A federal appeals court will today hear a case filed by two Michigan men who claim the Bible verses included in their ads to an unemployment insurance agency were wrongly censored.
Alliance Defense Fund attorney Kevin Theriot will represent Andrew and Glenda Grosjean in the case before the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
The Grosjeans, both Michigan unemployment advocates, allege in the suit that Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency should not have removed Scripture references in their personalized ads that appear in a resource given to unemployed workers who have been denied employment benefits.
The agency allowed the Bible references in the past but in 2005, the UIA changed their tune. When the Grosjeans attempted to re-post their ads, an official told them the content violated the so-called “separation of church and state" and ordered the religious material removed from the ads without their consent.
The Grosjeans filed their lawsuit in November 2005. A lower district court has ruled against the Grosjeans but the ADF attorney will seek to appeal the decision today.
Theriot will argue before the court that the UIA officials violated the Grosjeans’ free speech rights by choosing to censor their advertisements.
In the past, Andrew Grosjean’s ad stated in part: “I know the rules and will give you 100%. Call me for undivided attention. Last minute cases welcome. ‘Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment and do justice, for my salvation is near to come.’ Isa. 56.5.” Glenda Grosjean’s previous ad stated in part: “Courteous and qualified, I will not treat you like a number. An EXPERT in unemployment law, I will aggressively conquer your case. ‘And what doth the LORD require of thee but to do justly and love mercy and walk humbly with thy GOD.’ Micah 6:8b.”
ADF said the actions of the agency amount to religious discrimination. A favorable ruling in the case is important to prevent religious discrimination at other government agencies, according to the organization.
“Christians shouldn’t be discriminated against for expressing their beliefs,” said Theriot. “The government cannot single out religious speech to be banned from a private ad in a publication open to secular views. That is clearly unconstitutional.”
RSS
Hi many cogent comments. To bad this group wasn't hearing the case. The central issues were identified. Just a couple side notes. As noted as asides by others the constitutional clause has a dual purpose to prevent the Government from in any way establishing an official religion or favoritism to one religion (the establishment clause) and to prevent the government from interfering in the religious practices of the citizens (the free excercise clause). Typically conflict occurs when a religious group (usually the majority religious group of a community) tries to use the government to promote their religious beliefs (i.e. state sponsored prayers in school, government posting of religious documents in courts and other public buildings). Clearly this is not the case here. The ads in question would even pass the three pronged lemon test which applies to schools. On that note in response to WBmoore's comment (hi WB), all is not lost. In my public school we have ads within the School yearbook which contain religious quotations (such as in these ads) with no problem with the issue of state sponsorship. We simply take the step of posting at the bottom of the ad page the following statement. The advertising space in this yearbook is a limited open forum the content of the ads does not reflect and endorsement by (name of school district). This fulfills both sides of the constitution that prohibits establishment and ensures free excercise. Of course as a "limited" forum we are still able to restrict the ads regarding content which is "inimical" to the purposes of the school. This means no profanity, hate speech, racism, etc. This approach has been vetted by our attorneys and could be used by any school.
blue1018, there is something disconcerting about your argument. In your comments, you say "these verses are not offending or demeaning anyone, they are helpful, encouraging, and their ad should be legally protected."
By that rationale, if the verses were deemed unhelphful, NOT encouraging, even offensive, would the ads then become un-protected speech?
Do you see the danger in what you're saying?
Anyone can claim to be offended by the mere mention of the name Jesus Christ. For example, when Jesus Christ said "no man comes to the Father except through me," that is an OFFENSIVE verse... to whom? To those who believe there are OTHER paths to God. Another example: "all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of the God," is also offensive... to whom? To everyone who believes themselves to be without sin, or in right standing with God.
My point? The Constitution protects the free exercise of religion (not imposing any one particular faith over another)... but that protection is not contingent upon whether you LIKE or APPRECIATE or even AGREE WITH what is being said.
I'm glad you found the verses to be helpful, encouraging, etc., but... legally speaking, there are just as many verses in the Bible that may rub you the wrong way, and those too fall under the same protections.
"“Courteous and qualified, I will not treat you like a number. An EXPERT in unemployment law, I will aggressively conquer your case. ‘And what doth the LORD require of thee but to do justly and love mercy and walk humbly with thy GOD.’ Micah 6:8b.†"
Ok, first of all - as liberal as I am - this is a very inspiring quote. Good for these men who try their best to help others and in turn also use faith as a humble guidance and promise. As much as I honor the separation of church and state, I think this case flips the meaning around; instead, these verses are not offending or demeaning anyone, they are helpful, encouraging, and their ad should be legally protected.
These are ads the people paid for themselves. This is not discussing postings made by the agency, but by individuals. The agency has no right to censor the content for religious bias. If they rent space to non-religious sounding ads, they have to rent them to religious sounding ones. This battle as already won against schools not renting space to religious organizations, but renting space to non-religious ones.
"respecting an establishment "
Please note it says 'an' and not 'the'. It is to remain unbias and neutral when it comes to different religions.
The seperation folks are only interested in protecting the line when Christianity is attacking secularism. The state is welcome to attack Christianity anytime it wants. If that wasn't a true statement then the ACLU would have been all over this case to protect the rights of these two people.
In an effort to separate Church and State, they are interfering with a person's right to their faith and the "free exercise thereof".
Perhaps because "Separation of Church and State" is not a phrase that is used in the Constitution. It is a phrase that entered conversation later, although many people now erroneously believe it to be in the Constitution.
The actual phraseology is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Perhaps because the original intent of the "separation of church and state" was to prevent the government interfering in the running of the church. The present situation in China is a prime example of the consequences of losing that separation.
Over time, people have reversed its meaning.
I am wondering why the phrase "so-called" is in front of "separation of church and state." Is this a news report, or a political philosophy paper?