The honoring of a private citizen in the Capitol Building Rotunda has been reserved for, “the nation to pay final tribute to its most eminent citizens by having their remains lay in state (in the case of government officials and military officers) or in honor (in the case of private citizens)”. With this being said, the last private citizen to be honored in the Capitol Building’s Rotunda was Rosa Parks, that is until Billy Graham was honored this past week.
Paul Ryan’s announcement of Grahams honoring caused a series of vehement letters from non-religious citizens as they believe that it was unconstitutional to use government dollars to display and honor Graham’s body in the Capitol’s Rotunda, as well the display is an clear establishment and preference of religion. Among these objectors were the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The foundation wrote a letter to Paul Ryan and Mitchell McConnell stating their concerns with the subject being, “Inappropriate for Rev. Billy Graham to “lie in state” in U.S. Capitol”. The group’s letter includes many reasons that they object the honoring of Graham in the Rotunda, one being that the use of government dollars to display and fund the transport of Graham’s body clearly violates the First Amendments Establishment Clause. The group also goes on to state that the invitations sent out by the government show a preference for one religion, “Your invitation to the family of Billy Graham is indubitably problematic, because it creates Congressional preference for the Southern Baptist Convention and evangelical Christianity over others”. Although these arguments may seem far-fetched, the actual basis may prove to be arguable. Consequently, the question at stake is does the use of government dollars to fund the display and honor of Billy Graham in the Capitol Rotunda, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
The honoring of Billy Graham violates the First Amendments Establishment Clause as it shows a clear advancement of a religious group, particularly Christianity, in a government building. In my opinion, this display of Graham’s body can be related to the display of the Ten Commandments on or near Government property. Just as the Ten Commandments is associated with a religion, so is Billy Graham. With that being said, the display of such content, via the ruling in McCreary County v. ACLU, is in fact unconstitutional. The ruling stated, “our only case dealing with the constitutionality of displaying the Commandments. Stone recognized that the Commandments are an “instrument of religion” and that, at least on the facts before it, the display of their text could presumptively be understood as meant to advance religion…”. I believe that a minister of Graham’s caliber can be seen as an “instrument of religion” and cannot constitutionally be displayed in the Capitol Building per his impact and recognition from the religious community.
Likewise, the Capitol Rotunda has only been used to display three other private citizens, emphasizing the implications of the display of Graham. The others that have received the honor have not been recognized for their contributions to the religious community, but rather to society as a whole. The use of the Capitol Rotunda to display a private citizen unquestionably supports their actions and their cause, for Graham this was his Evangelic Christian agenda. In addition to McCreary V. ACLU being used to show the unconstitutionality of the display of Graham, it can also be used to support that argument that the display can be seen as extremely divisive and therefore unconstitutional, “By showing a purpose to favor religion, the government “sends the … message to … non-adherents ‘that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members…”. Although the display of Graham is open to the public, the person being displayed represents a religion, particularly benefiting the sector of the public that his religious views agree with and this could be seen as divisive.
Many would contend that Graham being the spiritual advisor to many presidents, indicates his ‘eminent’ impact on society, similar to others that have been honored in the Rotunda. Although, I would like to suggest that though I can see the importance of a spiritual advisor in the ethical decisions of the presidency, these advisories did not ultimately impact the public, but rather the president privately. If the argument is to be made that these meetings did affect the public, this would in turn be suggesting that the highest power in the government is making decisions motivated by his faith, violating the separation of Church and State. On the same note, the presidential spiritual and mental wellbeing is important, but cannot be used as a compatible measurement for the benefit of society when placed next to the contributions made by other private citizens like Rosa Parks.
The impacts of having a religious figure honored in this way can result in the government pushing the envelope on many other constitutional rights. How can citizens place trust in a neutral government when they are blatantly promoting one religion by honoring one of its most famous and prominent figures? If the government is able to honor major religious figures in the Rotunda, why now has it only been one that coincides with the current president’s beliefs? This should be the critical analysis in which all citizens should go through when interpreting the current implications of the Billy Graham’s ceremony in the Rotunda.
The concerns of the Freedom from Religion Foundation should not fall on deaf ears, as the display of Billy Graham and the implications of a religious figure at the Capitol Rotunda can clearly be seen as a violation of the Establishment Clause per the Supreme Court rulings stated. Such preferences and entanglements for religion have been warned against by many, particularly James Madison in his Remonstrance going against the intwining of Religion and government, “the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation”.
