John Whitehead's Commentary
Hostility to Religious Speech Still Infects America
As the United States continues its war on terrorism, we must remain vigilant about our freedoms, including our religious freedom. Indeed, just last year the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed a basic principle of religious freedom--religious speech deserves the same protection as any other speech. In a case involving a religious club's access to an elementary school during after-school hours, the high court ruled that the school could not refuse to allow the club access because of the religious content of its speech.
This wasn't a new principle. For the past ten years, in case after case, the Supreme Court has been driving home the basic rule that religious speech deserves the same First Amendment protection as all other speech.
In a particularly appropriate decision six years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that a university couldn't deny funds to a student magazine simply because the magazine discussed issues from a Christian viewpoint.
Unfortunately, despite these numerous Supreme Court declarations, this lesson is taking a while to sink in. One particularly obvious example of hostility toward religious speech happened in Vermont when Nancy Zins, a Vermont pastor's wife, applied for two specialty license plates from the state department of motor vehicles.
Nancy sent the DMV forty dollars and requested two plates: "ROMANS5" for her husband, and "ROMANS8" for herself, references to New Testament passages that she and her husband had found particularly comforting over the years. One month later, Nancy received a letter from the DMV. It read, "[w]e are refusing to issue these plates as they have religious connotations and may be offensive or confusing." DMV officials helpfully enclosed two applications for new plates.
Determined to stand up for her freedom of speech and her faith, Nancy appealed the denial. In a telephone hearing, a Rabbi and a Muslim both testified on her behalf that the biblical references were not offensive, even to those with different beliefs. But the appeals board upheld the denial.
Nancy's case is now moving forward in state court. Fortunately, some courts have generally agreed that messages on license plates qualify as speech protected by the First Amendment. In fact, a federal appeals court recently went so far as to rule that Missouri violated a woman's free speech rights by revoking her plate that read "ARYAN-1."
Given the Supreme Court's clear precedent that religious speech deserves the same protection as all other speech, Nancy's case should have a good chance to win. The real question is why she has to go through the stress and expense of a court proceeding to protect such basic rights.
The only answer is bureaucratic hostility to religion. One would like to give state employees of DMV the benefit of the doubt. After all, they handle hundreds of requests and deal with thousands of residents' problems.
But it's virtually impossible to find a non-hostile reason for the DMV's denial of Nancy's request. The statute that gives the DMV discretion over which plates to issue reads simply, "[t]he Commissioner may refuse to honor any special plate request that might be offensive or confusing to the general public."
There is no mention in this statutory language--the same language that the DMV quoted in its letter to Nancy--of religion. The state officials in charge of granting or denying Nancy's request took it upon themselves to deem religious speech to be "offensive or confusing"--despite a decade's worth of crystal clear language from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court made another decision that took a while to sink in. When the court declared school segregation unconstitutional, it was another 15 years before America's school districts finally got the message and rid their systems of discrimination against African-American students.
Today, racist educational bureaucrats are an artifact of history. Hopefully, tomorrow bureaucrats hostile toward religion will go the same way.
This wasn't a new principle. For the past ten years, in case after case, the Supreme Court has been driving home the basic rule that religious speech deserves the same First Amendment protection as all other speech.
In a particularly appropriate decision six years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that a university couldn't deny funds to a student magazine simply because the magazine discussed issues from a Christian viewpoint.
Unfortunately, despite these numerous Supreme Court declarations, this lesson is taking a while to sink in. One particularly obvious example of hostility toward religious speech happened in Vermont when Nancy Zins, a Vermont pastor's wife, applied for two specialty license plates from the state department of motor vehicles.
Nancy sent the DMV forty dollars and requested two plates: "ROMANS5" for her husband, and "ROMANS8" for herself, references to New Testament passages that she and her husband had found particularly comforting over the years. One month later, Nancy received a letter from the DMV. It read, "[w]e are refusing to issue these plates as they have religious connotations and may be offensive or confusing." DMV officials helpfully enclosed two applications for new plates.
Determined to stand up for her freedom of speech and her faith, Nancy appealed the denial. In a telephone hearing, a Rabbi and a Muslim both testified on her behalf that the biblical references were not offensive, even to those with different beliefs. But the appeals board upheld the denial.
Nancy's case is now moving forward in state court. Fortunately, some courts have generally agreed that messages on license plates qualify as speech protected by the First Amendment. In fact, a federal appeals court recently went so far as to rule that Missouri violated a woman's free speech rights by revoking her plate that read "ARYAN-1."
Given the Supreme Court's clear precedent that religious speech deserves the same protection as all other speech, Nancy's case should have a good chance to win. The real question is why she has to go through the stress and expense of a court proceeding to protect such basic rights.
The only answer is bureaucratic hostility to religion. One would like to give state employees of DMV the benefit of the doubt. After all, they handle hundreds of requests and deal with thousands of residents' problems.
But it's virtually impossible to find a non-hostile reason for the DMV's denial of Nancy's request. The statute that gives the DMV discretion over which plates to issue reads simply, "[t]he Commissioner may refuse to honor any special plate request that might be offensive or confusing to the general public."
There is no mention in this statutory language--the same language that the DMV quoted in its letter to Nancy--of religion. The state officials in charge of granting or denying Nancy's request took it upon themselves to deem religious speech to be "offensive or confusing"--despite a decade's worth of crystal clear language from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court made another decision that took a while to sink in. When the court declared school segregation unconstitutional, it was another 15 years before America's school districts finally got the message and rid their systems of discrimination against African-American students.
Today, racist educational bureaucrats are an artifact of history. Hopefully, tomorrow bureaucrats hostile toward religion will go the same way.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
