A lawyer who specializes in religious liberty concerns urged Oklahoma supporters on the eve of Election Day to vote against a ballot initiative ending the state’s constitutional ban on using taxpayer funds for religious purposes.
Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty General Counsel Holly Hollman described State Question 790 as “a misguided attempt to promote Christianity through government action” in an open letter published on the BJC website.
Holly Hollman
Hollman said supporters of SQ 790 mistakenly believe its passage will allow return of a Ten Commandments monument on the state capitol grounds that the Oklahoma Supreme Court determined to be a violation of a section of the state constitution barring the use of taxpayer funds for the benefit or support “of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion.”
Hollman said the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts across the country have held that similar monuments violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
While supporters of SQ 790 and similar efforts to repeal “no-aid” clauses from state constitutions across the country claim they are rooted in anti-Catholic bigotry of the 19th century, Hollman said there are plenty of good reasons to resist taxpayer-funded religion today.
“While the threats of government funding to religion have changed through the years, history teaches us that when the government funds religion, religion suffers,” Hollman said. “Removing this constitutional provision threatens many legal protections that churches and other religious organizations currently enjoy.”
An accompanying article listed reasons the BJC, a Washington-based advocacy group representing 15 Baptist bodies in the United States, opposes displays of the Ten Commandments on government property.
“The debate is not about whether the Ten Commandments teach sound theology or wholesome ethics,” the list said. “The question is, who is the right teacher: politicians or parents, public officials or pastors, government committees or families?”
The BJC said religious monuments sponsored by the government “are always constitutionally suspect and theologically questionable.”
“Any act that puts government in the position of making religious decisions threatens the freedom of religion,” the article said. “Those who want to defend religious liberty and promote the teachings of the Ten Commandments (and other scriptural mandates) will continue to do so as Jeremiah prophesied in the Bible: because God has written the Commandments upon their hearts.”
The BJC called it “incorrect and disrespectful to reduce the Ten Commandments to a secular, historical document.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that to pass constitutional muster such displays must have a secular purpose and cannot be viewed by a reasonable observer as an endorsement of religion.
Bruce Prescott, a retired Baptist minister in Norman, Okla., said he experienced benefits of the no-aid clause as a plaintiff in the lawsuit that led to removal of the Ten Commandments monument from capitol grounds ordered by the Oklahoma Supreme Court July 2015.
“I rejoiced at the court’s decision,” Prescott said in a Tulsa World commentary Oct. 29. “For me, as a Christian, the Ten Commandments represent a covenant between God and people of faith — a sacred religious document. When legislators sought to redefine this religious covenant as a secular government monument, I objected. And the experience solidified for me the importance of religious protections like those in our Constitution — protections that separate church and state and allow both to flourish as a result.”
Anthony Jordan, head of the Southern Baptist Convention-affiliated Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, said recently he believes the no-aid provision ought to be repealed because liberal groups like the ACLU are using it to “seek to eliminate religious freedoms and religion from the public square.”
The BJC said forbidding the government from favoring a particular religion “does not promote secularism” but instead “provides an environment where religion is independent and can have great influence.”
Hollman said SQ 790 would not accomplish its intended purpose and threatens important religious liberty safeguards currently in place.
“True religion flourishes when it is independent from the state,” Hollman said. “While Christians, Jews and others often promote the teachings of the Ten Commandments, we should not rely on the government to do it for us.”
“Oklahomans should reject this move toward blending the institutions of church and state and vote no on SQ 790,” she said.
The primary author of SQ 790, Rep. John Paul Jordan (R-Yukon), is a member of a Southern Baptist church.
Previous stories:
Oklahoma Baptist official supports ‘no-aid’ repeal
BJC’s Walker says Okla. ballot question poses danger to religious institutions