(Thanks to David Flanders for the tip….)
When Indiana State Trooper Brian Hamilton pulled over 60-year-old Ellen Bogan for some sort of supposed traffic violation in August, he asked for her license, registration — and whether she accepted Jesus Christ as her savior. Now Bogan, who says she is not a churchgoer, is suing Hamilton in federal court, alleging that he violated her constitutional rights when he pressed her on whether she had a “home church” and handed her a brochure imploring her to “realize you’re a sinner,” all while his flashing lights were still on.
I have no real problem with the idea that religious faith can play an important role in the lives of some. I don’t believe in God, so I clearly don’t share that faith, but this is still (nominally, at least) a free country, and freedom of religion is still guaranteed by the Constitution.
There’s a point where my tolerance runs into the reality of modern Christianity: America is NOT a Christian nation. If you know your Constitution, you know that the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause forbids Congress from passing any laws that would formally establish any sort of state religion. Not that this has stopped the American Taliban from promoting the mistaken notion that this is a Christian nation, with a Constitution ordained by God that places Christianity at the top of the theological food chain.
What public servants like Indiana State Trooper Brian Hamilton fail to grasp is that their role is to serve ALL Americans, regardless of race, creed, faith, color…and any other qualifier. While they’re certainly free to hold such religious beliefs as they see fit, it can’t and mustn’t have any bearing on the performance of their duties. Hamilton’s position is secular- to protect and serve all, NOT to proselytize to those whom he believes are in need of salvation. Trooper Hamilton represents the government, which according to the Constitution is a secular entity. As such, Hamilton has no standing to probe the religious beliefs (or lack of same) of those citizens he comes into contact with. At least not while he’s collecting a paycheck from that government.
As you might imagine, some folks are not at all sanguine about the idea of being preached to by a state patrolman.
Trooper Hamilton prolonged the stop by asking Ms. Bogan, among other things, if she had accepted Jesus Christ as her savior and then presented her with a pamphlet from the First Baptist Church in Cambridge that informed the reader that he or she is a sinner; listed God’s Plan of Salvation, noting that the person must realize that ‘the Lord Jesus Christ paid the penalty for your sins,’ and advertised a radio broadcast entitled ‘Policing for Jesus Ministries.
Trooper Hamilton’s heart may have been in the right place. He may have even thought he was doing a good thing. In his civilian, off-duty life that may well be true. However, in the scope of his duties as an Indiana State Highway Patrol there’s no place- none, zero, zip, nada- for proselytizing. The exclusion clause is very clear on this subject:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]
Like much contained within the Constitution, there’s room for interpretation…especially for religious Conservatives who believe that their Christian faith is the Alpha and the Omega:
What’s so wrong about a police officer talking about Jesus Christ to people he could potentially arrest — or worse? According to conservative activist Micah Clark of the American Family Association of Indiana, nothing. In fact, Clark says, the lawsuit may be a violation of Hamilton’s First Amendment rights.
“I have people pass out religious material all the time. Mormons come to my door all the time, and it doesn’t offend me,” Clark told the Star. “I don’t think that a police officer is prohibited from doing something like that.”
The fact is that a police officer is prohibited from doing that, according to Indiana University law professor Jennifer Drobac:
As a representative, this person, while on duty, while engaged in official action, is basically overstepping and is trying to establish religion[.]
I don’t know about you, but I’d be wanting to refrain from getting into an argument about the law with a professor of law.
Clark’s example of Mormons coming to his door is prima facie absurd, of course. Mormons are agents of their church, NOT government employees. Why he’d think his argument establishes any sort of equivalence defies rational understanding. It points out what appears to be the basis of his argument, which seems to be that Christians can do what they want when they want to do it…the Constitution (and rational arguments) be damned.
There’s a place for religion, even for proselytizing…but it’s not during a traffic stop and not by state highway patrolman. If Officer Hamilton has a problem with that, he’s certainly free to find another line of work that will accommodate his desire to share his faith.
For my part, I don’t want my tax dollars being used so an agent of government can preach the Gospel…and I hardly think I’m alone in that assessment.
