‘With God, all things are possible’

By Jon Dougherty

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has
struck down an earlier ruling by a federal judge in Columbus, Ohio that
permitted the state to use, “With God, all things are possible,” as its
official motto, prompting critics to question the federal government’s
role in limiting a state or individual’s right to free religious
expression.

The panel ruled yesterday in favor of the American Civil Liberties
Union,
which brought the action on behalf of
Rev. Matthew Peterson, a Presbyterian minister in suburban Cleveland,
who objected to the state’s use of the motto and challenged all official
uses of it.

According to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, the motto violates the
U.S. Constitution as a government endorsement of religion, a decision
contested by state officials who argued that the motto does not exhort
anyone to believe anything, adding that to some people it would not have
a religious connotation.

Former Ohio Gov. George Voinovich adopted the motto after he returned
from India, where he spotted a public building that bore the phrase,
”Government Work is God’s Work.”
Voinovich is now a U.S. senator.

The ACLU initially filed suit in U.S. District Court in Columbus July
31, 1997, charging that the motto violated the First and 14th
Amendments, as well as Article I, §7 of the Ohio Constitution. The ACLU
said the official motto, “which is a quote from Jesus found in the
Gospels of Saint Matthew and Saint Mark is distinctly religious in its
meaning and philosophy,” according to Christine Link, executive director
of the Ohio chapter of the ACLU.

“The citizens of Ohio have a right to a government which does not
choose a ‘favorite’ religion to promote,” Link added in a statement
released in 1997. “The promotion of religious beliefs should be in the
hands of their adherents, not government, which under the First
Amendment of the Bill of Rights cannot dictate or proselytize any
religious doctrine.”

The Ohio Attorney General’s office is currently examining the ruling,
a spokesman said, and has not decided whether or not to appeal. An
appeal would mean a review by the full 13-member panel of the federal
Appeals Court; from there it would likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, critics of the decision said the federal courts and the ACLU
have misapplied the First Amendment provision prohibiting government
endorsement of particular religions, mostly because the U.S.
Constitution applies to federal cases, not state issues.

“I see a major problem with this decision, in that it will be
extremely difficult for the Supreme Court — if they should hear this
case — to distinguish Ohio’s motto with one the federal government
uses, ‘in God we trust,'” said Brad Dacus, president of the
Pacific
Justice Institute.

“The general opinion of the courts is that the mere usage of
phraseology with the word ‘God’ in it is not to be perceived as an
endorsement of religion,” he said. “I think this is a decision that is
destined for reversal.”

He added that there is also an “extreme danger” with the courts
“looking into the hearts and minds and souls of legislators.” The
general rule in making a determination on whether or not a government
action is an endorsement of religion “should be the action on its face,
as it is perceived by the public — not by individual legislators acting
on their own convictions.”

That opinion is shared by other critics of the federal court’s use of
its power to curtail or limit religious expression by states or
individuals.

Writing for Knight-Ridder newspapers last year, Janet M. Larue,
Senior Director of Legal Studies for the Family Research Council, echoed Dacus’ fears of an activist federal judiciary
in local matters involving religion. In her column, Larue referenced
United States Code Section 245, the federal hate-crime statute, which
includes “intimidate” or “attempt to intimidate” as an element of the
offense.

“Because speech can intimidate, it is not unreasonable to foresee
prosecution of a Christian for quoting the words of Christ, ‘I am the
way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the father, but
through me.’ If an unbeliever feels intimidated as a result and files a
complaint, the Christian could easily find himself on the wrong end of a
federal felony prosecution,” wrote Larue.

The Family Research Council, which believes such decisions represent
little more than judicial activism, advocates closer Senate scrutiny of
prospective appointees to the federal bench, in an effort to eventually
“return the federal courts to their limited, constitutional role.”

The group is also lobbying for passage of The Ten Commandments
Defense Act, which would declare that the display of the Decalogue in
state buildings or on state property does not violate the establishment
clause, “ending the legal conflict that has emerged in states where the
Ten Commandments are displayed.”

Declaring that the First Amendment is more misunderstood in the
courts and press than anywhere else, FRC policy analysts said since the
1947 Emerson decision — where Supreme Court Justice Hugo
Black

re-interpreted the meaning of the phrase, “wall of separation between
church and state,” which was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a private
1802 letter to Connecticut Baptists — the courts have essentially
turned the First Amendment upside down.

“Whereas Jefferson believed a wall of separation applied only to the
federal government, the courts have sought to apply the wall to the
states without any legal precedent. Instead of maintaining Jefferson’s
wall of separation — keeping the federal government out of religious
matters — the federal courts have interfered in all sorts of religious
matters that constitutionally should be adjudicated at the state and
local level,” the analysts said.

Jon Dougherty

Jon E. Dougherty is a Missouri-based political science major, author, writer and columnist. Follow him on Twitter. Read more of Jon Dougherty's articles here.