The presence of a bible on the "Missing Man Table" at the Manchester Veterans Administration Medical Center (MVAMC) in Manchester, New Hampshire is a source of contention for numerous veterans as they believe the bible breaks the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Two Airforce veterans, Sandra Bell and James Chamberlain, filed a
federal lawsuit to the District Court of New Hampshire, supported by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) who fights for the separation of religious influences and military organizations. Initially in January of 2019, president of the MRFF Michael Weinstein, asked the MVAMC director Al Montoya, to remove the bible based off the complaints of 14 veterans at the medical center which was promptly executed by Montoya to honor the views of those that served. Consequently, floods of complaints from an opposing group of veterans demanded the bible to be put back on the table in addition to a mandate by the Department of Veterans Affairs in February of 2019. The Department of Veterans Affairs then announced that religious symbols are permitted at all VA facilities prompting the challenge seen here. The initial lawsuit submitted by Chamberlain, a Christian himself, was challenged on its legal standing referring to Chamberlain's ability to sue the federal government. The court claimed that a Christian believer could not experience injury by law in this case because it was his religion that was present with the display of the bible. This is how Sandra Bell, former Christian now Atheist, gave concrete ground for this case to stand on based on the fact that she felt unwelcome by the presence of the bible on the table. The federal judge deciding this case believes that it will make its way to the Supreme Court.
The issue at hand in this case is whether or not the presence of a Christian bible at a government-run facility is an establishment of a religion. The presence of religious symbols in government is not a novel aspect of modern American society as the relationship between government and religious affiliations are often seen intermingling over the "wall of separation between church and state" that Thomas Jefferson portrayed. Even more so, the military often uses religious symbols and worship as a part of their education and training. For example, in the Supreme Court decision of McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), the dissent provides numerous instances at the both the United States Naval and Military Academies of military chaplains and opportunities for religious worship on property that is entirely run by the government. In addition, this case is coming off the Supreme Court decision of The American Legion v. American Humanist Organization (2019) where the court decided in a 7-2 majority that a cross-shaped display at a veterans memorial park in Bladensburg, Maryland was constitutional based off the fact that the Christian symbol served a secular purpose.
I agree with the Department of Veterans Affairs in this case that the display of the bible on the "Missing Man Table" is constitutional and is not an establishment of religion. This is because of the common presence of religious symbols and ideas already present in today's society upheld by the Supreme Court decisions and non-coercive nature that the "Missing Man Table" has. The presence of this bible does not force religious action or religious practice rather its secular use is to honor the soldiers that have made the ultimate sacrifice. Reasoning used to justify the cross memorial in Maryland applies to this situation as well. Taking offense to a religious symbol does not hold ground in having it removed, inhibiting the free exercise of another individual. Society is not devoid of religious symbols as one is freely allowed to practice their faith. Similar to the cross memorial, the bible on display holds historical significance as it was used by a soldier in WWII while escaping a German POW camp. The presence of religious symbols in American society do not represent an establishment of religion, rather they honor the spiritual nature of the people of this country. The bible being present on this table does not establish a state church, offer aid to any religion, or advance the instruction of any teachings. In precedence, the Supreme Court has supported the use of religious symbols to honor the sacrifices of United States veterans by stipulating connection between the American people and religious affiliation. The bible on the "Missing Man Table" at the Manchester VAMC should indeed receive the same treatment as the symbols before it.
5 comments:
I agree with the author here as the religious symbol does serve a secular purpose. It does not look to coerce or influence but rather there for symbolic purposes. The author’s reasoning, I also agree with as one’s offense does not determine the intention. Being offended by something, doesn’t always make it offensive. If the bible was forcibly in plain sight of every patient in their room, then I could see the problem that could ensue. Or even if bible verses were read to every patient. Yet, this bible only stands as a symbol within the VA medical center.
I agree with Anthony here, as this case is not much different to the precedents beforehand, which all agreed that these religious symbols do not necessarily constitute an establishment of religion. It is important that the rulings prior already established so many other symbols (that really are everywhere in USA) as constitutional, and I don't see how this ruling should be different. Also, the fact that the Bible was being respected on a table shows that it is more symbolic than coercive (ie. people were not forced to read said Bible, it was just there).
I agree with your stance on this. I lean more towards the side that believes their is no establishment of religion here because of other examples I have seen in the US where religion is displayed but is not considered an establishment. For example, the Court using "God" in their prayer, and coins in the US saying "God" on them as well. The same logic applies in this case. One thing I wonder, however, is is this due to the bible being using in what are considered "majority religions." I wonder if it had been a minority religious symbol? For example the Qur'an? Would people then be more opposed to it because most veterans tend to be Catholic or Christian?
I agree with Anthony's argument here. The bible on the table is merely a symbol, it is not being utilized in order to promote or establish a particular religion. I think that the ruling in Maryland proved the point that Anthony is making. In both cases, there is no evidence of the religion itself being forced onto anybody, and there is no aid being given to a particular religion. For those reasons, I do not see think that the MVAMC is violating the establishment clause.
I agree with the author in that the use of a bible on the table does not establish religion and is non coercive and therefore should be allowed to remain. The precedent of many supreme court cases like the ones cited by the author show us how the court acknowledges the presence of religious symbols in our country and allows them to remain in state entities. Understanding the context of the nation in terms of spirituality and looking at the precedents set before helps us see why the decision made by the court stands.
Post a Comment