ChristiansUnite Forums

Jesus vs. the ACLU
It's Civil Liberties Versus Religious Liberties in a Louisiana Courthouse
By LAURA E. DAVIS

A small southern Louisiana town is the latest battleground for a classic First Amendment showdown over the separation of church and state, pitting a feisty judge with a painting of Christ in his courthouse against the nation's top civil liberties group.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued Judge Jim Lamz of Slidell, La., earlier this month for refusing to take down a portrait of Jesus Christ above the words "To know peace, obey these laws" displayed in a courthouse lobby. The judge says he believes the picture is legal, and the mayor of the city  the mayor and the town are also named in the lawsuit  called the ACLU "America's Taliban."

The case began when a man walked into the Slidell courthouse earlier this year and saw the portrait, which has hung there for a decade.

The man, who is insisting on anonymity because of the nature of the case, is named in the suit as "John Doe." In his first media interview since jointly filing the lawsuit with the ACLU on July 3, the man told ABC News about his encounter with the display.

"You go in the courthouse, and you can't miss it," he said. "And I'm thinking, 'This is a court of law and they're blatantly disobeying the law with a religious symbol.'"

A Christian Defense

The town is represented in the suit by the Christian-inspired Alliance Defense Fund, which might be called the right-wing version of the ACLU.

"[The ACLU is] one of the worst attackers of religious speech in America," Gary McCaleb, senior legal counsel for the ADF, told ABC News.

Court fights over religious symbols on public property are a cottage industry in America, from Christmas displays on town greens to judges who post the Ten Commandments in their courtroom. At the heart of these fights are the First Amendment's famous first 10 words, known as the Establishment Clause.

The words  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"  seem pretty plain, but they are anything but to the parties involved in a legal scrap like the one in Slidell. And, with a decidedly right-leaning Supreme Court sitting in Washington, there is new zeal among groups like ADF to pursue such cases.

The ACLU and its supporters say the words in the Establishment Clause mean that no government entity can promote or endorse one religion over others. But the ADF believes the words should not bar religious expression by government institutions and were only meant to prevent the creation of a government-sponsored church.

The circumstances surrounding the Jesus painting make the Slidell case intriguing. Because the painting is the only display in the courthouse lobby aside from a picture of the courthouse's founding judge, the ACLU believes it's a religious symbol.

But the judge and his supporters flatly dispute this. Mike Johnson, an ADF senior legal counsel based in Louisiana, told ABC News the display is legal because there's no intent to advance a religion.

"The clear secular purpose for this thing was to decorate the walls," Johnson said. "This is not some sort of ulterior motive to advance Christianity."

Court's Conflicted History

Current law and past cases put the painting in uncertain territory. Two years ago, during the Supreme Court of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, two separate and conflicting decisions were issued involving religious displays on government property.

Justice Stephen Breyer provided the swing vote in each 5-4 case, one of which upheld a display of the Ten Commandments and another that struck it down. The rulings were issued on the same day in June 2005.

The difference between the two cases was based in the context of each display. One, in Texas, involved a Ten Commandments monument displayed among other religious and secular symbols. The other monument, in Kentucky, stood alone.

In the Texas case, the display, one of many on the lawn of the Texas State Capitol, had been there since 1961. It was considered by the court to have historic significance, and therefore was not found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause.

In the Kentucky case, the court held that the display of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse in the absence of other messages or historic symbols did violate the Establishment Clause.

An Endorsement of Christianity?

In the Slidell case, the ACLU argues that the Jesus painting is much like the Kentucky display and is an obvious endorsement by the government of religion.

"There's not an appearance of government neutrality toward religion in this case," said Katie Schwartzmann, a staff attorney for the ACLU Foundation of Louisiana.

Two outside legal experts who spoke to ABC News were split on Slidell. David Hudson, with the Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center, said he thinks the painting would be illegal because it's not surrounded by other displays presenting various messages.

"It seems like the ACLU might have a stronger argument here under existing precedent," Hudson told ABC News. "The kicker would be [that] the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court has changed since [the Kentucky decision] came down."

