Is St. Paul unconstitutional?

• Author: Paulsen, Michael Stokes

Imagine my shock, and that of my colleagues, when a major constitutional controversy arose just a stone's throw across the river from the offices of Constitutional Commentary, threatening to shake the very foundations of the republic (that is, the State of Minnesota). It all began this past March when a city worker in the capital city of Minnesota was reprimanded for generously offering, to any and all citizens having business at the government office, Easter candy. The sign next to the small chocolate eggs clearly labeled the candy in this brazenly offensive--and clearly unconstitutional--manner. City officials, more shocked than I, called a halt to the affair. The candy, or at least the sign, was removed. (Press accounts differ, and I haven't bothered to track down the particulars.)

But talk about straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! (1) Is not the larger, more obvious problem that the city worker offering the "Easter candy" was a city worker for the city of Saint Paul, Minnesota? The capital city of Minnesota is named for the Apostle Paul, the most important Christian evangelist in history, whose letters account for nearly a third of the New Testament, and much of Christian theology. Why isn't that unconstitutional (not to mention fully as offensive as, and more continually and pervasively so than, the offering of Easter candy to city citizens)?

Mind you, it's not just "Paul," Minnesota, either--which might count as a mere historical honorific to a notable first-century writer and thinker. Nuh-uh: It's Saint Paul. The sainthood of this major religious figure and apostle of Jesus Christ is at the core of the capital city's name. It is difficult to discount the religious significance of the name, or to dismiss it as a mere historical reference, as long as the title of Saint remains attached. Nor can Saint be dismissed as de minimis. Sure, as traditionally abbreviated, it's just two letters and a period--but, oh, the significance of those three character strokes! Having the "St." in St. Paul is like having "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. And (perhaps unlike the Pledge) the religious significance of the word Saint is not sanitized or neutralized by the presence of a surrounding and subordinating secular context: No plastic elves and reindeer or a talking wishing well here, just Saint Paul.

Would the mythical reasonable observer familiar with the Supreme Court's establishment clause precedents (2) (as if a person ever could be thought reasonable who spent his time reading the Supreme Court's establishment clause precedents) (3) understand the name St. Paul to communicate a message of government endorsement of Christianity, and thus be made by his government to feel an "outsider," not fully part of the political community if not a Christian? Would such a person feel angst, or cry himself to sleep at night, reeling from the psychic harm of living in a state whose capital city was named for a Christian evangelist and saint? I suppose so: If chocolate Easter eggs have such an effect, certainly naming the capital city St. Paul would have a far stronger one.

Or has long usage and familiarity drained the name St. Paul of any true religious...