Religion & American Law

On Tuesday, December 6, Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee will host the annual State House holiday tree lighting at the State House Rotunda at 5:30 p.m. All Rhode Islanders are invited to attend to see the 17-foot Colorado blue spruce tree lit for the first time, which was donated by Big John Leyden’s Tree Farm in West Greenwich, Rhode Island. Santa Claus and Mrs. Claus will be available for visits with children during the lighting. Although this is an annual event, this year the event has been surrounded by controversy. Gov. Lincoln Chafee proclaimed that the tree must be referred to as a “holiday tree” rather than a “Christmas tree.”

Gov. Chafee, however, is ignoring a resolution recently passed by the State House Legislature that proclaimed trees during this season would be called “Christmas trees.” He claims it cannot be called a “Christmas tree” because that counters Rhode Island’s founding as a haven for religious tolerance, where government and religion were kept separate. Critics of Chafee’s seasonal semantics thought that he was taking political correctness too far- and defying the will of the state legislature. In particular, John Leydon, the owner of the Christmas tree farm, is disappointed with Chafee’s yuletide word choice because he wanted to promote Christmas tree sales with other Rhode Island Christians. He states, “We’re a Christmas tree farm. That’s what the name is.”

This case is important in evaluating the complex relationship between the Establishment Clause and the legality of holiday decorations on town property. In Lynch vs. Donnelly (1984), the court ruled that display of a crèche in Pawtucket, Rhode Island’s shopping district has a legitimate secular purpose to celebrate the season and the origins of Christmas, which has long been part of Western culture. Although placing a nativity scene on public property may plainly have a religious purpose, Chief Justice Berger saw that “like a painting, the crèche is passive.” By labeling the tree as a “holiday tree,” Governor Chafee attempts to make the lighting ceremony passive and give it secular purpose. He wants to ensure the state is neutral towards all religions, and so makes an effort to make the ceremony a holiday one, not just a Christmas tree lighting event. Furthermore, he asserts that if the tree was labeled as a “Christmas tree”, one may view that as a state endorsement of the Christian faith.

I understand Governor Chafee’s attempt to respect all religions in Rhode Island. However, I think it is obvious that the “holiday tree” is in fact a “Christmas tree.” A Christmas tree farm donated the tree, and the ceremony also entails time with Santa Claus, a tradition associated with Christianity. If the state did not want to endorse the Christian faith, Santa would not be present, and there would be no lighting ceremony to begin with. In order to obtain neutrality, there would be no holiday celebrations using tax funds on state property.

The state violated the Establishment Clause by mandating that trees during the holiday season should be called Christmas trees through a resolution. With this legislation, the state undoubtedly endorses the Christian faith. It is important to recognize, that not all spruce trees are used as Christmas trees.

Obviously the tree lighting event has historical tradition and significance for the people of Rhode Island, despite this controversy. In order for the state to avoid endorsing one particular faith though, people should celebrate their holiday traditions privately.

This past Tuesday, the Freedom from Religion Foundation announced they had sent a letter to the Onslow County, North Carolina Board of Commissioners regarding an ad that the county sheriff placed in a local newspaper. The ad was put in a form of a letter and addressed to the town. The ad read, “All Decent and Respectable Citizens…Our society is in a big mess today because good, decent and respectable citizens have ignored the Truth of God, good common sense, and a decent standard because of an opinion given by someone with a doctrinal degree who has no wisdom… Remember, there are no loop holes or places for opinion in the Law of God, The Ten Commandments.” The local news reported that the Sheriff paid for the ad from his personal funds and has done so for numerous ads for the past 21 years. However, the Freedom from Religion Foundation included in their letter that by having the sheriff’s badge and seal, it is in violation of the Establishment Clause as it has a clear religious purpose and is carried by the backing of the Sheriff’s Office.
I believe that the sheriff should be granted the freedom of speech as he is permitted to discuss his religious beliefs on public forums with his private funds. However, I feel that in order to not confuse the public, there should not be his sheriff’s badge and seal included in the ad. He can discuss his religious views all he wants as long as it is not connected back to the Sheriff’s department. By having the badge and seal located in the ad, it can confound the public who could believe that his views represent the department. The FFRF has a valid point in stating the sheriff’s signature is, “meant to carry the weight and authority of the Sheriff’s office and of Onslow County.” The sole purpose of the letter is to urge the readers to “stand and be counted for the Cause of God”. By including his position in law enforcement in his ad he is indirectly establishing religion views for the rest of his colleagues. The Establishment Clause was enacted to separate church and state by not allowing any part of the government to promote, advance or endorse any religion. Throughout his ad there is a clear message of promoting his religious views.
In 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued three Kentucky counties in federal district court for exhibiting copies of the Ten Commandments in courthouses and in public schools. The justices concurred that this was in violation of the Establishment Clause as to a reasonable observer it would seem that the government was endorsing certain religious views. In doing so, there was an establishment of religion. This court ruling along with many others that are linked to government’s establishment of religion in public forums further proves my point that the Sheriff’s “message” to the town is inherently religious and innately establishment. Any average person reading this paper would note the seal of the sheriff’s department on the side and would assume that the message was not only coming from the Sheriff but the entire department. If the sheriff wishes to continue with his ads then he should simply remove his seal from the letter. He is completely entitled to his own religious beliefs and is allowed to voice them in a public forum but not while creating the impression of establishment, that the government and his department have the same beliefs.

