Law and the Bible in America

Official Shield and Coat of Arms of Lehigh County

Still in use today, the Official Shield and Coat of Arms of Lehigh County serves as the backdrop for county commission meetings, hangs in the county courthouse, and remains a controversial image. Government seals tell a story. A story of what is important to the people governed under the seal. In Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, the seal contains a number of images that illustrate important aspects of life for citizens of the county: grain silos, factories, cows, the courthouse. But in the center of this county government’s seal lies a Latin cross. According to the man who designed the seal, former commissioner Harry D. Hertzog, “in center of Shield appears the huge cross in canary-yellow signifying Christianity and the God-fearing people which are the foundation and backbone of our County”. Looming behind the drawing of the county courthouse, the inclusion of the Latin cross was subject to a lawsuit filed against Lehigh County on the grounds that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In Freedom from Religion Foundation v. County of Lehigh, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that the inclusion of the Latin cross did not violate the Establishment Clause. This decision followed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in American Legion v. American Humanist Association, in which the Supreme Court ruled constitutional a memorial cross constructed in Maryland. This cross is displayed further down the exhibit under the subtitle, “Biblical monuments on public land”. The way the cross is displayed in this seal as a backdrop for the county courthouse clearly shows the way that Lehigh County officials understood and may still understand that government space as endorsed and empowered by the image of the cross. The cross is not off to the side or at the bottom of the seal, but rather it is large and directly behind the courthouse. The image of the cross carries strong connotations that Lehigh County is trying to make use to imply a certain relation between the courthouse, a symbol of the law, and the Bible.

Benjamin Franklin's Great Seal Design

Benjamin Franklin’s design for the great seal of the United States is an early symbol of the linkage between American law and the Bible. The proposed seal depicts a portion of the Exodus story, in which the Israelites escape Egypt and the Egyptian army is destroyed. The scene reads, “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Stretch out your hand over the sea so that the waters may flow back over the Egyptians and their chariots and horsemen.’ … The water flowed back and covered the chariots and horsemen—the entire army of Pharaoh that had followed the Israelites into the sea. Not one of them survived” (Exodus 14:26,28, NRSV). The seal is finished off by seven words that perfectly encapsulate the way that early Americans attempted to connect their political project of rebelling against the British government and forming a new government to the Bible. The words, “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God” surround the image. In the context of the American Revolution, in which North American colonists overthrew British colonial rule, this proposed seal clearly aligns their struggle with that of the Israelites escaping Egypt. The Israelites are the colonists rebelling against the British government, and the Egyptian army is the British government being beaten back. This proposal, for a seal that would be in government buildings, on official government documents, and forever associated with the American government, is a clear demonstration of how the early Americans thought of themselves as connected to the Biblical story of the Exodus and were willing to use signs and symbols to connect their political project to the Bible.

City of Austin Seal

As was the case with the seal for Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, the seal of the City of Austin is still in use today and is displayed on a number of government properties and on government documents. The seal is simple, combining a three-stripe emblem with a few other elements before being surrounded by text, reading “City of Austin” and “Founded 1839”. Lying above that emblem lies a somewhat problematic inclusion. As the city’s description of the seal reads, “Atop the shield is the silhouette of the State capitol and elements of Stephen F. Austin’s family coat of arms, specifically a Latin cross with crosslets and a pair of wings. While honoring the contribution of the city’s founder by including some features of his family coat of arms is one matter, the inclusion of the Latin cross on a seal in front of the Texas State Capitol Building constructs an argument about how the Texas State Capitol Building should be seen. The inclusion of the Latin cross, an image drawn from the Bible, tells the viewer that the State capitol is imbued with, or at least related to, the power of the cross. It tells the viewer that there is a clear linkage between the meaning of the cross and the power of the State capitol. The selection of the Latin cross for the seal out of the elements of Stephen F. Austin’s family coat of arms was no doubt intentional, and the relationship that its designers tried to illustrate between the City of Austin and the cross is told every time the seal is displayed.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written and adopted by the United Nations shortly after World War II, in 1948. It was written to primarily ensure that no human should ever be treated as poorly as the Nazis treated the Jewish people. The UDHR established “basic human rights and fundamental freedoms” for people across the globe. It was presented with the goal of becoming common law among all nations and recognized certain rights as inherent and inalienable. The Preamble of the UDHR states, “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.” At the time, Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was the chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights. She was a lifelong Episcopalian and regular reader of the Bible. She is quoted saying, “I have found the Holy Bible a remarkably wise and beautiful book and reading a few verses a day a helpful habit”. Ms. Roosevelt was one of 9 drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She is credited with being the most influential contributor to this revolutionary document. Many, if not every single one of the 30 Articles included in this document can be traced back and related to Biblical passages. This document is a representation of how the Bible has influenced leaders and laws around the world to make life better for humans. 

