Note: This article appeared on the Freedom Forum website on 12/19/97.
By Jeremy Leaming
12.19.97
Ohio's solicitor argued Dec. 18 in federal court that
the state's motto "With God all things are possible"
does not amount to a government endorsement of
Christianity.
Solicitor Jeffery Sutton told U.S. District Judge James
Graham that the state should be allowed to continue using
the motto despite claims by the American Civil Liberties
Union that the motto subverts the separation of church
and state.
Sutton said the motto does not establish Christianity as
the official state religion, but merely makes a general
reference to God, according to The Akron Beacon Journal.
The ACLU, however, told the judge that the motto is
unconstitutional and that an injunction should be granted
to prohibit the state’s use of the motto.
"The motto is a direct quotation of Jesus according to
the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke," Mark Cohn, the
attorney representing the ACLU, told the First Amendment
Center. "According to those gospels, Jesus is answering
the disciples' question of how man can achieve salvation.
There is debate among theologians as to whether the words
can actually be attributed to Jesus, but the government
has no place in that debate."
Cohn said the state's use of the quote violates the
separation of church and state because it unduly
entangles government in a theological debate, has no
secular purpose and advances Christianity over all other
religions.
"The state's main defense of the motto is that the people of Ohio are too stupid to know that the quote is from the Bible and therefore do not perceive it as an endorsement of Christianity," Cohn said.
Sutton, however, argued that the United States motto
"In God we trust" has more religious overtones and has
been supported by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to
The Akron Beacon-Journal.
Douglas Laycock, a University of Texas Law School
professor and religious liberty scholar, told the First
Amendment Center that the court is likely to prohibit the
use of the motto.
Although "there is not a basic principle courts use to
decide which municipal or state slogans should be
tolerated," the court probably will find that this motto
violates the Constitution, Laycock said.