Since the Texas and Kentucky decisions were issued, Roberts and another conservative justice Samuel Alito have joined the court after Chief Justice Rehnquist's death and the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Douglas Laycock, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Michigan's law school, consulted Slidell's Lamz before the judge made the decision not to remove the controversial display. Laycock told ABC News he advised Lamz that he has a chance to uphold the Slidell display.

Friends and Enemies

Interestingly, there are cases in which the ADF and the ACLU come down on the same side of First Amendment cases, although both organizations say they have never directly worked together.

In a New Jersey case decided in December, the ACLU supported the ADF's clients, who argued their daughter's First Amendment rights were violated when her elementary school prohibited her from singing a religious song in a school-sponsored talent show. A federal judge sided with the ADF and the ACLU.

The two organizations also support California high school student Tyler Chase Harper's right to wear a shirt opposing homosexuality in protest of his school's day dedicated to gay rights. The ADF is representing Harper in the case, and David Blair-Loy, an attorney in the ACLU's San Diego office, said the ACLU plans to file a brief supporting the ADF's argument.

"Civil liberties can make strange bedfellows at times," Blair-Loy said. "Our position will align with ADF's position in terms of freedom of speech."

While the New Jersey and California cases both involve federally funded schools, the ACLU contends it's the students, not the schools, who are exercising their First Amendment rights. The ACLU says no reasonable person would interpret their expressions as the desires of the schools themselves to promote one religion over others. Therefore, the schools are not violating the Establishment Clause.

Back in Slidell, it appears that Lamz has no plans to follow in the footsteps of former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was removed from office after he refused a federal court order to take down his Ten Commandments monument. Lamz has said that if a federal judge orders the painting out, he'll comply.

Jesus vs. the ACLU (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3426795)

Yup P.R. you know whats coming........................


The ACLU is th greatest enemy of religious freedom inside the United States. They deal in deceit and attack us where we are most vulnerable.

The ACLU claims to be the nation's guardian of liberty. However, reality contradicts that statement. They have waged war on the rights of free Americans to choose and to be heard. When voters have a chance to vote on a law or constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, the ACLU brings a suit in a federal court t try to muzzle the people and stop the vote. They wish to create a new meaning for "family" and establish countless new rights that cannot be found in the constitution.

The ACLU wishes to impose their vision for America on the vast majority who do not share that vision.

The ACLU's goals are more than just political: they seek to snuff out freedom of Christian expression in the public marketplace. Ultimately, they want a secular-humanistic state based on evolving values and human reason.

They want a country that has no regard for God's authority at the center of government.

Also, when the ACLU was originally formed in 1920, they had strong SOCIALISTIC AND COMMUNISTIC ties.

lol  ...   I think that you need a taller box and a mega-phone to go with it.   ;) :D :D

You mean like this.............................

That is an improvement.   ;D ;D ;D

The root of the problem... ok not root of the problem but the big reason for the problem


They forget and conveniently leave off the rest.... "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

So what we should see is this

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Let us also simply look at the clause in and of itself.  Congress is a specific term.  ONe that is later defined in the Constitution as a body of representatives of the people.  Let it be noted here that Congress is not the other key aspects of the government, it is not the Supreme Court, nor is it the Presidency.  It is the law making portion of the federal government. 

So it can be read that the federal government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  This is limited to strictly the federal government.  And it basically is that the government shall remain somewhat hands off when it comes to the promotion of religion.  It does not say that the government cannot be faith based, or that the people in government should check their faith at the door.  however it does say that the government will not elevate one religion over another....making a national religion or theocracy. 

As far as the states are concerned man use the 14th amendment as their catchall.  The part which states

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

They feel that this part is the pass down of Bill of Rights to the States.  They combine the two and basically will say that the state is passing a law establishing a specific religion, or condoning it if there is a picture, statue, etc up that is Christian.  Again there is nothing that states that the actual gment cannot be faith focused, or even the people themselves.  It would be illegal to state that they have to check their faith at the door as a matter of fact. 

Exactly. There is nothing preventing individual states from promoting a specific religion. This fact is already being used in Minnesota by the islamic community all the while they are saying it does prevent all government from promoting Christianity.