And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.
– Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia
In November 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to take up a case that originated in Greece, New York, over a local government body’s pre-meeting prayer practices. Over the span of eleven years, the town council opened its sessions with prayers that were primarily led by those of Christian faith. Specifically, the council opened with a Christian-based message between 1999 and 2007 and between January 2009 and June 2010.1
Council members deviated a bit from the Christian aspect of the prayer after two residents – an atheist woman and a Jewish woman – complained in 2008 that the town was endorsing one religion over another.2 The council then allowed separate opening messages to be led by a Jewish person, a Wiccan priestess, and the head of a nearby Baha’i congregation.3 Council members also allowed for other meetings in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2013 to go forth with non-Christian opening prayers.4
But the two women weren’t satisfied with the town’s accommodations and they turned to the courts for redress. They accused the town council of unlawfully promoting one religion over another by selecting Christians more often than followers of other faiths to lead the public sessions in prayer.5 They also claimed they felt pressured to participate in the prayer by standing when instructed to do so – that they were in effect coerced to take part in the Christian messages.6
They lost in US District Court. The judge ruled that the town wasn’t proselytizing.
But the pair refused to give up their claim and turned to the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals for a new ruling. They won their appeal after the court found the town was pushing one religion over another and giving a silent endorsement to Christianity.7
So Greece officials took the matter to the highest court in the nation – to the same court that thirty years ago already ruled that government bodies may indeed open in prayer. In November 2013, the attorney for the two women asked that justices rule that pre-meeting prayers could not contain any specific Christian bent – that future prayers omit an appeal to or mention of Jesus Christ.8
Really? Do we really want our government in charge of dictating the content of our prayers?
But this case was such an apt illustration of where our nation now stands. Instead of waiting respectively for the prayers to wrap up or leaving the room if silent respect was too tough to swallow, these two women went on a legal hunt to overturn a centuries-long, court-upheld tradition in America – that of bowing the head and asking God for blessing before legislative proceedings. And toward what purpose?
To upset the order of America.
As many in the media covering the Supreme Court case already pointed out, the justices themselves always open session with a court marshal’s appeal to the Almighty: “God save the United States and this honorable court.”9 So the 2013 Greece v. Galloway case against prayer before legislative sessions was being heard by a government body that opens its own sessions in prayer. That’s quite a twist.
As the Supreme Court made clear in 1983, in Marsh v. Chambers – where justices ruled that Nebraska didn’t break law by letting a Presbyterian minister open legislative sessions for sixteen years – prayer before government business is part of the fabric of America’s society.10 It’s in our national DNA.
Yet you wouldn’t know that, with all the attacks on God in politics, culture, the military, and schools in recent years.
In October 2013, the Jackson City School District in Ohio bowed to pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom from Religion Foundation and agreed to pay $95,000 to settle a complaint about a painting of Jesus Christ.11 The painting had been hung among other pictures of notable historical figures as part of the Jackson City School District’s “Hall of Honor” display on one of its building’s walls.12 On top of that, it had hung there since 1947, when it was gifted to the district by a school student club.13
But in February 2013, two students and three parents complained, saying the painting was tantamount to a school endorsement of Christianity and should be removed. Enter the ACLU and the FFRF.14
The school superintendent at first vowed to fight the looming suit, decrying the idea of a group from Madison, Wisconsin – the FFRF – crossing state lines to fight a local school issue.15 But he soon stepped back from the battle after learning the district’s insurance company wouldn’t pay the legal fees. The school took down the Jesus painting and put it away in a closet at the school.16
But even that wasn’t good enough for the ACLU and FFRF.
Plaintiffs then argued that the painting shouldn’t be anywhere on school grounds.17 After all, they asked, what if someone opened the closet door and saw the Jesus painting and was offended?
To stop the suit, school officials agreed to pay $95,000 – and to get the painting off school grounds.18 The superintendent said the school wasn’t financially equipped to handle the double-barrel ACLU-FFRF suit and legal bills were piling up.19 One small win for the school: the insurance company agreed to pay the $95,000, so taxpayers weren’t hit with the bill.20
Unbelievable. It’s almost as if some people know the suit-happy culture we live in and look for ways to take advantage. And the fact that in this case Jesus was being presented on a school wall as a historical figure – rather than a biblical one – only drives that suspicion deeper.
