Today, the 7th Circuit issued its opinion in the case of Milwaukee’s Sheriff’s Association v. David A. Clarke (pdf) (7th Cir. 2009).
The case involved a complaint by members of the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department following mandatory employee meetings where a religious group was allowed by the Sheriff to give Christian-focused presentations. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, finding a violation of the Establishment Clause. The 7th Circuit agreed “[b]ecause the group’s presentations during mandatory employee gatherings gave, at the least, the appearance of endorsement by the Sheriff’s Department.”
The first presentation occurred at the Sheriff’s department leadership conference. Attendance was mandatory for all deputies with the rank of Sergeant or above. The Sheriff spoke first. He announced that he would be making upcoming promotions to the rank of Captain and distributed written material that included a quotation from the Bible. The handouts listed the qualities a leader should look for in his inner circle—one of which was “people of faith.”
About an hour later at this mandatory meeting, a member of the Christian group, “The Christian Centurions” gave a speech which said, among other things:
Whether or not we acknowledge it, each of us here today has a high calling and corresponding responsibility. Civil government was God’s idea. The first several verses of Romans 13 tell us He established government and that people in authority are ministers of God assigned to promote good and punish evil.
. . .
Grappling with enormous pressure while realizing that some level of evil plays a role in each of our lives can be discouraging, maybe defeating. That’s why Paul tells us in his letter to Timothy to pray for those in authority. I don’t like to admit it but my life is fragile—the book of James tells us that life appears like a mist and it’s gone. I’m not really the captain of my own ship. Fortunately, the same God who ordained authority inspired a book and sent a counselor that promises to give us guidance on how to navigate life’s road.
After that, the Sheriff arranged for the Centurions to speak at 16 roll calls, which are mandatory, between May 9 and May 16, 2006.
The 7th Circuit analyzed the action under the Lemon test: “government action violates the Establishment Clause if it has any of the following characteristics: (1) a non-secular purpose; (2) the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion; or (3) fostering an excessive government entanglement with religion.” Lemon has been sharply criticized by Justice Scalia, but has not yet been overturned.
Scalia’s characterization of Lemon in Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches:
Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District. Its most recent burial, only last Term, was, to be sure, not fully six feet under: Our decision in Lee v. Weisman conspicuously avoided using the supposed “test” but also declined the invitation to repudiate it. Over the years, however, no fewer than five of the currently sitting Justices have, in their own opinions, personally driven pencils through the creature’s heart (the author of today’s opinion repeatedly), and a sixth has joined an opinion doing so.
The secret of the Lemon test’s survival, I think, is that it is so easy to kill. It is there to scare us (and our audience) when we wish it to do so, but we can command it to return to the tomb at will. When we wish to strike down a practice it forbids, we invoke it; when we wish to uphold a practice it forbids, we ignore it entirely. Sometimes, we take a middle course, calling its three prongs ‘no more than helpful signposts.’ Such a docile and useful monster is worth keeping around, at least in a somnolent state; one never knows when one might need him. (Citations omitted.)
Anyway, back to today’s the 7th Circuit case. “a government practice can also violate the Establishment Clause if a “reasonable person, apprised of the circumstances surrounding the [challenged government act], would conclude that [it] amounted to an endorsement of religion.” The Sheriff’s repeated inclusion of unabashedly Christian messages in a mandatory meeting of government employees would seem reasonably to lead to a conclusion that he was endorsing Christianity and that non-Christians were outsiders.
Concluding its Establishment Clause analysis, the 7th Circuit writes:
We do not suggest, however, that religiously affiliated groups are always constitutionally barred from working with or speaking to government employees. Rather, we limit our analysis to the facts of this case, where an authority figure invited a Christian organization that engaged in religious proselytizing to speak on numerous occasions at mandatory government employee meetings. A reasonable observer would have been well aware that the Sheriff did not extend such privileges lightly. Most other organizations that received similar access shared a common attribute: the Sheriff had expressed an interest in partnering with them.1 Indeed, it would be difficult to interpret the Sheriff’s actions as anything other than endorsement.
I didn’t see evidence of “religious proselytizing” in what you attached. However, this bit would do it:
However, I didn’t see any quotes to that effect.
Was the Sheriff sending the message that in order to be promoted you had to join his cult?
My other question is, what exactly does Christianity have to do with law enfocement?
The article doesn’t say,but Im guessing these Christian Centurions are not Catholic knights.
Here’s the thing I don’t understand: why do you insist on doing this? There are 220 divisions of Protestantism alone in this country; before you even get to the various offshoots of Orthodoxy you can find an argument on practically any question of doctrine you wanna raise. Do you imagine that a typical roomful of adult Americans is insufficiently “Christian” because it just hasn’t gotten the message? Or because it hasn’t been motivated by implied career sanctions yet? What Book is that one from?
Bullshit. The sort of person who prefaces every other sentence with “As Paul tells us…” or “God says in Romans 13” knows, absolutely, that what he’s engaging in is religious speech, not secular personal opinion, and, furthermore, that if he pulls this stuff on a street corner 98% of his fellow Christians will find an excuse to cross to the other side.
And, given the political power, you could walk into every meeting and every roll call and spread precisely this message while respecting your audience’s (Constitutionally-protected) right to make its own theological decisions.