people for believing goofy things?
August 1st, 2012 | 11:36 am
“The city put the symbol on it’s seal because it recognized the fact that the university has played a very important role in the city, especially in the last twenty years.”
So has Wal Mart. Doesn’t mean the official logo of the city should include their corporate branding.
My “ilk” believe that taxpayer’s money shouldn’t be used on a logo with religious symbolism on it. The law consistently agrees with our ilk.
August 1st, 2012 | 11:59 am
[Lemmy] “Doesn’t mean the official logo of the city should include their corporate branding.”
‘Should’, no. But if they decide to for legitimate reason – for instance it’s part of the actual city’s skyline – then a city CAN.
[Lemmy] “My “ilk” believe that taxpayer’s money shouldn’t be used on a logo with religious symbolism on it.”
First of all, I agree that ‘ilk’ comments aren’t useful.
But these are old arguments. I’m also a taxpayer, and you and I collectively make these decisions with our money through elected and representative government. The threatened lawsuit frankly undermined that process, with help from the city’s lack of engagement. And the law, as alluded to in the article and as has been well documented, does *not* consistently agree.
Taxpayers’ money itself has religious symbolism on it – no small source of irony.
August 1st, 2012 | 12:07 pm
Taxpayer’s money shouldn’t be used on a logo with religious symbolism on it.
You also realize that this argument has nothing whatsoever with the establishment clause, right?
Whomever drafted the logo would have been paid the same amount whether the cross was in it or not. In printing the logo, the same amount of money be used whether the cross was there or not. So this argument is really just an irrational fear/hatred of religion dressed up in a goofy reading of the Establishment clause where the city of Stuebenville, OH = “Congress” and including a cross in their city logo = “an establishment of religion”.
The law consistently agrees with our ilk.
No, certain judges do/have, which makes this a rather weak argument from authority and the goofy reading of the Establishment clause no less, well, goofy.
August 1st, 2012 | 12:11 pm
Jerry Beckett,
The First Amendment has for quite some time applied to state and local governments because most of the Bill of Rights has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be “incorporated” in the Fourteenth Amendment. You can’t just ignore two centuries worth of jurisprudence and interpret the Constitution by reading it literally.
August 1st, 2012 | 12:25 pm
Mr. Nickol:
Fine. Explain how putting a cross in a city logo = “an establishment of religion”.
August 1st, 2012 | 1:44 pm
Fine. Explain how putting a cross in a city logo = “an establishment of religion”.
Jerry Beckett,
See the following:
It seems to me that a city that put a cross in the city’s seal to say, “This is a Christian city,” would be in clear violation of the Establishment Clause—because it is favoring one religion over another—whereas a city that put an image of an important component of the city (which image happened to contain a cross) would be saying, “The image depicts an important part of our town.” That would not be favoring one religion over another.
It depends on what the image of the cross is supposed to convey. In the case of Steubenville, I don’t know all the facts, but based on what I do know, I think the FFRF doesn’t have a case, and so I think they shouldn’t cave.
August 1st, 2012 | 3:04 pm
“Taxpayers’ money itself has religious symbolism on it – no small source of irony.”
No more ironic than that money being used on birth control, abortions, and endless wars.
“whereas a city that put an image of an important component of the city (which image happened to contain a cross) would be saying, “The image depicts an important part of our town.” That would not be favoring one religion over another.”
Very subjective. Other local religious institutions could consider themselves to be just as important components of the city as well. Why isn’t the local Mormon Church included? The Jehovah’s Witness halls? The local Synagogue? Is our Muslim population, however small, not an important part of our town? What about our Hindu population?
August 1st, 2012 | 3:45 pm
Mr. Nickol:
From your source:
This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another.
This is stated as if it were fact, instead of as the “strict separationist” view, one of the 3 prominent and differing ways of interpreting the clause. Paragraphs 6-8 of this review of Donald Drakeman’s book Church, State, and Original Intent summarize them pretty well, I think.
It is perhaps these differing views that make Establishment clause case law rather incoherent.
August 1st, 2012 | 4:12 pm
[Lemmy] “No more ironic than that money being used on birth control, abortions, and endless wars.”
No disagreement with your statement – but if you’re equating them, then this would mean you accept the irony of mine. Then you agree that religious symbolism on our coins appears to not have offended the original minters. It’s ironic to argue that somehow those very coins bearing religious imagery, being spent to do the exact same thing, is NOW a violation of the Establishment Clause.
[Lemmy] “Why isn’t the local Mormon Church included? The Jehovah’s Witness halls? The local Synagogue? Is our Muslim population, however small, not an important part of our town? What about our Hindu population?”
Mr. Lemmy, I haven’t seen *anyone* on this conversation thread object to the city deciding to putting *any* of these buildings on the city logo.
Except you.