In November 2013, officials with the Watauga County School District in North Carolina told the local American Legion Post 130 that its members couldn’t hang posters that included the mantra “In God We Trust” because they feared it might be unconstitutional.21 The posters, about sixteen by twenty inches, were framed and portrayed the American flag with the text of the national motto along with the words “The national motto of the United States, adopted by Congress, July 30, 1956.”22 And the American Legion was distributing them, free of charge, as part of a statewide initiative to post the national motto in prominent places.23 By the time the American Legion got around to asking the Watauga County schools, its members had already placed posters in 185 different businesses in the community.24
But the school’s legal counsel suggested the school district ban them.25 Why?
It was a preemptive move, in case somebody saw the posters, misinterpreted their contexts, and sued.26
As one poster supporter pointed out, though, it’d be hard to sue when most people already cart the motto around in their pockets, wallets, or purses. And as another argued, how come it’s okay to put up pictures of witches on brooms for Halloween celebrations, or graphic images of the federal “Preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse” program, but not of the national motto?27
It’s not the first time the national motto has come under attack.
In 2011, a California math teacher with thirty years of experience in the classroom was ordered by a court to take down his banner display that showcased the religious heritage of the United States. One banner touted the four messages, all in capital letters: “IN GOD WE TRUST,” “ONE NATION UNDER GOD,” “GOD BLESS AMERICA,” and “GOD SHED HIS GRACE ON THEE.”28 Another banner stated, with the emphasis on the last word, “All Men Are Created Equal, They Are Endowed By Their CREATOR.”29
The teacher had hung the banners for twenty years in one school, but transferred to another – Westview High School near San Diego – where he was told the messages were in violation of the Constitution because they promoted one particular belief over another.30 The teacher tried to argue that it was his First Amendment rights that were actually being violated by the order, given that other teachers in the school displayed religious items for other faiths – a Tibetan prayer flag, for instance – but to no avail.31
The court ruled the banners had to come down, adding that the teacher was free to educate students about the religious heritage of the nation – just not in the classroom, or at school.32
Does that mean that the Declaration of Independence – or at least the portion that contains the same phrase as one of the teacher’s banners – can’t be hung in the classroom because it might be seen as an offense to those of different views?
The Pledge of Allegiance is under attack too.
In mid-2013, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts heard a complaint from a handful of parents and the American Humanist Association that school students were being wrongfully pushed to say the Pledge of Allegiance – specifically the phrase “under God.”33 The school defended its policy, arguing that students weren’t forced to say the pledge.34 Their participation was wholly voluntary.
But the plaintiffs, from the Acton-Boxborough School District, said the pledge unfairly marginalizes and stereotypes atheists. They wanted the school recitation brought to a halt.35
Why do these cases always start with a complaint from a single person or a small handful of people who suddenly decide that decades-old American traditions – that are supported by millions around the nation – are overtly offensive and demand immediate change? The pledge takes about ten seconds to recite. Nobody’s holding a gun to compel recitation. Yet somehow, some disgruntled individual finds standing quietly and respectfully for that brief period of time to allow for classmates and schools officials to give a patriotic nod to a stark symbol of American pride and history is intolerable.
If atheists truly don’t believe in God, why would they find someone else’s mention and recognition of God so threatening? After all, most people don’t feel the need to sue to stop mention of the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny.
As with the US Supreme Court in the Greece, New York, town council prayer case, the Massachusetts court that heard the pledge complaint heralded in the session with an appeal to the Almighty. The Massachusetts court officer opened the hearing: “God save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”36
This isn’t the first fight in the Bay State over the pledge, however.
In 2011, parents in Brookline started a war against the pledge in schools, arguing that even though its recitation was voluntary and that it was actually spoken from the main office and broadcast over the intercom into each classroom, some students might feel pressure to participate anyway.37
Once again, the battle was brought by a small minority. A Brookline resident who described himself as extremely patriotic said he nonetheless saw the classroom pledge as a form of indoctrination of youthful minds and complained that some children might feel compelled to recite something they don’t really want to, or believe.38 A handful of similarly minded parents formed a group, the Brookline Political Action for Peace, and joined him to petition the school to remove the pledge from the classroom.39
School administrators, meanwhile, said they had never heard any students complain they were bullied into reciting the pledge and couldn’t understand the outrage.40
At least parents weren’t arguing that the phrase “under God” was the problem. But still, the case represents the further erosion of traditional and common principles in our society – the outright rejection of core American values that once seemed ingrained.
Why care?
Tearing down the commonly accepted societal beliefs, habits, customs, and values of the many and imposing instead the arbitrary will of the few is an open door to tyrannical government. It’s a rejection of the natural order, the universally accepted, the understood and unquestioned right versus wrong – for the imposition of a chaotic and confusing system of governance that’s ever changing, based on whim and desire. If America doesn’t stand for God and country, what does she stand for?
