Portrait Of Unconstitutionality: La. Judge Defends Jesus Picture In Courthouse

A local judge in Slidell, La., says he has no intention of removing a religious display from his courthouse.

The ACLU of Louisiana sent a letter to the Slidell City Court on June 20, asking the clerk to remove a 16^th century Russian Orthodox painting called “Christ the Savior” and its accompanying message, “To know peace, obey these laws.”

The civil liberties group argued that the display in the courthouse lobby violates established church-state law forbidding government endorsed religion. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2005, ACLU attorneys wrote, struck down a similar religious display in a Kentucky courthouse because it advanced religion.

City Court Judge Jim Lamz will have none of it. He called a press conference last Saturday to grandstand and thumb his nose at the ACLU. Lamz posed under the display and was surrounded by the town’s mayor, local clergy and at least one national Religious Right figure.

Lamz argues that the painting has a “historical place in the courthouse,” reported the New Orleans Times-Picayune. That’s surprising because the painting has hung for only a decade. The Supreme Court has occasionally grandfathered in religious displays on public property, but such displays have stood uncontested for several decades. “Christ the Savior” is also one of only two pieces of art in the courthouse’s main hall. The other is a portrait of the building’s namesake.

Slidell Mayor Ben Morris vilified the ACLU at the press conference and called for fighting “these tyrants, this American Taliban, who seek to destroy our culture and our heritage.”

Some Slidell residents expressed concern over the cost of litigation. Not to worry, the mayor and judge said, because several Religious Right legal outfits have offered to represent the city if the case goes to court. Mike Johnson of the Alliance Defense Fund attended the press conference and said his group would indeed help.

This should be an open-and-shut case; the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that free- standing, government-sponsored religious displays violate the separation of church and state. Courts, which mete out justice to all regardless of race, creed or sex, are the last places that should display religious iconography.

It’s also ironic to hear defenders of church-state separation labeled an “American Taliban.” One can’t help but think that description is more accurately applied to those who want our courts to look and act like houses of worship.

By Lauren Smith