Constitutional Challenge on a Bible Study at a Courthouse

We sent an informational letter to officials in St. Charles County, Missouri this week, urging them to keep in place a voluntary Bible study thats been taking place in the county courthouse a Bible study that critics are trying to remove.  This is clearly a case where the voluntary Bible study is protected by the First Amendment.  Simply because someone disagrees with the Bible study does not mean the government has the authority to remove it.  In fact, the voluntary Bible study is protected speech, and the government is prohibited from taking action to end that speech.  Were hopeful county officials refrain from taking any discriminatory action aimed at ending this voluntary Bible study.  We stand ready to provide any legal assistance needed to keep this Bible study in place.

The controversy began when a St. Charles attorney wrote a letter to county officials complaining about the voluntary Bible study for judges, lawyers, and other courthouse employees.  The group meets once a week and has been doing so since 2002.  The attorney claims by permitting the Bible study to meet, county officials are forcing the taxpayers of the county of St. Charles to support these Christian gentlemen in their avocation and beliefs.

County officials will meet with Associate Circuit Judge Matthew E.P. Thornhill who heads up the Bible study group along with others to discuss the issue at a meeting on March 5th.  In a letter sent to county officials, we point out that the voluntary Bible study is protected by the First Amendment and urge county officials to refrain from taking any discriminatory action aimed at ending the Bible study.

Our letter asserts:  An objective observer of the Bible study could not conclude that the government was endorsing the content of the groups private speech.  This is not a case where any government employee or private citizen is required to participate in religious activity or where the speech is part of an official work-related meeting.  There is no suggestion that employees have been harassed or intimidated or that the Bible study has disrupted the efficient performance of governmental functions.  It is clear that the First Amendment prohibits the censorship of religious speech solely because someone may find that speech offensive.

Our letter strongly encourages county officials to continue to allow the voluntary Bible study for lawyers to meet at the county courthouse.  The letter concludes:  The First Amendment does not require the censorship of private religious speech but actually protects such religious expression from government censorship on the basis of its content.