That’s the attitude, and danger, that undercuts these fights against America’s most treasured conviction – that God, not government, rules us. It’s that core principle that’s represented and showcased during both pre-legislative prayer and recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
We’re not just battling a Pledge of Allegiance case or town council prayer protest. We’re battling for the very heart and soul of America. Meanwhile, the battlefield only grows larger and wider.
In 2003, a teacher’s aide in one Pennsylvania county filed a suit in federal court, accusing her employer of wrongfully suspending her for wearing a necklace with a Christian cross pendant to her job at Penns Manor Area Elementary School.41 Ten years later and that same ban was being echoed on the West Coast, at Sonoma State University. There, in mid-2013, a student was ordered to take off her cross necklace by a school official who worried its Christian message might offend others.42
And it’s not always the Christian cross that offends. In 1999, a school board in Mississippi sparked a court suit after banning the wearing of all Stars of David on district properties. The reason? The traditional Jewish symbol was believed to have been usurped by gang members, who were wearing the emblem as a sign of their affiliations.43 Administrators also considered banning Christian crosses for the same reason.44 But it didn’t take long for the school to reverse its decision. Just a couple of months after its ban was announced – and in the face of numerous threats of lawsuits – the school changed its mind and tossed the prohibition.45
Not all religious freedom cases end so quickly. Not all are waged in the schools, either.
The American Civil Liberties Union was at the heart of a Mohave Desert case that raged fully ten years in several separate courts, pitting patriots, veterans, and Christians against atheists, civil rights activists, and those who decried a public memorial that included a seven-foot-high cross.46 The memorial, a tribute to military members killed during the course of duty, had stood since the 1930s on a parcel of publicly owned park land known as Sunrise Rock.47
The site came under fire from the ACLU in 2001, when attorneys argued that the memorial was unconstitutional because it included a Christian symbol on property overseen by the National Park Service and that gave the impression the federal government was endorsing a particular religion over another.48
Once again, the suit arose from the complaint of one – a retired National Park Service employee.49 Congress tried to stave off a judicial controversy by declaring the site a national memorial in 2002 and by passing a ban on the use of federal funds to take down the cross.50 But that didn’t have the desired effect of halting the court cases. Congress then tried to enact a land swap, exchanging the property on which the cross rested for another parcel in the same area – again, to no avail.51
Two separate federal courts nonetheless agreed with the ACLU that the cross had to go because it violated the separation-of-church-and-state concept.52 The courts also found that the congressional attempt to sidestep the issue with the property transfer proposal was illegal too.53
But memorial supporters kept up the fight, and the case finally reached the ears of the US Supreme Court.54 In 2010, the nation’s highest court ruled that the First Amendment doesn’t require the complete eradication of all shows of religious symbols from the public sector and that the Mojave Desert cross was akin to the thousands of crosses that marked grave sites of fallen Americans all around the world. The court also found that the lower courts were too quick to dismiss the idea of swapping out the land and transferring the memorial property into private ownership hands.55 And that’s how the case was ultimately decided – the Veterans of Foreign Wars assumed control of the memorial land. In November 2012, the cross was formally reerected and rededicated.56
Unfortunately, that battle may have been won but the war was far from ended.
In 2012, the Washington, DC, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State launched a similar protest against the presence of a Christian cross on a parcel of public land in Riverside.57 The Mount Rubidoux cross, as it was dubbed, has stood at the site since 1955.58
In June 2013, the American Humanist Association served a suit to Lake Elsinore government officials, claiming a planned veterans’ memorial with an image of a soldier on bended knee before a Christian cross that was planted on a grave site would cross constitutional lines if constructed on public property.59
The monument, six feet tall and made of black granite and etched in white, was a beautiful and tasteful sentiment that showed a soldier with Kevlar and firearm bending before a cross planted in a mound of earth over the block words: “Freedom is never free.”60 Emblazoned across the American flag, with a bald eagle flying to the right, was the message: “Honoring our brave men and women whom by their service give life to our most precious gift – freedom.”61
City Council members said the memorial, which they wanted to set on public property before the Diamond Stadium minor-league baseball field, wasn’t meant to display a religious message, but rather a military one based on history.62 But the atheist group argued that the message was darker: they said the depiction of the cross was a stark warning to nonbelievers that they are not welcome.63
The Mount Rubidoux cross dispute was put to rest when city officials decided to copycat the land transfer idea in the Mojave Desert case. In April 2013, the city sold the property at auction and the buyer, a group of nonprofits that banded together under the umbrella organization Totally Mt. Rubidoux, has vowed to keep the memorial intact.
