The US District Court for southern California ruled in late February (pdf) that a school district erred when it demanded that a teacher remove banners from his room due to their “Judeo-Christian” and “particular sectarian viewpoint.”  The banners contained quotes from American founding documents and mottos that made reference to God.

While the academic environment of the case may not seem relevant to Christianity in the military, realize that the school district (and occasionally the teacher) was treated as a government actor, as the military is (and often military members are).  The government’s treatment of religion in this case, and the court’s response, was extremely enlightening.

The most interesting part of the case was the fact that while the school district said that the presence of the banners might raise concerns under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, the court ultimately ruled that the school district’s actions actually violated the Establishment Clause.  The reason was simple:  they restricted a “Judeo-Christian” viewpoint while allowing others.

Other displays that the school district allowed included Tibetan prayer flags with images of Buddha, the lyrics to John Lennon’s “Imagine” (no religion), pictures of Hindu leaders, Buddhist leaders, Islamic leaders, and a poster that said “How many Iraqi children did we kill today?”

The court found that the district’s actions created an environment hostile toward the Judeo-Christian viewpoint that they singled out:

The undisputed evidence demonstrates an absence of government neutrality: disfavor towards Johnson’s Judeo-Christian viewpoint and favor toward other religious viewpoints and viewpoints hostile towards religion.

When the district used the excuse that “someone might be offended” (they used the example of a Muslim student), the court said that someone who is offended does not wield an indisputable veto over the freedoms of others:

More to the point, an…Islamic student is not entitled to a heckler’s veto on a teacher’s passive, popular or unpopular expression about God’s place in the history of the United States.

More interestingly, the court said if “offense” was really the standard, it would have to be applied equally:

School district administrators did not ask, for example, whether a Muslim student might feel uncomfortable sitting in a classroom with the anti-religious lyrics from “Imagine” on a classroom wall poster. Did the principal ask whether a Jewish or Christian student might feel uncomfortable sitting under a string of Tibetan prayer flags inscribed with Sanskrit and an image of Buddha?

The undisputed evidence supports a finding of unconstitutional selective protectionism: “protecting” students from Johnson’s “Judeo-Christian” viewpoint while tolerating, if not endorsing, other religious and anti-religious viewpoints.

The end result is that the court found that restricting what the district called a Judeo-Christian viewpoint (the court didn’t make that conclusion, it simply analyzed the district’s decision to use that qualifier) while allowing other beliefs was unConstitutional:

Defendants’ endorsement of Buddhist, Hindu, and anti-religious speech by some teachers while silencing the Judeo-Christian speech of Johnson, violates the Establishment Clause.

This judicial analysis has direct application to some accusations against the US military.  For example, critics have complained about Christian prayers in the US military, without addressing the fact that the military also has Jewish, Islamic, and other prayers within its institution.  People have criticized Christian Chaplains for overtly Christian speech, without criticizing Jewish or Islamic Chaplains for the same thing.  As the result of an Inspector General complaint, the US military took issue with military members publicly associating with a Christian organization, but have failed to treat Chaplains of other faiths the same way.  That is not to say that other faiths should likewise be restricted; rather, the examples undermine the accusations that Christianity is somehow a “favored” faith within the military.

(Granted, many of these “issues” have been raised by Michael Weinstein’s MRFF, which has largely been ignored as irrelevant by military leaders.  Still, public reaction to his unopposed criticisms in the press has sometimes left the public with the incorrect belief that Weinstein’s baseless and prejudiced accusations are accurate.)

The practice of “neutralizing” Christianity while allowing other expressions is currently politically acceptable, and potentially even expected (something the school district no doubt realized).  Consider, for example, military bases that erect “holiday” trees at Christmas, but also have base Menorahs–not “holiday candelabra.”

The school district was likely correct that an ‘offended party’ might arise and complain about the teacher’s banners and their references to God (though they had stood for decades with no such complaint).  Again, American culture has begun to demonstrate a hypersensitivity to Christianity that it does not to any other faith system.  Thus, school officials simply demonstrated the cultural expectation that someone might be offended by something “Judeo-Christian,” but not the more overtly religious banners of other faiths.  That they were more explicitly religious was not important; all that mattered was that they weren’t Christian.

Unfortunately, some local governments and municipalities are in a position of being bankrupted by non-profit organizations who threaten expensive lawsuits in order to force the removal of religious (or Christian) references.  Still, the court’s decision correctly explained that it is the diversity of views, not their restriction, that presents the forum for education and liberty.   If an offended party had arisen, the district should have emphasized their support for religious liberty, free speech, equal treatment, and the necessity of students to learn these objective truths about America.

The same stands true for the military culture.  Rather than bowing to pressure every time an external critic attempts to wield a heckler’s veto, the military should defend its culture of religious liberty, not restrict it.  It has not always done so.

Liberty does not benefit from government restriction, nor does one faith benefit from the official restriction of another.  Liberty and truth flourish most in an open and free environment, where civil debate allows the expression of opposing ideas and the ability of the citizenry to freely believe.

Finally, the court cited a variety of cases demonstrating that associating God and American government was not an inherently unConstitutional endeavor.  In fact, it said much of American history and heritage includes God, and in recognizing that, one does not violate the Constitution:

That God places prominently in our Nation’s history does not create an Establishment Clause violation requiring curettage and disinfectant for Johnson’s public high school classroom walls. It is a matter of historical fact that our institutions and government actors have in past and present times given place to a supreme God. “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”

…As the Supreme Court has acknowledged, “[t]here is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789…”

“It is unsurprising that a Nation founded by religious refugees and dedicated to religious freedom should find references to divinity in its symbols, songs, mottoes, and oaths. Eradicating such references would sever ties to a history that sustains this Nation even today…”

The Constitution “permits government some latitude in recognizing and accommodating the central role religion plays in our society…Any approach less sensitive to our heritage would border on latent hostility toward religion, as it would require government in all its multifaceted roles to acknowledge only the secular, to the exclusion and so to the detriment of the religious.”

The district is reportedly planning to appeal.

Also covered at the Religion Clause.