Recently an ad that a Sheriff from Onslow County, North Carolina posted in the local newspaper has alerted the Freedom from Religion Foundation of a possible violation of the Establishment Clause. The ad, for “all decent and respectable citizens of a decent and respectful society”, urges citizens to look to God for wisdom and to obey his law. The quarter page ad uses the word God eight separate times, with very clear and blatant religious overtones. The Sheriff, Ed Brown, believes that his ad is justified, as he paid for it with his own money. The upper corner of the ad has the official seal of the Sheriff on it, which the Freedom from Religion Foundation sees as a blatant endorsement of religion by the government. Brown has been placing ads like this one in the paper for the last 21 years, all with his own money. He refuses to see this as a case of establishment, but rather an exercise of free speech. The Freedom from Religion Foundation believes that the sole purpose of the ad is to proselytize and to bring people to the ‘Truth of God.’

One of the biggest issues to overcome if this is not a violation of the establishment clause is the seal of the Sheriff on the advertisement. Placing the seal on any document definitely seems to be a seal of government endorsement. Even though the Sheriff used his own funds to pay for the ad, any reasonable observer looking at the ad would not think this because of the seal. Also, this ad is not simply a statement of religious belief, but rather a plea from the Sheriff to the citizens urging them to look to god for answers and to obey his law. This ad was displayed publicly in a newspaper that anyone can read.

I believe that the Freedom from Religion Foundation is correct in this instance and that the ad is indeed a violation of the Establishment Clause. This is for two main reasons. First, the seal of the Sheriff is on the document, making it obvious to the reader that the message is endorsed by the Sheriff himself. Second, the message conveyed in the advertisement is one of strong religious background and has a clear purpose to proselytize. The Sheriff’s argument that he paid for the ad with his own personal funds, so it is not a statement from the government, doesn’t sit well with me. His official seal is placed on the document. Even if his seal weren’t placed on it, I would still argue that a message from the Sheriff of a county would be a message from the entire police department of that county, seeing as he is the head of it. An elected public official such as the Sheriff should not be proselytizing his religion to his citizens, regardless of who pays for it. The President of America doesn’t go around telling U.S. citizens to pray and find God in their lives, so neither should the Sheriff of a small county. The situations are analogous in my mind, and should be treated with the same gravity.

The LA Times reported this week that leadership in the Marines is considering removing a large cross from Camp Pendleton in California. Camp Pendleton serves as the Marine Corps' primary west coast base and amphibious training facility. Upon learning of the 13-foot cross, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers filed a complaint with base officials, arguing that the cross violates the establishment clause of the constitution. On the other side, the American Center for Law and Justics (ACLJ) has asked that the cross be allowed to remain.

A fifth-grader in Pennsylvania attempting to invite fellow students to a church Christmas party was prevented from doing so by school officials. While students are allowed to hand out invitations to birthday parties or other private activities, the school superintendant restricted this type of invitation. The superintendant claimed that the invitation was solicitation from a third-party as opposed to personal speech by the student. The student's father challenged this restriction and was victorious in the district court.

There are multiple issues which must be considered in this case. The religious free exercise rights as well as free speech rights of the student are at stake and there is the potential for an Establishment Clause violation by the school. From the student's perspective, she was acting within her free speech as well as free exercise rights to invite classmates to the church party. The superintendant disagreed, feeling that the invitations represented the views of a third party, the church, and that the student's right to free speech was therefore not restricted. Another issue which was not directly discussed by the superintendant but is certainly germane is the potential establishment issue. The superintendant may have felt that granting permission to hand out the invitations would constitute school endorsement of the religious party thereby violating the Establishment Clause.

An important precedent to consider regarding the constitutional rights of students in public schools is Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). In this case, students protested the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school. School officials were concerned that the armbands would cause a disturbance in the school and suspended the students when they came to school wearing them. The Supreme Court ruled that the armbands constituted speech deserving of First Amendment protection unless the school could prove that the speech posed a threat to school discipline.

The Tinker precedent suggests that the distribution of invitations to a church Christmas party would classify as constitutionally protected free speech. Since the superintendant did not make a claim that the invitations caused a disturbance, the Tinker precedent leads one to believe that such speech should not be restricted. Additionally, the fact that the student is distributing invitations as opposed to verbally inviting classmates to the party does not limit her Constitutional protections. The printed invitations convey the exact same message as this verbal discussion would convey, and it would be inappropriate to restrict either of these two types of speech. While the Tinker case considered a purely secular message, there is no reason to expect that the religious focus of the church party invitations would not deserve the same legal protection. The student has the religious free exercise right to promote her church’s Christmas party without the religious content of her message being restricted. Such restrictions would constitute viewpoint discrimination, and it is this potential hostility towards the religious aspect of the student’s speech which Stephen Carter finds so disturbing about the American culture in The Culture of Disbelief.

The superintendant may try to base his restriction of the student's invitations on the basis of Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000). Here, the Supreme Court found a student-delivered prayer before a high school football game to be an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause. However, Santa Fe is too different from the case at hand to provide support for the superintendant's actions. The majority in the Santa Fe decision found the prayer to have direct government support. The public school provided the platform, audience, and venue for the prayer. Based on these facts, a reasonable observer would find the school to be endorsing the religious message presented by the student at the football game. Regarding the church Christmas party invitations, the student's message would not have received school sponsorship simply by being allowed to be distributed. The school does not endorse the birthday parties of its students anymore than it would have endorsed the church party, and a reasonable child would not infer school sponsorship of either invitation. Just as any student can invite their schoolmates to a birthday party, they have the right to invite their friends to a church party and should not have such actions restricted based solely on the religious content of their message.