August 1st, 2012 | 8:43 pm
JDD – Actually, the original minters didn’t put things like “In God We Trust” on money. That didn’t get started until the Civil War: http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx
August 2nd, 2012 | 10:34 am
Jerry said “On another note Lemmy, the university had nothing to do with it. The city put the symbol on it’s seal because it recognized the fact that the university has played a very important role in the city, especially in the last twenty years.”
That’s funny. Our local reporters are saying that the city contacted the university to help design the logo. The artist who designed the logo says this on his website “With close ties to Franciscan University and deep roots in the Catholic faith, Nelson would like to express its concern that this case and many others like it are positioning the United States on a slippery slope of litigation and censorship.”
August 2nd, 2012 | 2:36 pm
[Ray Ingles] “Actually, the original minters didn’t put things like “In God We Trust” on money. That didn’t get started until the Civil War”
Good history lesson Ray – thanks for that. I hadn’t dived in as deeply to that history.
Okay, “religious symbolism on our coins appears to not have offended the minters for well over a century.”
I am struck, in the article at your link, by the lack of perceived conflict expressed by government officials.
August 3rd, 2012 | 8:02 am
JDD –
Yeah, it’s surprising that people who are hired to carry out a policy, and are actively engaged in carrying it out for a living, express no reservation about the policy in official communication. :)
August 3rd, 2012 | 9:55 am
[Ray Ingles] “Yeah, it’s surprising that people who are hired to carry out a policy, and are actively engaged in carrying it out for a living, express no reservation about the policy in official communication. :)”
No, these are the persons actually making the policy – not just carrying it out.
Your own article makes it pretty clear – we’re talking about the Secretary of the Treasury for starters. there’s conversation back and forth. Congress gets involved and existing Congressional Acts are cited for direction. Their official communication expresses official endorsement and doesn’t expresses official reservations. Far from sounding a cautionary note, Secretary Chase even goes so far as to suggesting a modification to the motto that increases its religious and personal sentiment, not decreases it – from “God, Our Trust” to “IN God we trust.” These are not lackeys dejectedly carrying out someone else’s directives.
But you have some evidence that *secretly* Mr. Chase and Mr. Pollock *actually* thought differently, and were even trying to derail the whole process behind the scenes. You’re about to share it with us:
August 3rd, 2012 | 10:42 am
JDD – Oh, I thought you were talking about the people who put the article together.
No, true, you’ve got a point. The architects of the policy were pursuing expressly religious goals and didn’t see a conflict with the Constitution, anymore than the people who inserted “under God” in the pledge (in the 1950s) for expressly religious purposes didn’t see a conflict.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t, in fact, a conflict. As a mental exercise, for example, try imagining “In Satan We Trust” on the money – or a town logo. I personally have a hard time believing that people would consider that ‘neutral’ or ‘symbolic’. :)
August 3rd, 2012 | 9:59 pm
[Ray Ingles] No, true, you’ve got a point. The architects of the policy were pursuing expressly religious goals and didn’t see a conflict with the Constitution, anymore than the people who inserted “under God” in the pledge (in the 1950sfor expressly religious purposes didn’t see a conflict…That doesn’t mean there isn’t, in fact, a conflict.
What this means is that we all didn’t discover it until now. Which suggests that the conflict is due to the interpreter changing his or her view – not the Constitution.
[Ray Ingles] As a mental exercise, for example, try imagining “In Satan We Trust” on the money – or a town logo. I personally have a hard time believing that people would consider that ‘neutral’ or ‘symbolic’. :)
No need to imagine – just look up the town of Salem Massachusetts. If I lived in this town, I’d want to change the logo too. But I’d object because I happen to believe in angels and demons and I don’t think it’s a good idea for humanity to honor them – not because I believe that I have some sort of Constitutional right not to be offended my my city logo. I’d act through my town hall as a citizen with an opinion in the spirit of and using the tools of self-government – not as an oppressed citizen acting through the abused tools and lawyer language of inclusion through exclusion.
August 4th, 2012 | 8:25 pm
Why some would direct their ire at someone like the folks at FFRF who seek to uphold the Constitution, rather than those flouting it is not apparent. It is important to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class and principals hanging banners in schools), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
A word should be added about the common canard that this is all about people easily offended. We’re not talking about the freedom of individuals to say or do something others find offensive; each of us has that freedom. We’re talking about the government weighing in to promote religion. Under our Constitution, our government has no business doing that–REGARDLESS of whether anyone is offended or whether a majority approves or disapproves. While this is primarily a constitutional point, it is one that conservatives–small government conservatives–should appreciate from a political standpoint as well. While the First Amendment thus constrains government from promoting (or opposing) religion without regard to whether anyone is offended, a court may address the issue only in a suit by someone with “standing” (sufficient personal stake in a matter) to bring suit; in order to show such standing, a litigant may allege he is offended or otherwise harmed by the government’s failure to follow the law; the question whether someone has standing to sue is entirely separate from the question whether the government has violated the Constitution.