The laws of New England as they are now established 

“An abstract of the Lawes of New England as they are now established” was written by John Cotton in the late 1630s. John Cotton was an English minister who later became one of the most prominent theologians of the Massachusetts Bay colony. In 1636, Cotton was asked by the Magistrates of England to write a code of ideal Laws for the newly established colonies. He wrote these laws based mostly on the teachings of the Old Testament and called it “Moses His Judicialls”. There are many lawes included in his writing that come directly from the Hebrew Bible. Many offenses were punishable by death. The first capital offense listed by Cotton is blasphemy. He writes, “1. First, Blasphemy which is cursing of God by atheism or the like, to be punished by death” (Cotton). Other capital offenses include witchcraft, idolatry, profaning the Lord's day, rebellion, and perjury. All of these crimes and their punishments are listed before murder. Murder comes seventeenth on a list of twenty-four capital crimes. Several laws are taken directly from the Bible. Law number 3 in chapter 6 says “ If any man’s beast kills the beast of another, the owner of the beast shall make restitution”(Cotton). This law is cited, in the book, to come from Exodus 21:35. It is interesting to note that the title of this book is a mistake. John Cotton’s laws were never established in New England, they were denied. Another man, Nathaniel Ward was responsible for the laws of New England at the time with his “Body of Liberties”. Cotton's “Moses His Judicialls” was mistaken as the accepted laws and printed in London with the title, “The lawes of New England as they are now established”. John Cotton's book of ideal laws demonstrates the importance and impact of the Bible in early American governance.  

The Emancipation Proclamation

President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. This proclamation effectively freed slaves in the states that were rebelling against the Union in the Civil War. The emancipation proclamation only applied to southern states and did not account for slaves held within border states that were loyal to the Union.  Although this law did not end slavery within the state, it did mark a significant shift in the goal of the war. This proclamation made emancipation a clear objective for the Union, the war was no longer just about the preservation of the Union. It is also symbolic of Lincoln’s shifting view of slavery. Initially, President Lincoln did not seek to end slavery because he knew that it would cause a war. Lincoln believed slavery was immoral and unjust and he did not want it to expand past the borders of states in which it was already established. He did not believe the constitution gave him the right to ban slavery. In a speech given in 1854, the future president said, “If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that 'all men are created equal;' and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another” (Lincoln, 1854). This statement demonstrates that Lincoln’s shift to believing in the abolition of slavery was perhaps driven by his faith and the scripture. The notion of “all men are created equal” is found in the Declaration of independence and, the Bible is full of passages that say that all men are equal. John 13:16 says, ”truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him”. This document, signed into law as the Emancipation Proclamation, serves as a symbol of the Biblically driven shift in morals to end slavery in the United States.

Alabama Senate Bill SB14

Proposed in the Alabama State Senate during the 2019 legislative session, SB14 outlines a new and revamped way of teaching Bible courses in public schools within the state.  The document, authored by Republican Senator Tim Melson, allows for public schools to create religious study classes from grades six to twelve.  This law represents modern day applications of the deep sense within America of the inherent morality found within the teachings of the Bible.  As Section 2 of the bill states, classes must familiarize students with “The influence of the Bible on law, history, government, literature, art, music, customs, morals, values, and cultures.”  This bill enforces that not only these types of classes be available in public schools, but that they must touch upon the Bible’s impact on society at large, notably how it affects the morals and values of society.  It situates the Bible as an inherently moral text, one deemed necessary to teach upon the young minds in public schooling.  Thus, it mirrors early colonial and American laws, with many clauses embracing the Bible as a central book within the American experience and the justification for specific rules, which can be seen in the Lawes of New England.  Ultimately, the addition of the teaching of morality and values within this specific bill push it further than basic historical study, which could be done for a number of other historical items, objects, or books.  For Melson, the reason these specific Bible classes need to be taught is because of its inherently just morality that he deems to be found within the book.  Morality of the Bible is the catalyst for this law, with Melson neglecting other non-Abrahamic faiths and Islamic texts to assert the Bible as the true place for correct moral teachings.