Although you make a solid argument, I would like to attempt to look at the situation from another perspective. I would argue that it promotes a secular agenda and inhibits religion to bar religious leaders from being honored by the state. It cannot be disputed that Reverend Billy Graham promoted forgiveness, morality, and kindness in his lifetime. The government has a secular interest to promote these attributes for the wellbeing of society. Billy Graham did this through a religious perspective, if we forbid his lying in honor because of he used religious perspective to speak about important issues, does this not become an issue of free speech? I acknowledge that the argument can be made that Graham also attempted to convert people to Christianity, not solely speak about secular issues from a religious standpoint. That being said, I do not think that his burial was an attempt to convert people to Christianity. Lying in honor is a secular tradition that should be available to all candidates, whether they are religious or not. That is the only way that the law can be neutral.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis and conclusion that this is in fact an establishment of religion. I think it is problematic due to using tax payer dollars to pay homage to a religious figure, which is therefore honoring a specific religion and placing its importance over others. I think the argument that he was an influential spiritual advisor to several presidents only serves to highlight that he is, as you said, an instrument of religion and is not directly benefiting the public like one could argue Rosa Parks did. I think trying to compare the societal work that Rosa Parks did to the spiritual advising that Graham did is a stretch. Lying Graham in honor is clearly not going to cause people to convert, but it is still placing a government preference on religion and paying respect to a specific religion, which I think is an inappropriate violation of the Constitution. Allowing something like this to occur, as you said, can lead to a slippery slope of allowing other offenses against the establishment clause. I agree that this is a secular tradition that should be available to people regardless of their religious affiliation, and being open about your religious views should not keep you from receiving this honor, but I do not think religious figures whose primary contribution to society was religious preaching should be given this honor using tax dollars.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Payton's overall point that the display of Billy Graham's body in a government building is entangling church and state and publicly highlighting one religion over all others. However, I have to play devil's advocate and say that the homage paid to this certain religious figure is facially neutral from what I know. Billy Graham was the spiritual advisor for every President from Harry S. Truman (our 33rd President) to Barack Obama (our 44th President). Thus, I believe the "endorsing" of the Southern Baptist Convention and Evangelical Christianity is simply incidental / indirect aid. It is not Graham's religion, itself, that has been honored through his placement in the Capitol Rotunda. Billy Graham, the person, has been honored because he played such a crucial role in the mindsets of so many American Presidents. I say this is facially neutral because who is to say that if Graham was a Presidential spiritual advisor who practiced, preached, and lived by any other religion, he would not be honored just the same? Some might say Graham's legacy / work is no where comparable to that of Rosa Park's - one reason being he contributed to a religious community rather than society at large. However, Graham was also known for his work against racial segregation. He had even preached aside Martin Luther King Jr. and once bailed King out of jail after being arrested during demonstrations. This means Billy Graham also had secular viewpoints meant to better society as a whole. If Graham's body was chosen not to be placed in the rotunda, could that be considered a violation of his established religion? I think so.
ReplyDeleteI think Grace makes a strong point. It is not Billy Graham's religion that is currently being honored in the Capital Rotunda, it is his life and impact on America that is being commemorated. I struggle to see how this is an establishment or endorsement of Evangelical Christianity. If anything it is an endorsement of the actions and life lead by a significant American figure. Prohibiting the commemoration of Billy Graham would seem to me to be a more substantial violation of the First Amendment. Personally, the whole discussion seems to be making mountains out of molehills.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Max regarding the subject in which Billy Graham is being honored. Graham was unequivocally instrumental as a leader and promoter of the Southern Baptist religion, and his ideals were virtuous and left a positive affect on the leaders or our country. To honor him solely for his role in the prominence of his religion would truly be a clear cut case of entanglement, but to honor a citizen who helped spiritually uplift the decision makers of our nation based on his ideals and his character in practice is what the commemoration was made for in the first place. While his impact on society completely differs those of Ms. Parks, the fact that there was a celebration does not mean that any other religion was impacted in any concrete way.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that the government’s honoring of Billy Graham in the Capitol Building’s Rotunda can be viewed as preferencing one religion over others, there are two ways to look at this. It may send a clear public message that the government supports one religion over others and it might even be confused and interpreted as “Washington’s religion”. I think the government must air on the side of caution when deciding who its pays homage to in this manner. From this perspective, I do believe it is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. On the other hand, Billy Graham was more than a religious figure to many. He served as the spiritual advisor to many Presidents, spanning decades and he was a lead figure in many social causes, including racial segregation. Dr. Martin Luther King was a Reverend but his contributions to society and to the greater good were more than just based on one single religion. If this argument can be made for Graham as well, I do think this case can then be looked at differently. From this perspective, Billy Graham should be honored based upon his impacts on U.S. Presidents and American society as a whole.
ReplyDelete