It’s too bad that judges won’t be asked to resolve this dispute because additional clarity is needed on what religious activities are and are not allowed on state property.
It was officials at the state Department of General Administration who denied the permit. After the denial, church officials canceled the barbecue and baptism and spent a few days weighing their legal options.
In the end, Pastor Paul Jones said that legal action would be “inconsistent with our mission as a family church.”
Boiled down to its essence, this case is all about conflicting constitutional rights found in the state and federal constitutions. It looks like a court decision is about the only way to resolve those conflicts and provide state officials with guidance on future issues.
In recent years, General Administration officials have found themselves in the middle of thorny church/state issues that, at one time, garnered the state national attention.
It started with a decades-long tradition by the Association of Washington Business, which used a Christmas tree in the rotunda of the Legislative Building to raise money for holiday gifts for low-income people served by rural fire districts. The AWB raised more than $300,000 to help those needy families.
A bit of a “religious war” was launched when Gov. Chris Gregoire lit a Jewish menorah in the Capitol in 2006. That opened the floodgates for individuals and groups that wanted to have their holiday messages proclaimed under the Capitol dome.
There was the Nativity scene. It was countered by the atheists’ anti-religion placard. Things got totally out of hand when one person applied for a permit to install a “Festivus” pole, honoring a mock holiday made popular on the TV sitcom “Seinfield.” Controversial Kansas pastor Fred Phelps wanted to erect a sign saying, “Santa will take you to hell.” Another Kansas group critical of teaching creationism in schools wanted to depict a “Flying Spaghetti Monster” as the creator of the universe.
Washington state became the nation’s laughingstock in the Christmas of 2008 when the state’s policy to allow an unlimited number of displays backfired.
General Administration officials called a halt to the nonsense and announced plans to adopt new rules governing displays and rallies on the Capitol Campus – including Sylvester Park, Heritage Park, Centennial Park and Marathon Park.
Under the new rules, only government-sponsored exhibits and displays are allowed inside public areas of campus buildings. That pretty much brought a halt to the competing religious displays that sparked the national controversy.
Under GA rules, private exhibits and displays are allowed on the campus grounds, provided they meet certain conditions.
As part of the state rules, groups that want to erect a display or hold an event on any Capitol Campus space must seek a permit in advance.
On Aug. 2, officials with the Reality Church of Olympia applied for the permit to hold the baptism ceremony and church barbecue.
Acting General Administration director Jane Rushford approved the barbecue but denied the baptism saying that the state constitution does not allow use of state resources for worship or the exercise of religion.
In a letter explaining the decision, Rushford quoted the state constitution’s first article, saying, “No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment.”
Rushford drew a distinction between speech and the exercise of religion: “A baptism ceremony is a form of religious exercise and worship, and as such it would violate Article 1 Section 11 to authorize the use of state property for this use.”
The American Center for Law & Justice, based in Washington, D.C., has handled the church’s appeal of the baptism permit denial.
Center spokesman Gene Kapp said, “The denial of the baptism ceremony represents a violation of our client’s constitutional rights protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment (of the federal Constitution). We’re disappointed that the state failed to permit our client to fully exercise his constitutional rights. Our attorneys are now in the process of determining the next course of action in this matter.”
A court decision would help clarify the fine line between freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion in public venues.
These are thorny issues, and it’s often a tough call with state officials caught in the middle.
We believe that it’s important that the courts draw a line between these conflicting rights.