Carrie Nation's Bible and Hatchet

Carrie Nation was a proud resident of Kansas from her birth in 1846 to her death in 1911.  A very religious woman, Nation supported her state’s prohibition laws and appreciated the moral stance Kansas took against drinking and the spread of alcohol.  However, due to a Supreme Court ruling in the late 1800s, Leisy v. Harden, which allowed for the greater selling of alcoholic beverages in their original packages, Kansas’s prohibition laws were greatly weakened, and Carrie Nation felt it upon herself to act in favor of temperance.  This photograph depicts the emboldened lady with two objects central to her cause:  the Bible and a hatchet.  For Nation, drinking and the institution of alcohol within the United States was an inherently immoral practice.  To combat this ailment upon American society, she took to destroying bars and saloons with her trusty hatchet or whatever she could use to stop the sale of alcohol.  Nation states, “I felt invincible.  My strength was that of a giant.  God was certainly standing by me.  I smashed five saloons with rocks before I ever took a hatchet.”  In fact, she would even be accompanied by other women in her community for temperance, with the group shouting hymns, prayers, songs of worship, or other Biblical references whilst destroying these saloons.  Nation deeply believed that a society rooted in alcohol was not rooted in the Bible, creating a lazy and immoral culture.  Thus, she pushed against the federal laws acting within her state and advocated for a national temperance policy, which was achieved eight years after her death with the passage of the 18^th Amendment.  Thus, partly through Nation’s work, the United States became a dryer society.  The national law aligned with Nation’s belief of the morality and values of the Bible overpowering the sinful institution of alcohol, illustrating the moral effects of the Bible as a powerful force on American law.

Monument to Martin Luther King, Jr. at Kelly Ingram Park in Birmingham, AL

Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was one of the largest and most influential leaders within the Civil Rights Movement that strove to break down the pillars of segregation in America, mainly in the Southern States, and achieve a sense of social equality between all races.  King notably spearheaded a nonviolent approach towards desegregation, largely due to his religious background as a reverend in Atlanta.  These values are represented in a monument of King at Kelly Ingram Park in Birmingham, Alabama.  It depicts a tall and confident King holding a Bible.  Justice, in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s eyes, would be found through the morality of the Bible and its teachings.  With his universality set within the context of God found within the Bible, King argued this sense of religious morality would lead to the success of the movement’s goals.  King articulates this point when saying, “The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”  Furthermore, King’s ideas of justice were found to have substance within laws due to his work, especially his work in Birmingham.  The monument of King is facing directly at 16^th Street Baptist Church, an important and historically black church deep within Downtown Birmingham.  This place was the headquarters of the Civil Rights Movement’s work within Birmingham, as they tried to desegregate the city.  It was successful, with the city desegregating private businesses, forcing fair hiring practices, and releasing jailed black protestors.  However, this led to unrest from many white supremacist groups around the Birmingham area.  In September of that year, the church, a physical and material representation of not only the Bible, but its moral argument against segregation, was bombed, killing four schoolgirls.  These tragic deaths fervently pushed a grieving nation towards passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing segregation nationally.  Thus, the monument illustrates King’s work and belief in the morality of the Bible leading towards the end of segregation through law. 