August 5th, 2012 | 9:41 pm
Doug Indeap — your argument is premised on the idea that printing an image of a real building topped by a cross on a city logo constitutes “establishment of religion” — a premise that is both unproven and far from obvious.
August 6th, 2012 | 12:07 am
With respect to symbols and such, generally, if a symbol is displayed “by” a government, then that likely will be regarded as “government speech” to be assessed for compliance with the establishment clause. If a monument is displayed by a private person on government land, it may well be regarded as “individual speech” to be evaluated under the free exercise clause. In the latter case, the government, of course, cannot discriminate against particular religions and thus generally must allow other persons or groups equal opportunity to express their religious views on the government land. In sorting this out, much depends on the details of each case.
Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. It covers this topic. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
August 6th, 2012 | 9:34 am
With respect to symbols and such, generally, if a symbol is displayed “by” a government, then that likely will be regarded as “government speech” to be assessed for compliance with the establishment clause.
Doug Indeep,
If a city wishes to use a silhouette of its skyline in the city seal, and the skyline happens to contain an easily recognizable cross on a tall church, is the government obliged to remove the cross from the skyline? Or avoid using the skyline because it has a cross image in it? Is it neutral to religion to obliterate or avoid depicting religious symbols that are actually there? Isn’t that more suppression than neutrality?
August 6th, 2012 | 11:10 am
Perhaps. It is just such details that a judge would take into account in determining whether a reasonable observer would understand the city, by its seal, to be promoting religion or just depicting a skyline. Many religious monuments and statements by government are justified by claiming (sometimes rightly and sometimes cynically) that they are about history or tradition, rather than religion.
August 6th, 2012 | 5:47 pm
Doug Indeap,
Do you think that groups like FFRA should threaten to sue over every image published by the government that contains a religious symbol so that the courts can decide, or do you think FFRA should determine first whether the government is actually promoting religion before threatening to sue? In other words, is the standard for government “guilty until proven innocent”?
August 7th, 2012 | 6:58 pm
I think FFRA or anyone else contemplating a suit about a government’s statements or actions with respect to religion would want to review the context since that is what a court would do. As a practical matter, though, the context may not come out until the government is challenged and presents its defense premised on arguments about the context.
August 8th, 2012 | 8:13 am
JDD –
We’ve got a long history of that. One relatively recent example that comes to mind was the realization that the 14th amendment didn’t allow ‘separate but equal’…
The logo isn’t clear to me. From context, I assume it’s supposed to be a witch’s hat? I wasn’t aware that that was an accepted religious symbol even among ‘witches’. It’s certainly not Satanism, which is what I posited.
And Doug Indeap has pointed out the difference between ‘having standing’ and ‘being offended’.
August 8th, 2012 | 5:27 pm
Ray] “We’ve got a long history of that. One relatively recent example that comes to mind was the realization that the 14th amendment didn’t allow ‘separate but equal’…”
My comments have been in response to Mr. Lemmy claiming the Constitution already supports his view.
And, wow, the point of your statement is hard to fathom. Are you claiming that we’ve once again violated some ‘separate but equal’ clause by this whole Steubenville event? That race (born with) is the same as religion (ultimately chosen)?
[Ray] “The logo isn’t clear to me. From context, I assume it’s supposed to be a witch’s hat?”
Then it is clear to you.
[Ray] “I wasn’t aware that that was an accepted religious symbol even among ‘witches’. It’s certainly not Satanism, which is what I posited.”
I have a hard time accepting that you believe your first statement, considering your propensity for research. I suppose we’ll argue the definition of ‘accepted’, ‘religious’ and even ‘witches’. I’m sure I don’t know what you even think of witches. And I know that you don’t believe in fallen angels, but I do. A conversation for another day.
[Ray] “And Doug Indeap has pointed out the difference between ‘having standing’ and ‘being offended’.”
Yes – he did. Not sure if you’ve read me right but I’ve specifically *denounced* the supposed right to ‘not be offended.’ However Doug Indeap also keeps noting a certain fogginess in ‘having standing’, (much depends on the details of each case”, and so forth,) in sorting out the details – a point which I appreciate, but which has not been shared by either the FFRA nor Mr. Lemmy, (“The law agrees with us!”)
And Mr Nickol’s good pointed questions have gone largely unanswered.
August 9th, 2012 | 1:45 pm
No, I’m claiming that the meaning of the 14th amendment forbade ‘separate but equal’, but it took a while for people to realize that.
In the same way that not all the implications of ‘no establishment’ were obvious to everyone from the start. But we pretty well know what Jefferson intended there.
Honest, if I hadn’t seen it from your recommendation, I’d have assumed it was a sail or something.
I’m talking about practitioners of ‘wicca’. Who don’t like being associated with the traditional ideas of witches, nor ‘Satanism’.
Sure. But – and here’s the point – that’s not what the proposed lawsuit was about. It was specifically about not establishing a religion. The word ‘offended’ doesn’t appear anywhere in the FFRF’s statements about the case, for example.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact