Philip Warfield of Andersonville says county residents should be able to decide what goes on the Anderson County Courthouse in Clinton during a Monday committee hearing on putting the national motto “In God We Trust” on the three-story building.
CLINTON—After hearing from the Anderson County law director, a county committee on Monday endorsed a proposal to put the national motto “In God We Trust” above each of the four doors at the Anderson County Courthouse in Clinton.
The motion by Anderson County Commissioner Robert McKamey was endorsed in a 5-3 vote at an Anderson County Operations Committee meeting on Monday evening. All three “no” votes came from Oak Ridge commissioners.
McKamey’s motion called for installing black metal signs above the doors with white lettering that says “In God We Trust.” The total estimated cost is $500 or less, and the signs would be installed by a professional firm.
The recommendation will be considered by the full 16-member Anderson County Commission later this month. Commission already endorsed the proposal in a 12-4 vote lat month, but referred it to the Operations Committee to discuss legal, liability, and design issues.
Anderson County Law Director Jay Yeager said he thinks displaying the national motto on a county government building will be constitutional as long as it doesn’t violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and commissioners follow proper procedures and safeguards.
Among other things, the signs have to be displayed for a secular purpose, can’t advance or inhibit religion, and can’t convey—to a reasonable viewer—a government endorsement of religion, said Yeager, who has issued a confidential legal opinion to commissioners.
Yeager recommended against proposals to let churches or volunteers pay for or install the signs.
“We don’t want excessive entanglement,” he said.
So far, commissioners have followed his legal guidance, Yeager said, but he is being cautious. Two groups—whom he declined to name—have said they could challenge the signs.
But Yeager said the county has constitutional lawyers who are willing to help it defend its decision to install them. He said he is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court bar.
If the county were sued, “I’ll take it all the way,” Yeager said to a round of applause.
More than a dozen residents spoke during a public comment period at the meeting, some in favor of the proposal and others opposed.
Commissioners who voted to recommend the signs were McKamey and Steve Emert, Zach Bates, Tracy Wandell, and Rick Meredith.
Voting against the proposal were commissioners Robin Biloski, who chairs the Operations Committee, and Jerry Creasey and Whitey Hitchcock.
Several commissioners, including Biloski and Anderson County Commissioner John Shuey, who is not an Operations Committee member, raised questions about the potential legal costs if a lawsuit were filed. Although McKamey disagreed, Creasey said McKamey’s motion didn’t leave room for other mottos, such as the original national motto “E pluribus unum.”
Several who supported the “In God We Trust” proposal cited a “clawing away” or “whittling away” of their rights and beliefs.
McKamey said the signs would be easy to remove if that became necessary.
More information will be added as it becomes available.
Jack Mansfield says
My wife and I are voting residents of Oak Ridge and these Oak Ridge commissioners are NOT representing our position. I’m pleased to see they were the minority on this issue.
Denny Phillips says
I was wondering about that Jack. I have worked in Oak Ridge for nearly twenty years now in retail. In my experience dealing with the public, I have encountered very few that would oppose the United States national motto or have displayed an irrational fear of the word “God”.
Though many have expressed opposing views in the Oak Ridger, I suspect the silent majority feel otherwise.
John Huotari says
It does seems like there has been a bit of a split on this issue between Oak Ridge and the county, at least based on what we’ve generally heard in public comments. It would be interesting to do a poll and see what most people think.
Charlie Jernigan says
Perhaps this was the plan…
Denny Phillips says
Out of curiosity, were there any Oak Ridge churches signed on in support of the signs? Not sure if the split was so much among the citizenry as it was among the commissioners.
Sam Hopowood says
A number of OR churches signed on in support. Notably absent was the First Baptist, but no surprise there, nor does it surprise me on the OR commissioner’s stance. OR and the county differ on a number of issue’s, tax’s and debt come to mind. Fortunately, in my view, the county usually prevails.
John Huotari says
That’s why I thought it would be interesting to do a poll. I’ll try to get that list of churches who have supported the proposal.
Peter Scheffler says
It’s the National Motto, for a variety of reasons, so I think it’s reasonable to be on the courthouse. I’m most disappointed in what the adopted motion calls for–black signs with white lettering in the “times new roman” font over all 4 doors. At least that’s what I understand. Commissioner McKamey didn’t give us much chance to see what he was proposing, and there was little discussion of it. I think that design treatment is not respectful to the intent of the wording or the architecture of the courthouse. I hope that the public will eventually come to that opinion and we will have an opportunity for proper display that equally includes other more inclusive national phrases. My favorites are “E pluribus Unum” and “With Liberty and Justice For All.”
John Huotari says
I think your understanding of the substance of the resolution is correct. I think your proposal regarding the inclusion of other mottos sounded similar to what Jerry Creasey proposed.
