Suit over Houston Bible display mired in murky issue of church-state separation
Posted on September 1st, 2003 by Anthony K. Valley
The city of Houston may be the location of the next “God in the Public Square” standoff. Kay Staley and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State are working to move a Bible monument from Houston courthouse.
A self-described “spiritual person” and graduate of Baptist-affiliated Baylor University, Staley, 59, filed suit Monday to force Harris County officials to move the monument and Bible display from the courthouse’s Fannin Street entrance. The monument was erected 47 years ago to honor William Mosher, an early benefactor of the Star of Hope homeless shelter.
Within days, Staley received more than 50 hostile phone and e-mail messages.
With the recent news of the Ten commandments being removed from public view in Alabama, this similar suit has upset many people.
It’s no surprise that Staley’s lawsuit stirred strong emotions. As the first volley was fired in what Staley and her supporters consider the latest in a series of critical separation-of-church-and-state battles in Texas and the Houston area, hundreds of protesters rallied in Montgomery, Ala., to stop removal of a 2 1/2-ton Ten Commandments monument from the state’s judicial building.
The question about the legality of this suit rests on the clarity of the laws concerning separation of church and state. Staley and AUSCS believe that the law is clear, others differ.
Staley, who holds a law degree from the University of Houston and is a member of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said she piggybacked her lawsuit on the notoriety of the Alabama case.
“All the recent controversy over the Ten Commandments galvanized my thinking,” she said. “It probably galvanized a lot of people’s thinking. The law is clear. I don’t see how it could be any clearer.”
The problem, though, may be that the law is anything but clear.
University of Houston law professor Sidney Buchanan, an expert in separation of church and state, said ruling on religious symbols is particularly difficult for the Supreme Court, whose own building is decorated with images of Moses and the Ten Commandments.
Again, an important article to read see the Houston Chronicle:
[Full Story @ HoustonChronicle.com]
Source: Houston Chronicle
Listen to this podcast
Filed under: Law
I am so saddened by the increased public demonstration of defying God. I don’t understand why we as Christians can’t file a suit saying that our rights to view the beauty of religious statues is being denied.
Whether or not a person believes in God doesn’t take away the fact that these statutes, structures, articles, etc. are a part of our history. To deny that is absolutely ridiculous, petty and sad. The structure that was erected in Houston was to honor a man who did good works for people in his city. The main issue here is, he was honored because he practiced his BELIEFS. What is so wrong about that?! If the bible were to be taken out of the picture then he wouldn’t be represented truthfully. It would show a man that apparently did these good works just because he was a “good man”. Well, obviously he was a man, but he realized he lived for a higher purpose other than himself, he believed in God and did good works to please God (By the way, for the people who don’t realize this, Christianity is based on serving God!).
To disconnect and deny ourselves, cities, communities, families, and the future of our country from the link that connects to inspirational values our justice system was established on seems unwise and frankly, backwards.
Separation of church and state doesn’t mean we throw out our historical values, principles, and integrity. If the world keeps “knit-picking” every thing that could actually be helpful in man’s very flawed nature, then where do people suppose our leaders will get inspiration to “serve” from? Will it be “will-power”, or from a “good-hearted” person? Will it be from the out-side in, or through a man’s own heart that he do good works? For we all know, or will find out, that no person is completely “good”.
I think that the people who are quick to file a suit are the very people who need to come to God. They are the people who ignore their own flaws of being selfish, greedy, prideful, arrogant, complainers, accusers, slanderers, etc.; all included in the morals the bible states are harmful to humanity.
I wonder what would happen if anyone were to be in a situation where no human law could protect them, nor would they be able to save themselves out of the situation by mere wit or strength, all hope and everything was lost? Would they have anything to lose by calling on God? Would they cry out for something more? My guess is they would do it, and it would be a natural instinct.
I’m personally aware that I have many flaws and that no drug (illegal(street), or legal(physchiatric) will inspire a heart-felt change in me. Physchotherapy alone or any other “self-help” modality will not do it either because the one thing missing is the fact that I’m needing to be loved first, which inspires me to love, and I need to be forgiven first, so I know how to forgive, etc. I’ve personally tried every route, of old and modern, but nothing truly reached my heart like the Holy Spirit who touched my spirit. Some people get upset about this kind of talk because they haven’t taken the effort to step out side of themselves to see the need for honesty with themselves and others, guidance, correction, and giving of self that serving God requires (Why serve God when I can serve myself?).
