First off, I’m gonna remind David that his view of the First Amendment is not, nor ever has been, the law of the land as determined by its ultimate arbitor, the USSC. I’m not saying that they are right and David is wrong (I’ve argued for years that the prohibition against establishing a state religion in modern times should preclude ANY hint of religious leanings by government). But the law of the land doesn’t agree, so let’s not be quite so assertive that it is, please.
The reason that the particular quote which is our motto here was found to be unconstitutional by the court in question is because A) It is a direct quote from the main religious text of Christianity, and B) the Court felt it expressed an idea unique to the Christian religion (i.e., that God is the only way into the kingdom of Heaven, and that by believing in him, you can obtain anything you want). Read the opinion to understand these conclusions.
Now, as to objection A), clearly if what you have is a quote from the New Testament, that is a bit different than a general reference to some sort of deity in whom a lot of people put some trust. So this motto isn’t the same as, say, the Arizona motto: Ditat Deus (God Enriches). On the other hand, it should be noted that some other mottos that include the word “God” in them are also either quotes from the Bible, or derived from quotes, including, I am given to understand from today’s The (Toledo) Blade the motto “In God We Trust” (derived from a Psalm). Is it any less valid to use a quote from the New Testament than a quote from the Old Testament? Should the fact it is a quote be ignored in light of the fact that 1) most people won’t recognize it as such and 2) it isn’t cited as a quote (the initial opinion of the district court in Columbus ruled that the motto was able to be used as long as it wasn’t cited as a quote from the Bible).
As to point B, there is some considerable controversy. The basic idea that God is able to make anything happen is hardly a solely Christian philosophy. As is noted in an article in today’s Blade, the Qur’an contains several similar references to the power and ability of God (example given is Chapter 2, verse 106: “Know you not that God is able to do all things?”). BUT, the quote in question is not just a quote about an all powerful god. Put into the context from which it is taken, it is also a reference that you have to accept God to achieve salvation, that in believing in God, you can achieve what you want. So, should the motto be reviewed in terms of the general meaning (God is able to do anything), or the specific meaning (God must be accepted to get to Heaven)?
Of course, all of this makes one wonder what someone from say, Native American culture is thinking, or a Buddhist. But, as noted by the Supreme Court in 1983, the First Amendment wasn’t intended to remove all religion from government (Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)). So far, the Court has declined to change that view. But as long as the motto of Ohio is perceived by the courts to be a specific Christian message, it is going to have trouble remaining the motto of Ohio.
