A Stitch in Haste

I recently wrote the following regarding a Decalogue lawsuit:

So the reason stand-alone Decalogues on government property are not necessarily problematic under the First Amendment is because the Ten Commandments are no big deal? There are “many plausible secular reasons” to brandish a Decalogue in public? Decalogues can, indeed should, be viewed merely as the civic organization equivalent of a greeting card?

If I were a theocrat — indeed if I were simply a non-theocratic Jew or Christian — I would not be pleased to see a Decalogue disrespected in this manner.

Well, what’s good for the Old Testament is good for the New.

Plaintiffs [i.e., the ACLU] filed suit after Defendants displayed the icon of Jesus Christ in the foyer of the City Court of Slidell [Louisiana]. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ display served the purpose of advancing, promoting or endorsing Christianity, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
…
Defendants changed the display prior to and in anticipation of the hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court noted that the modified display containing various historical lawgivers under the caption, “To Know Peace, Obey These Laws,” was not in violation of the Constitution; however, the initial arrangement of solely Jesus Christ violated the Establishment Clause.

I first noted this disgraceful church-and-state violation back in July 2007.

This latest smackdown of icon-based theocracy is a straightforward application of what I have dubbed the McCreary County – Van Orden Decalogue bifurcation: Be too obnoxiously overt in your rabid theocratic mania (i.e. by having only a Decalogue or only a portrait of Jesus on public property) and you lose your First Amendment lawsuit because you’ve pulled a McCreary County.*

But be clever and cunning (i.e., lie) about your intentions, and dilute the Ten Commandments to “just another set of historical laws” — or, as here, demote Jesus to “just another lawgiver” (along with, e.g., “Moses, Charlemagne and Napoleon”) — and you can joyously traipse your way to the Van Orden** side of the line. No “excessive entanglement,” no “religious intent,” no problem.

Of course, by evangelical Christian standards, you’ve blasphemed by doing so (and violated a few other Commandments along the way). But what’s a little ends-means Machiavellianism among friends (or especially among enemies) when it’s done in God’s name?

Just as I don’t see how it furthers American “Jesusland” monotheism to assert that the Ten Commandments is not above the Mayflower Compact or the Code of Hammurabi, I’m also not quite sure how it furthers evangelical Christianity to equate Jesus with Napoleon. But if it gets their Lord and Savior(TM) into the county courthouse, then gosh darn it that’s what they’re going to do. Amen.

The case is ACLU of Louisiana v. Slidell, No. 07-3574 (E.D. La., April 16, 2008) (PDF – 16 pages).

—

Just to be clear, this particular litigation was merely about whether the theocrat defendants should pay the ACLU attorney fees and nominal damages. Both sides stipulated that the theocrats violated the First Amendment with the “Jesus only” display but then fixed their error (i.e., with the “fifteen lawgivers” display) before the substantive lawsuit could be heard. The court sided with the ACLU based mainly on Fifth Circuit precedent.

—

*McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005)
**Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005)

Filed under: Uncategorized