Ten Commandment Monument (Arkansas State Capitol)

This granite monument on the Arkansas State Capitol ground is carved with the Ten Commandments. The Arkansas General Assembly passed the “Ten Commandments Monument Display Act” on April 8, 2015, which stated that “The Secretary of State shall permit and arrange for the placement on the State Capitol grounds of a suitable monument commemorating the Ten Commandments”. Although the monument was privately funded, its placement on public land – more specifically on a state capitol grounds – has raised debates of whether it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Ten Commandments is a law given to the Israelites from God, through Moses. It served as the foundation of law and morality in their community. The display of these laws in front of the Arkansas State Capitol seems to signify that these biblical principles serve as the foundation of our government today. This symbolism is no coincidence, as reaffirmed by a statement in the legislative findings of the bill, which states that “the people… need to identify the Ten Commandments, one of many sources, as influencing the development of what has become modern law” and that “The placing of [the] monument... would help the people of the United States and of the State of Arkansas to know the Ten Commandments as the moral foundation of the law”. The claim was that the Ten Commandments served as an important principle in which the nation was founded upon, and ultimately, this monument was accepted because it represents history, not religion.

Although this monument was placed with the approval of the state, there are people who opposed it, claiming that it is unconstitutional. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Satanic Temple is planning to challenge the monument in court for violating the United States Constitution and the Arkansas State Constitution. So far, the Satanic Temple has taken the problem into their own hands by offering to donate a statue of Baphomet – a goat-headed, winged, figure often associated with a demon – to the state; however, The Baphomet statue was seen as offensive and will not be placed in the state capitol grounds.

Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial (Peace Cross)

The Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial, known commonly as The Peace Cross, was erected in 1925 on private land by local residents. The monument takes the shape of a cross and displays the name of the 49 who died overseas in World War I. In 1961, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission acquired the land and monument, and now they maintain it using public funds. This monument serves an important role in the discussion of the constitutionality of monuments on public land that display biblical ideas.

The cross is a significant symbol for Christianity since it represents the death and resurrection of Jesus. The religious significance of this symbol is limited to few religions, and it is a clear reference to the Bible – specifically the New Testament. However, the Supreme Court ruled in the American Legion v. American Humanist Association case in June of 2019 that the monument does not violate the Establishment Clause and therefore is constitutional. A preceding Supreme Court case Lemon v. Kurtzman had established a guide to determining whether a situation represented a violation of the Establishment Clause, but this case opened discussion on how effective these guidelines were. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr stated in the American Legion v. American Humanist Association case that “the Lemon Court ambitiously attempted to find a grand unified theory of the Establishment Clause”. He believes that “the cross originated as a Christian symbol and retains that meaning in many contexts”, but that “does not change the fact that the symbol took on an added secular meaning when used in World War I memorials”. The guidelines established by the Lemon v. Kurtzman case did not adequately consider the context in which these religiously influenced materials were used. This monument and this court case revealed that biblical and other religious symbols can be repurposed in such a way that its display on public grounds does not violate the Establishment Clause.

Ten Commandment monument (Heflin-Torbert Judicial Building)

This Ten Commandments monument – weighing over 5,000 pounds – was placed in the Heflin-Torbert Judicial Building in Montgomery, Alabama on August 1, 2001, by Roy Moore. On the top, there is a list of the Ten Commandments given to Moses, and on the sides are texts that are significant to America that refers to God. Roy Moore was the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice at the time, and he placed the monument without the consent or knowledge of the other justices. It was placed in the rotunda so that anyone entering the building would pass by it. Moore’s intension of promoting the Judeo-Christian God was clear to Myron Thompson, a district judge, who said, “That Chief Justice Moore's purpose in displaying the monument was non-secular is self-evident. First, it is self-evident from his own words. At the monument's unveiling ceremony, the Chief Justice explained that the monument ‘serves to remind ... that in order to establish justice we must invoke “the favor and guidance of almighty God”’”.

The Ten Commandments was a law given to the Israelites by God, which served as the basis for their law and morals. The placement of a monument displaying biblical values in the Heflin-Torbert Judicial Building – which houses the Supreme Court of Alabama as well as other law agencies – has raised questions of its compliance with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The debate eventually led to a court case; in the case Glassroth v. Moore, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit declared, on July 1, 2003, the monument unconstitutional. After Moore failed to remove the statue, the court finally removed it on November 14, 2003.

This monument and case show that the display of biblical symbols on public ground is unconstitutional when placed for the purpose of promoting a religion. The monument was not placed to remember the Bible’s influence in the past, but rather to state the importance of the Bible today. That motivation behind the monument made it unconstitutional. Now the monument resides in the building of the Foundation for Moral Law, a private organization.

