Just over two decades ago, my adopted hometown proudly displayed a prominent Latin cross on its city seal:
The seal was first adopted in 1965, and remained in use for three decades until a bunch of uppity non-Christians came along to challenge it in the federal courts. They would eventually prevail, after many years of litigation. The heart of the Tenth Circuit Court’s decision was summed up as follows:
Because we find no meaningful distinction between the Edmond seal and that of Bernalillo County or the cities of Zion and Rolling Meadows, we hold that Edmond’s seal violates the Establishment Clause. Like Bernalillo County’s seal, and the seals of Zion and Rolling Meadows, the cross is a prominent feature of the Edmond seal. The religious significance and meaning of the Latin or Christian cross are unmistakable. Further, Edmond’s use of the seal is as pervasive as the county seal in Friedman, and the city seals in Harris and Kuhn. [Internal footnotes omitted; hyperlinks added]
The establishment clause test used by the court to evaluate the seal in this case was “whether its primary effect is to advance or inhibit religion, or, in endorsement test terms, whether it conveys or attempts to convey the message ‘that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred.’” The court saw through the city’s argument that the “majority of the people in Edmond-the average, everyday Christian and non-Christian citizens” would not view the seal as endorsing religion, countering with the following language from the Friedman case:
It is to be expected that members of Christian sects would be more comfortable with a seal endorsing their beliefs than would individuals who adhere to different beliefs. The comfort of the majority is not the main concern of the Bill of Rights.
After losing the case, the City of Edmond never quite got around to coming up with a replacement, leaving “a curiously vacant spot on the city seal” which persists to this day. So far as I can tell, the old seal has been essentially retconned out of existence; no copies exist on the municipal website. This is probably for the best, since any attempts to redesign the old seal would likely provoke an evangelical backlash.
Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania…
FFRF sues #Pennsylvania county over cross on seal https://t.co/G4NZLmD5zz #churchandstate via @FFRF pic.twitter.com/JeMcLnKiDI
— Atheist Revolution (@vjack) August 18, 2016
The issues in the case are substantively identical to those encountered in Robinson v. City of Edmond, and hopefully the ultimate result will be the same as well. If you would like to help FFRF achieve that result, you may donate here.
