By James Kilpatrick, Universal Press-Syndicate
August 1996 – Does religion have any lasting place in our public life? Good question. For a case in point, consider the plight of Edmond, Oklahoma. Last month the Supreme Court refused to hear the city’s appeal, but the case is worth some fuming anyhow.
Thirty-one years ago Edmond adopted an official seal. The emblem is divided into four quadrants. One sector depicts a steam engine and an oil derrick; a second depicts the Old North Tower, a landmark of the University of Central Oklahoma. In the third quadrant is a covered wagon of 1889. The fourth contains – prepare to be shocked! – it contains a cross.
Four persons brought suit. This is all the 10th U.S. Circuit tells us about them:
“Plaintiffs are non-Christians… Martin Feldman is a Jew who lives in Edmond. Wendell Miller is a member of the Unitarian Congregation who lives and is self-employed in Edmond. Curtis Battles is a member of the Unitarian Congregation who lives in Edmond, and Dr. Wayne Robinson is the minister of the Channing Unitarian Church in Edmond.”
In 1992 the American Civil Liberties Union decided to take aim on Edmond’s offensive seal. The ACLU contended, of course, that the cross signifies the city’s “endorsement of religion,” in violation of the First Amendment. The U.S. District Court found no violation, but the 10th Circuit reversed.
On May 13, over the vigorous dissent of Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, the Supreme Court denied the city’s petition for review. The three dissenters saw no evidence that the plaintiffs had suffered injury because of their exposure to the seal, but they couldn’t get a fourth vote in favor of hearing the case.
That is it for Edmond. At heaven knows what expense (excuse the phrase), the city must now get that cross out of the logos on its automobiles, stationery, city flags, and uniforms of its police and firefighters.
This is not the first case challenging a city seal as a violation of the Constitution.
In 1985 the courts struck down the seal of Bernalillo County (Albuquerque), New Mexico. It contained a cross and a Spanish motto, “Con Esta Vencemos” (With This We Conquer).
In 1987 the 11th Circuit upheld a complaint against the seal of Milledgeville, Georgia. The seal, depicting a winged figure inscribed “liberty” and “Christianity,” had been used since 1912 without inciting litigation, but when the seal appeared on the city’s water tower, one Kenneth Saladin went to court.
In 1989, the 10th circuit ordered a full-blown trial on the seal of St. George, Utah. The seal features a setting sun, a cluster of grapes, a golf course, a hill bearing the legend “Dixie,” a sketch of the local Mormon Temple, and a motto: “Where the Summer Sun Spends the Winter.” One Phillip L. Foremaster complained that the seal “greatly offends, intimidates and affects me.”
In March 1991, a divided 7th Circuit upheld suits against the seals of Zion and Rolling Meadows, Illinois. The latter contained images of a leaf, a water tower, an industrial building and a church. The seal of Zion, reflecting the city’s founding as a religious commune, contained a cross and a legend, “God Reigns.” The court held flatly that sectarian religious imagery “simply has no place on municipal seals.”
The 7th Circuit’s Frank Easterbrook, who writes the sharpest opinions that come from a federal bench, dissented. Did the Illinois plaintiffs have standing to sue?
Under well-established law, a plaintiff in such cases must show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury by reason of the unconstitutional offense. Mere indignation is not enough. The injury must be distinct and palpable, and not abstract, conjectural or trifling.
In the Illinois cases, the plaintiffs alleged, without proving, that they had to drive out of their way to avoid the city seals. Said Easterbrook: “Claims about detours are about as trifling as one can produce.” Moreover, in the Zion case, the plaintiff had been recruited by a society of atheists to move into a boarding house in Zion just to establish residence. “This looks like a put-up job,” said the judge, and obviously it was.
The only case running counter to the hostile stream came from Austin, Texas, in 1991. The 5th Circuit found no violation in Austin’s seal. Based on the coat of arms of Stephen Austin, the city’s founder, the seal contained an heraldic cross.
By turning down the Edmond appeal, the high court passed up an opportunity to resolve the intercircuit conflicts. The issue will not go away. Last month the high court refused to review a suit challenging the national motto, “In God We Trust.” If that motto is not an endorsement of religion, words have lost their meaning. 