Skirnir Hamilton says
Hmmmm… “Among other things, the signs have to be displayed for a secular purpose, can’t advance or inhibit religion, and can’t convey—to a reasonable viewer—a government endorsement of religion, said Yeager, who has issued a confidential legal opinion to commissioners.” What I want to know is has anyone given any secular reason for wanting the motto on the courthouse? Almost all of the stated reasons for it that I have seen are endorsement of religion Yes, I know the motto itself is not a huge endorsement of religion, but every argument for it, shows how we are just opening the door for more. I am disappointed that it looks like we are going to allow the beginning of a pandora’s box to open. And if there is a court case in our future regarding this decision, the courts will look at the arguments that were given in favor of the motto and it will be hard for them not to say that it is endorsement of religion.
Denny Phillips says
Skirnir, though I did not attend last nights meeting, in the commission meeting in which the signs were approved numerous residents spoke on the historical, patriotic and cultural significance of the motto.
John is better equipped to speak to the reasons alluded to last night, but I do believe veterans spoke out on the patriotic significance of the motto and referenced the Veteran’s Memorial in front of the courthouse which I believe honors the fallen with “In service to God” & “In service to country”.
Denny Phillips says
What I find odd in this whole conversation is that many of the opponents of the national motto have found no objection to the fact each commission meeting convenes with an opening prayer followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to “one nation, under God”.
Jay Smith says
Here’s the thing I never understand. “In God We Trust” only endures because of it’s supposed secular message(which I’m not going to get into), but it’s supporters clearly support it for it’s non-secular meaning. There’s an example of this even in the article. It’s totally having your cake and eating it too.
But it was nice to see the Oak Ridge representation on /my/ side of this issue.
Abbey Nelson says
Tell me exactly why someone who gets their cake shouldn’t get to eat it, too. Some people just get freaked out over the word God, and God only knows why, but “In God We Trust” is, like it or not, our national motto so why not have our cake and eat it, too? If there is the term homophobia, there should most definitely be God-o-phobia. Oh, and while I’m at it, how about gun-o-phobes. It’s a world gone mad.
Jason Allison says
This is indeed a touchy subject. We have been living with “In God We Trust” for 200 years or so. On one hand is the separation of church and state and some peoples religious beliefs. On the on the hand you have the people who feel having this is violating their freedom of religion. I’m going to stick to what I do every day and that is to live MY life and let other people worry about theirs.
Charlie Jernigan says
The piece of the puzzle that I find odd is that initially it was presented as a “grass roots” effort which will pay for and install these signs. Now the county lawyer points out that the county should not allow a third party to either pay for or install decorations on the county building for obvious reasons.
How can this not be construed as the county doing this religious group’s bidding? If so, must they do all religious groups bidding in order to not go afoul of the Constitution? Perhaps that is why they are being designed to be easily removed??
Sarah Johnson says
I think that the most appropriate quote for a court house in America is “liberty and justice for all” because after all our courts are not ecclesiastical courts where priests, ministers, rabbis or reverends are in charge of justice on behalf of God but instead we Rely on justice through an objective court based upon laws. I imagine the next step will be a movement to put the 10 commandments in front of the courthouse in the name of historical heritage.
Ernie says
This is just one reason I would not live anywhere else besides South Carolina (specifically in Anderson County).
Abbey Nelson says
I believe South Carolina has “In God we Trust” on its license plates. I love South Carolina! Nikki Haley rocks!!
David Allred says
1 Corinthians 6:5-7 (Paul to the church at Corinth):
“I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you.”
I’ve studied even more extensively these past two weeks and I’ve yet to find any really evidence that this is a good move. Every part of the scripture that I turn to provides the same kind of response. Courts, civil trials, tribuinals — all of it exists due to a failure of the gospel and God’s way of conducting business. Jesus said so, Paul said so… I go to the Old Testament in search of something, then back to the New. Everything in the Word speaks of warning. Being careful about placing reverence upon stones rather than God’s justice and grace for men. Recognizing that God writes His trust on hearts, not bricks.
I realize that for many it’s just a national motto, but to me if our churches are going to act together in unison on something, we need a theological reason to do so. I’ve still not seen one. Only emotional appeals.
I’m not in the least bit disappointed with Oak Ridge commissioners. I am disappointed with our church’s failure to articulate themselves theologically. Even so, I am happy to live in a nation that can peacefully vote on these kinds of things and that people on either side of the divide are not threatened, or violated, or persecuted in any way. I hope that as this goes up, good comes from it. Maybe someone at the end of their rope, addicted to drugs, facinig massive jail time, looks up and sees this and puts their trust in God. I trust that more good will come from this than I can personally envision.