Department of Veterans Affairs officials removed Bibles from memorials in three VA clinics dedicated to Vietnam veterans who were taken prisoner or went missing in action, a move that is prompting a protest from congressional Republicans.
“The Establishment Clause does not require that you remove Bibles from the Missing Man Table displays,” Okla. Sen. James Lankford and Virginia Rep. Randy Forbes wrote in a letter to VA Secretary Robert McDonald. “The mere presence of a Bible coerces no one.”
Such memorials have become the target of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), a group that says the inclusion of Bibles violates the First Amendment rights of non-Christian service-members. The lawmakers disagreed and cited recent Supreme Court precedent, but VA officials and military commanders have deferred to the MRFF’s interpretation of federal rules.
“As your guidance correctly notes, the Establishment Clause exists to ensure that the government cannot affirmatively impose or elevate one religion over another,” the lawmakers wrote. “However, it does not prohibit the government from referencing religion altogether, nor does it require that the government scrub all references of religion from the public square.”
“Rather, the Establishment Clause ensures both that the government does not show preference to a certain religion, and that the government does not take away one’s ability to practice religion,” they added.
Lankford and Forbes focused on three VA facilities and an Air Force base, but the Bibles are being removed at other facilities as part of an ongoing campaign. “In regard to the federal guidelines, no Bibles or religious articles are to be placed on the MIA/POW table,” U.S. Army Col. Gregory Peterson, commander of Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania, wrote in an April 21 email published by the MRFF.
Peterson admitted that no policy on the Bibles would please all service members.
“We know there will be angst and feedback on this topic, but we must adhere to the federal guidelines which separate religious expression into four categories: expression in private work areas, expression among fellow employees, expression directed at fellow employees and expression in areas accessible to the public,” he wrote.
An MRFF client hailed the decision as a victory for the Constitution. “We are protected by the U.S. Constitution from any exposure to a single religious message — a concept which is central to our healthy lives in the military, be it active duty, civilians or veterans,” the client wrote.
That understanding of the First Amendment is wrong, Lankford and Forbes wrote, citing a 2014 Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of prayer at town board meetings. “The Supreme Court recently stated that ‘an Establishment Clause violation is not made out any time a person experiences a sense of affront from the expression of contrary views,'” they wrote.