Pastor Protection Act of Florida 

In 2016, Florida passed and adopted a new statue on the rights of churches and religious organizations. The bill, known as the Pastor Protection Act allowed all religious organizations and individuals in the state to make their own decisions regarding marriage and other services they provide. This means that, although not banned statewide, each individual organization could prevent homosexual couples from marrying if they felt it violated religious beliefs. Although the implications of the bill seem to obviously target same sex couples, defenders of the bill argue that it is simply upholding the First Amendment, as nowhere in the text the words gay, homosexual, or same sex can be found. The bill also protects any organization or individual who will not solemnize the marriage from any legal repercussions. Upon its proposal, the bill explicitly mentioned gay marriage as the purpose for the bill, however compromises and amendments were made that brought it to its current form banning, “any marriage… if such action would violate a sincerely held religious belief” (Florida 2016). The passing and signing of the bill brought backlash from activists in the state. Florida state senator Arthenia Joyner, a fierce competitor of the bill, told the Tampa Bay Times “it sets the clock back,” (Auslen 2016) and suggests that based on the wording of the bill, could be used to deny marriage to more groups than just homosexuals, such as interracial couples. The wording of the bill leaves it up to interpretation and debate for each individual religious group, and many churches interpret the Bible in a way that denies same sex marriage. The bill was seen as a great victory for republicans and a great loss for democrats in Florida.

Trinity Episcopal Church Altarpiece 

After the death of his son, Kermit Oliver painted and donated a new altarpiece for the Trinity Episcopal Church in Houston, Texas. The picture is of Jesus, who is commonly used for altarpieces. However, the face of Jesus in the painting is of Khristian Oliver, a Texas man who was sentenced to death after killing a man during a robbery. In 1999, Oliver attempted robbing a nearby home. During his robbery attempt, the homeowner returned. Startled, Oliver began shooting his pistol aimlessly, hitting his friend aiding in the robbery and killing the homeowner. Not long after the murder, Oliver and his accomplices were arrested.  During the trial of Khristian, the jury cited the Bible after reaching their verdict, mainly Numbers 35:16, which says “The murderer shall surely be put to death.” After his verdict and sentencing, Khristian’s defense appealed, arguing that Biblical references should not be used for decision making in the court of law. The appeal failed, and Khristian Oliver was put to death. In the aftermath of his trial, Khristian’s father, Kermit, painted this altarpiece to honor his son. The trial of Khristian Oliver raised the question of the validity of using the Bible in trial. The jury’s decision to sentence Oliver to death was directly influenced by the Bible, and in a country where Church and State are separated, it seems unjust to punish based on religious beliefs in a public court. The death penalty continues to be a nationwide debate, and laws surrounding it vary from state to state. The Biblical Law of Retaliation, commonly known as “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Exodus 21:24), stands as one of the most used defenses in states upholding the practice. Texas stands as the leader in the number of executions in the last 50 years, with more than the next 10 states combined. The use of the Bible in this debate remains relevant, and Khristian’s legacy remains in the minds of those seeking to abolish it.  

Virginia Statue on Religious Freedom

In 1777, Thomas Jefferson wrote his Statue for Religious Freedom for Virginia. In 1786, it was adopted. It was the first time in the new United States where a legal document promised freedoms to all Christian denominations, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus. For the colonies, which had been brought up on strict religious principles, it was monumental. The Church of England was the established religion for Virginia, and this document ended that and set the precedence of a separation of church and state that would be a part of America to the present day through the First Amendment of the Constitution. In the statue, Jefferson emphasizes the importance of religious freedom as a basic civil right and how citizens “have no dependence on religious opinions any more than opinions in physics and geometry.” Jefferson also speaks on how it is inhumane for governments to be a part of spiritual lives. For an act like this to be written and adopted in such an era shrouded by persecution of those who did not follow whatever the official, or most popular religion was in each perspective region, took bravery from Jefferson. There was backlash to the statue, especially from those who supported the Church of England as they felt it would hurt the unity of the state and lower tax income (Harris). Among all his accomplishments throughout his life, this is one of them that Jefferson was most proud of as he felt it impacted the most people. It was one of three accolades mentioned on his gravestone, among with signing the Declaration of Independence and founding the University of Virginia. Others, such as being the third president, are not mentioned.