hio's official state motto which declares "With God, All Things Are Possible," was declared unconstitutional this week by a federal appeals court.

   A three judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the 41-year-old slogan violated the separation of church and state, and was a government endorsement of the Christian religion. The 34-page decision (including Concurrence and Dissent), however, was narrowly focused and opined that the Ohio motto differed substantially from other state slogans that included references to religion or a deity, and presumably bore little similarity to the national declaration "In God We Trust." The Circuit Court ruling also applies only to the jurisdiction of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. An appeal for an en banc hearing before the entire Court is also likely according to the Ohio attorney general's office.

   A Presbyterian minister, Rev. Matthew Peterson, challenged the motto in 1995 with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union. The suit argued that the slogan entangled government in religious affairs, and endorsed one religion over another. During a court appearance, Peterson declared, "I believe it is vanity for the state to appropriate scriptural texts, and even more so Christian scriptural texts."

   The motto was selected in the early 1950s -- a period when, say critics, religious sloganeering as a tool in fighting "godless communism" became an American institution. In 1866, the Ohio legislature had passed a bill adopting "An Empire Within an Empire," but controversy over the wording eventually prompted lawmakers to repeal it. A 10-year old youngster, James Mastronardo initiated a campaign to adopt the "God" slogan and even opened a booth at the 1958 Food Show at the Cincinnati Gardens to enlist support. State Senator William H. Deddens joined the effort as did groups like the Cub Scouts and numerous churches throughout Ohio. "Jimmy's Bill" was introduced, and Deddens even invited the school boy to testify in front of the State Senate in support of the measure. In 1959, "Jimmy's Bill" passed the legislature unanimously.

   The motto linger in relative obscurity until nearly four decades later, when then-Governor George V. Voinovich announced in 1996 that he wanted to inscribe "With God, All Things Are Possible" on the grounds of the Statehouse. He told media that he got the idea during a trade visit to India where he saw the words "Government work is God's work" on a public building.

   In 1998, U.S. District Judge James L. Graham upheld the constitutionality of the motto in ACLU OF OHIO v. CAPITAL SQUARE REVIEW AND ADVISORY BOARD. Graham enjoined the state, however, from identifying the Biblical source of the wording, the Gospel of St. Matthew, Chapter 19, Verse 26. Graham opined that "an objective and reasonably informed observer" would not interpret the motto as being sectarian, and described the Biblical quote as "part of our common vocabulary" similar to the national motto of "In God We Trust."

   This week's 6th Circuit Court panel ruling, though, went to considerable lengths to distinguish between the Ohio slogan and the national motto, or even those found in other states. Writing for the majority, Judge Avern Cohn noted: "In the context in which the words of the motto are found -- as the words of Jesus speaking of salvation -- to a reasonable observer, they must be seen as advancing, or at a minimum, showing a particular affinity for Christianity."

   "Simply put, they are an endorsement of the Christian religion by the State of Ohio. No other interpretation in the context of their presence in the New Testament is possible. No amount of semantic legerdemain can hide the fact that the official motto of the State of Ohio repeats word-for-word, Jesus' answer to his disciples' questions about the ability to enter heaven, and thereby achieve salvation..."

   The court also moved to distance the Ohio slogan from the national motto of "In God We Trust," and reject the state's argument that the two were a form of so-called "ceremonial deism." The latter phrase was first used in legal literature by Dean Eugene Rostow of Yale University Law School during the 1962 Meiklejohn Lecture at Brown University and describes "constitutional tolerance of the opening prayers in the Congress (which) would describe some other theory -- possibly the idea that another class of political activity ... can be accepted as so conventional and uncontroversial as to be constitutional."

   Rostow's invention of "ceremonial deism" cropped up in the written dissent by Justice Brennan in the LYNCH v. DONNELLY (1984) case which examined the constitutionality of a Christian nativity creche on public property. Brennan transported "ceremonial deism" into the official parlance of the Supreme Court when he wrote:

   "Finally, we have noted government cannot be completely prohibited from recognizing in its public actions the religious beliefs and practices of the American people as an aspect of our national history and culture. While I remain uncertain about these questions, I would suggest that such practices as the designation of 'In God We Trust' as our national motto, or the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be understood, in Dean Rostow's apt phrase, as a form of 'ceremonial deism,' protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content..."

   The 6th Circuit Court panel, though, rejected Ohio's argument comparing the state motto to the national slogan or other practices which, so far, have evaded legal scrutiny because of the "ceremonial deism" mantle.

   "While the words of the (Ohio) motto may not overtly favor Christianity," wrote Judge Cohn, "as the words of Jesus they, at a minimum, demonstrate a particular affinity toward Christianity in the eyes and ears of a reasonable observer."