The Romans were the most powerful civilization in the world at one time, but the things that brought them to collapse are the same things that can make us fall. This is just one example.
Legalism is very flawed. If you were on trial would you want the judge and/or jury to only look at the facts, and listen to the arguments, or would you want them to also search their conscience to make sure for a “just” ruling? Whether a person wants to believe in God doesn’t take away the fact that there are stable foundations in the value system our forefathers established this nation on because they were fleeing oppressive living in their home country. That hasn’t changed much. Do we really want to start crossing the line over to where we are actually discriminating against something that provides a framework for justice, that can be used to help people who are hurting and in need? Can our nation really be “for the people, and by the people” if we are so saturated in selfish motives?
Our country is very young compared to others. I think that if we were to be wise we would learn what not to do from the oppressive nations before us and around us. Being grateful and humble seems to me to be a necessary trait for keeping ahead and out of the voids our enemies can trap us in. I include myself as an enemy sometimes, due to human nature’s self-destructiveness. I know I would want my judge and/or jury to pass by the ten commandments, or a verse from the bible, or even to see a statue of an honorable man with a bible before my trial for hope they would be inspired to realize I am human, in need of forgiveness,justice and correction, not condemnation.
Finally – it was required to be removed – you go First Amendment! Let us be free from having to ensure ANY religion.
Someone must ask these Judges the question no one seems to ask. What LAW prohibites the display of the ten commandments/bible. The Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It also states that CONGRESS is the only entity that can make Laws. Therefore, just because the Supreme Court says it LAW does not make it a LAW. Also anytime the contitution talks about the Government is says Goverment and when it talks about the Congress it specifically states Congress.
Since the Constitution states there can be no LAW made for or against religous free speech, what law is the Judge using to back his court order. If there is no law to back up the court order it is an illegal order.
Especially in light of recent events, it reassures me that this bible is going. The danger of religious fundamentalism gaining political power scares the bejeezus out of me.
George: would you like to see the Wiccan Rede, or the Buddhist Four Noble Truths, or the Pillars of Islam, (or even the Affirmations of Secular Humanism), carved in stone and posted in a public building alongside the Bible? After all, these are also helpful guides on how to conduct your life. Who is to say one is better than another? Heck, why not fill the lobby of every court building with monuments of the central tenets of all the world religions—after all, in America we have freedom of religion, so why not make all of them freely and equally available straight from the government that promises this freedom of religion? Keeping the Ten Commandments and excluding the non-Judeo-Christian guides establishes a bias. By the way should it be the Jewish Version, the Catholic Version, or the Protestant Version of those commandments—you know they are all a little different, right?
1. If the County gives its land and its electricity to allow for a religious display, then the County is supporting that religion. Its consent, its approval…that’s support. And that’s a no-no. Government is prohibited from supporting religion at all. From even giving the appearance of doing so. ... “no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion”... They are prohibited not only from establishing religion, but from making laws that even come close. The County is in the wrong. 2. The fact that governmental support for religion is part of our heritage is irrelevant. Racism, slavery, and sexism are also very much parts of our heritage passed down to us from our Founding Fathers, and that doesn’t make any of those ideas right. Though many people liked those ideas too, they were found to be in conflict with the underlying principles of liberty and struck down. Same here. 3. Governmental support for the Christian religion is especially inappropriate, as the Founders violated the New Testament Bible left and right in creating our country and our form of government. The NT says the end of the world is near, therefore take no interest in worldy matters. But the Founders took a GREAT DEAL of interest in worldly matters! The NT says to submit to the government, and to resist not (this during the Roman Empire). On the 4th of July, 1776, the Founders said you can take this idea of submission and shove it, and they began a 7-odd-year war of tremendous resistance to the British government. Throw in the Founders’ love of civil liberty and private property, coupled with wisdom and philosophy, and a demand for the government to be responsive to the will of the people (and not the other way around), and you get a very distinctly non-Christian way of life. 4. If the County wanted to honor Mosher with a display, then they should’ve put up a statue or picture of him-
not his religion. They are supporting his religionnot him-with this Bible display.Clearly stated and well organized.
Thank you, TB.