The Lake Elsinore fight led city officials to amend their memorial design. The newest version presented during court hearings in October 2013 includes several Christian crosses, along with numerous stars of David, near the image of the kneeling soldier.64 But the atheist group still argued the memorial was religious, rather than historical.
And you thought there were no atheists in foxholes.
The Lake Elsinore case plays into a worrisome trend that’s been hitting at our nation’s military. In October 2013, the US Air Force Academy decided cadets no longer have to say the “so help me God” portion of their honor oath. What was once time-honored tradition is now optional rhetoric – all due to the insistence of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which complained the tail end of the oath violated separation-of-church-and-state rules.65
The academy superintendent, Lt. Gen. Michelle Johnson, said that the aim of the school was to instill and foster positive character traits among recruits, including dignity and respect for all. It was in that spirit that she demoted the oath to the category of optional.66 But even that move wasn’t enough for the president of the MRFF, Mikey Weinstein.67 Weinstein – a 1977 honor graduate of the US Air Force Academy himself – nonetheless accused school heads of taking the easy way out and demanded that the entire phrase containing reference to God be dropped from the oath or he’d sue.68
So why wasn’t he satisfied with the optional caveat? He said academy recruits would feel pressured into reciting the entire pledge and that even those who withstood the pressure and declined to say the religious portion would worry about repercussions from academy leaders.69
That’s a rather startling admission. Is that to say America’s future fighters are so wimpy they can’t even stand strong in their principle for the two seconds it would take for that portion of the oath to be uttered? Imagine how they would react to an enemy capture.
But this is a small example of the chaos that groups like the MRFF want to create. Upset long-held traditions by whatever means necessary – complaints, lawsuits, the media – and in their place establish arbitrary rules based on the will of a few. Root out and abolish all mentions of God from the public sector, proclaiming a revisionist form of history that argues – wrongly – this nation was built by secularists who wanted to keep God away from government. And bully those who protest into silence. The slippery slope is that once God is removed, the door opens wider for government to enter.
If God’s not leading, who is?
Worse is when these groups actually purport to be doing Americans a good deed. Weinstein, for instance, insisted his push for the complete abolishment of the religious aspect of the academy oath was a righteous argument because he was making a case of principle and sticking with it. Whether or not cadets could opt out of saying the objectionable portion of the oath was not the point, he said.70 The bigger issue was the fact that the oath violates law – at least his interpretation of law.71 And he just didn’t want his former academy tainted by the black mark of breaking law.
Weinstein isn’t alone in his attacks on the military.
In early 2013, the Pentagon ignited a firestorm with a statement that those in the military of Christian and other faiths could be court-martialed for sharing their religious views.72 The statement was issued after secretary of defense Chuck Hagel held a closed-door meeting with several members of the military and civilian activists who brought forth a list of concerns about threats facing the troops – among them, sexual assaults and religious proselytizing.73
Interestingly, Weinstein was part of that meeting, to make clear to military heads his belief that Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, and the concerted attempts of religious believers to push their faith on others were damaging troop morale and readiness – and ultimately weakening national security.74
From that meeting came a promise of the Pentagon to create and distribute guidelines for how soldiers could share their faith.75 But it also led to the immediate stark and dire warning to those already in military service: don’t share too much or push too hard, because court-martial is a possible repercussion as are other forms of nonjudicial punishments.76
In October 2013, the military’s Christian believers took another direct hit to their faith when several dozen Army soldiers attending a briefing at Camp Shelby in Mississippi were warned off any affiliation with the pro-family, traditional-values ministry American Family Association.77 The soldiers were reportedly told that the AFA ought to be classified as a hate group, alongside the likes of the Ku Klux Klan, the Black Panthers, neo-Nazis, and the Nation of Islam.78 Apparently, one chaplain in attendance raised an objection to the AFA’s classification, asking for explanation.79 The instructor, however, maintained that the group was akin to the Westboro Baptist Church – the hateful organization with members who stage loud protests at military funerals – because both referred to gays as sinners.80
Then again, so does the Bible. Does that mean the Word of God is tantamount to hate speech?
But the concluding message at the meeting: those who participate in hate groups face punishment and disciplinary proceedings.
The AFA’s classification generated widespread outrage, and an Army spokesman came forward a couple of days later to issue a retraction. He said the military briefing had been conducted by a soldier who pulled information from the Internet and who had wrongfully included the AFA in his list of hate groups.81 That’s a significant error that comes at a time when expressions of Christianity in the military are under widespread attack. The Congressional Prayer Caucus, a bipartisan group of about one hundred members of Congress who cast aside politics to gather and pray for our nation, report that hostility against the military is on the upswing and that lawmakers need to step up efforts to guarantee those in the service will be protected from prosecution just for exercising their faith – like opposition to same-sex marriage or homosexual lifestyles.82
And other groups and individuals are fighting back too.