   Joining Cohn was Judge Gilbert S. Merritt who charged that "the real reason behind the state action adopting a religious verse from the New Testament seems purely political: To please certain politically influential religious groups..."

   The court also accused the State of Ohio of attempting to "decontextualize" the religious motto by suggesting that the slogan "endorses the notion that Ohio has a bright future, that their citizens do, that people ought to be optimistic and hopefully about the future."

   "The Supreme Court, more than once, has dealt with efforts to read words or phrases out of context," wrote Judge Cohn. He cited MOSKAL v. UNITED STATES (1990) and other cases, and concluded: "We believe that we are required to view the words of the motto as part of the text in which they are found and give to them, as reasonable observers, the meaning intended by Jesus when he addressed his disciplines as reported by Matthew in the New Testament of the Christian Bible." He added that the lower court "could justify the secular cast of the words of the motto and remove them from the strictures of the Establishment Clause only be decontextualizing and blotting out their origins..."

   Before celebrating the Ohio decision, though, separationists should note the extremely narrow focus of this Circuit Court ruling. Chrstine Link, executive director of the Ohio ACLU praised the ruling as "thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion both on the First Amendment and the religious analysis." A more unsettling message, though, comes from Judge David Nelson, who wrote an eight-paragraph dissent which includes points likely to be raised in the expected appeal process. He argued that "ceremonial deism" covered both the national and Ohio state motto, saying that they "fit comfortably within that tradition."

   Both judges crafting the majority opinion also acknowledged the supposed distinctions between the Ohio and national motto. Judge Merritt, for instance, opined that while "In God We Trust" is likely not "entirely consistent with the views of the National Academy of Sciences and nonbelievers ... it is not particularly offensive." He noted that the phrase 'With God, All Things Are Possible" had a religious context.

   "The most obvious primary meaning of the words is that a personal, all-knowing, all-powerful God intervenes in the daily affairs of individuals and through this miracle of supernatural intervention makes 'all things possible.' "

   He added: "Most of the world's many religions and some Christian sects, denominations and theologians believe that neither the primary nor the secondary meaning of the words of Ohio's biblical motto is true. Although many Christians believers accept these verses as true, others do not believe that a powerful, all-knowing personal God intervenes in daily affairs. They do not believe literally in the type of personalized salvation expressed by Matthew. In addition, many skeptics and nonbelievers hold that this state imposed biblical verse is untrue. For example the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN recently reported a survey of the 1800 members of the National Academy of Sciences which shows that over 90 per cent of the Academy -- created by Congress in 1863 -- do not believe in a personal God who intervenes in the affairs of human beings..."

   Like Judge Cohn, though, Merritt opined that the Ohio motto was substantially different from "In God We Trust," saying that the latter was "so innocuous that it appears on all of the coin of the realm -- all of our paper currency and silver." He suggested that the Ohio slogan did not meet the Establishment Clause test of "an equal liberty of conscience for all," and tended to "establish a 'confessional state.' "

   Reaction to the Circuit Court ruling was swift and critical.

   "This may be the blandest statement about God that has ever been struck down," declared University of Texas law professor Douglas Laycock. He cited Atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hairs unsuccessful suit to remove "In God We Trust" from the nation's currency and to stop jurors from swearing "So help me God" as part of their oath. He added, "there haven't been a lot of high-profile cases of this sort, though. For the most part, courts haven't been interested in these types of cases and have kind of brushed aside challenges."

   Ohio Gov. Bob Taft denounced the decision, parroting the state's argument: "The state does not use the motto to promote or advance any single set of religious beliefs."

   Catholic officials were also hostile to the ruling. Fr. Richard Welch of the Human Life International, a church group that describes itself as "the world's largest pro-life, pro-faith, pro-family apostolate" said that the decision was "an arrogant and offensive attack on the people of Ohio."

   "With one stroke, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has managed to drag the nobility and optimism of human spirit, belief and value down into the muddy, meaningless void of contention and bitterness," Welch added in a statement to the press.

   "A ruling like this makes us wonder what could possibly have been going through the minds of the plaintiffs and judges. How could a statement of hope, admittedly more meaningful to those who believe in some sort of God, be said to establish a government religion?"

   The nation's leading Muslim group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) also blasted the court ruling. A broadside from the Islamic advocacy organization opined:

"Our society is suffering from many problems associated with a decline both in moral values and in respect for religious and family principles. These problems will not be solved by eliminating references to God from public discourse. The statement 'With God, all things are possible' is not, as the court stated, 'a uniquely Christian though.' In fact, a similar phrase is used many times throughout the Quran, Islam's revealed text. For example, verse 106 of chapter 2 states: 'Know you not that God is able to do all things?' "

[text only]