Judge, Mayor and Town of Slidell, Louisiana Sued Over Portrait of Jesus Hanging In Courthouse
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" are the first ten words of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, known as the "Establishment Clause". The words seem to indicate a clear separation of church and state, but are they open to interpretation?
A legal battle over these ten words is raging in the small town of Slidell, Louisiana where a judge has artwork depicting Jesus on the wall at the courthouse. As you can imagine, opinions are sharply divided over the painting and its placement in the Slidell courthouse.
Judge Jim Lamz is being sued by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a man wishing to remain anonymous for having a portrait of Jesus Christ hanging above the words "To know peace, obey these laws". Lamz says that if there is a court order from the U.S. Supreme Court for him to remove the painting, he will take it down-but not until. The painting of Jesus has hung on the wall of the courthouse for about ten years.
The mayor and the town of Slidell are also named in the lawsuit.
This battle over separation of church and state began earlier this year, when a man entered the courthouse and saw the painting. He says it occurred to him how ironic it was, that in a court of law they have artwork on the wall which he believes is in violation of the Constitution of the United States. The man is named in the lawsuit as "John Doe" and filed the lawsuit jointly with the ACLU.
The Judge and the town have a Christian-based defense team from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). Gary McCaleb, senior legal counsel for the ADF says that the ACLU is one of the worst attackers of religious speech in America.
With the current right-wing political climate in the Supreme Court in Washington, ADF and similar groups are fighting with new vigor in this case and similar ones across the country. They believe if ever there was a chance to have their voice in the matter heard, it is now.
The ADF believes that the first ten words of the First Amendment do not ban religious expression by government institutions, but were instead intended to prevent the creation of a government-sponsored church. Mike Johnson, an ADF senior legal counsel in Louisiana, says that the artwork hanging on the wall of the courthouse in Slidell is legal because there was no intention of advancing a religion by hanging it there. It is purely and simply a decoration for the courthouse wall, according to Johnson, not a promotion to advance Christianity.
The ACLU and its supporters say that the ADF is incorrect. They interpret the Establishment Clause to mean that no government entity can endorse or promote one religion over others. Since the painting of Jesus is the only decoration on the wall besides a photo of the courthouse's founding judge, the ACLU says that it serves as a religious symbol and is therefore illegal.
Current law and former court rulings regarding religious symbols in government facilities are conflicting. The late Supreme Court of Chief Justice William Rehnquist issued two conflicting decisions regarding the display of religious materials on government property. The cases were similar in regards to the fact that both courts had religious displays or monuments, but different in regards to the way they were displayed and this accounted for the differences in the rulings.
In Texas, there was a display of the Ten Commandments among other religious and secular symbols. In Kentucky the religious display in question stood alone, much like the portrait of Jesus in Slidell.
The Texas monument of the Ten Commandments was found to have historical significance to the courthouse and was ruled to be legal and not in violation of the Constitution.
In Kentucky, the stand-alone display of the Ten Commandments was found to be illegal and in violation of the Establishment Clause because the display did not include any other religious messages and was not historically significant to the courthouse.
It would seem, according to case law on this subject, that the Slidell display may be found to be illegal under the Constitution. However, legal experts have split opinions on the case. Some legal experts believe that because of the shift in the U.S. Supreme Court since the Kentucky ruling, things may turn out differently in this case.
For now, the painting of Jesus still hangs in the Slidell courthouse, waiting for justice.