In July 2013, the Alliance Defending Freedom – formerly known as the Alliance Defense Fund, dedicated to providing legal assistance in religious freedom and traditional family values cases – filed a court motion on behalf of ten different Indiana churches that were being sued by the ACLU.83 Their alleged civil crime?
The churches were displaying Christian crosses on publicly owned properties.84
The case started in June 2013 when Evansville city officials gave the go-ahead to a consortium of churches to put several six-foot-tall, artistically designed crosses on display on riverfront property as part of a two-week fund-raising drive.85 Just a few days after the city granted the churches their permits, the Indiana chapter of the ACLU launched a lawsuit – based on the complaints of two residents – accusing the governing board of endorsing one religion over another.86
The ADF jumped into the mix, however, filing against the ACLU on behalf of the ten churches in the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.87 The ADF’s view: just as the ACLU argues that government cannot hold one religion’s view higher than another, the ACLU cannot prevent the government from recognizing the right of a religious view over that of a nonreligious viewpoint.88
The government can’t cater to atheists at the expense of those who believe in God.
That would seem a commonsense argument rooted in First Amendment rights. But in today’s litigious atmosphere, where Christianity is under constant attack and uttering even the word “God” has brought about radical outcry, common sense is in short supply.
For instance: common sense might dictate that a teacher at a Christian school would have to hold Christian beliefs – that it would be a requirement of the job. But in the months leading into 2013, in one California town, that assumption drew heavy fire. The issue unfolded in 2009 when Little Oaks Elementary school was purchased by Godspeak Church and teachers affiliated with the former were required to fill out a questionnaire that asked about their religious faith as a condition of hire.89 Two teachers refused, and the church-affiliated school refused to rehire them.90
The teachers threatened to sue – but the school quickly countersued, saying religious freedom trumps state equal employment laws.91 Attorneys for the school contended in paperwork filed in federal court that school officials certainly have the right to ensure teachers are of similar faith – or, at least, of a faith that’s not at odds with the church teachings and mission.92
It seems that for every step forward in this fight for religious freedom comes another step back. In November 2013, a Pennsylvania lawmaker sponsored a bill to require every public school district in the state to post prominently in each and every building the motto “In God We Trust.” The bill actually made it out of committee with a 14-9 vote.93 But then opposition kicked in hard.
The president of the Delaware Valley chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State argued in a published opinion piece that the motto is clearly a religious message – not to mention divisive one – that wasn’t even part of Founding Father language; it was, rather, adopted by Congress in 1956.94
Meanwhile, the ACLU state chapter roared onto the scene and vowed to sue if the motto mandate passed into law.95
But step back from all the legal brouhaha for a moment. What’s the worst that could happen if the motto were allowed to be displayed at every public school in Pennsylvania – that students might be reminded that our nation is founded on a higher power and rooted in a spiritual presence?
It’s not as if that realization would bring war, devastation, doom and gloom, and killing. It’s not as if that motto – or the fact that America was founded by believers – is exactly a closely guarded secret in the nation, either. The motto is on our money; the evidence of America’s belief in and reverence for a higher power dots our national landscape.
On October 3, 1789, right after completing a draft of the First Amendment, members of Congress passed a resolution that President George Washington might proclaim November 26, 1789, a day of “public thanksgiving and prayer” to acknowledge the blessings of God.96 So he did. An excerpt:
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and – whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God …” Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we many then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people... And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions.97
God – the source of all “good that was, that is, or that will be.”
Notably, Washington didn’t act alone on this proclamation – he only issued it at the request of members of Congress who recognized that the coming together of this great nation was not due to human hands, but rather heavenly guidance. Now fast-forward to November 2013 and this is the headline that blasts forward, a direct slap to Washington’s humble recognition of higher power: “Atheist ‘mega-churches’ take root across US, world.”98
The story stays true to its headline. In Los Angeles, as in other communities around the nation, Sunday mornings dawn with the opening of assembly doors that let in hundreds of people with a common denominator: they want to rub shoulders with inspirational messengers and listen to some good music and call that church. But noticeably missing from their worship is any mention of God.99
We’re at a crossroads in America. Will we choose the path that Washington chose or the road that worships self?
That’s the final frontier in the fight to maintain America’s freedoms as envisioned by founders and encapsulated in our Constitution and guiding government documents. If God is pushed out and America loses the notion of “God-given,” then government assumes full control and the police-state style of governance stays. That’s just the natural order.