No need for a chapel in state Capitol building
THE fact that Oklahoma lawmakers voted this year to provide themselves with $5 million for remodeling, even as they left public safety needs largely unaddressed, has been a problem from day one. As the public relations experts say, the optics are bad. House Speaker T.W. Shannon is making this situation worse by defending plans to put a chapel in the Capitol building.
The real issue here isn’t concern over separation of church and state. That the ACLU may sue could be a political plus for Shannon, R-Lawton. The ACLU’s common practice of portraying the First Amendment’s protection of the right to practice one’s religion as a mandate to suppress religious expression is a routine that went stale years ago — and one that most Oklahomans find annoying.
Instead, the core problem is that the chapel proposal is another reminder that state lawmakers are diverting money from core government functions to fund capital improvements that would best be financed by a bond issue. Diverting money from core functions? That sounds like it describes liberal Democrats in Washington, but we’re talking here about conservative Republican lawmakers in Oklahoma City.
We noted in May that the state budget includes $5 million for Capitol office renovations while providing no new money for the state prison system, even though only 62 percent of correctional officer positions were filled at that time. Those low staffing numbers can generate life-threatening situations for correctional officers, who get a starting salary of just $11.83 per hour — lower than rates in neighboring states and local oil field jobs.
At the same time, the number of state troopers is at a 22-year low. Five of six bordering states pay troopers more. Yet the Department of Public Safety got only $522,000 extra.
Thus, two agencies whose employees may literally risk their lives to protect the public from criminals received a combined increase of $522,000 while state lawmakers gave themselves more than 10 times that amount for renovations. This seemed frivolous in May. Now it verges on an outright insult to many public safety officials.
Furthermore, the potential installation of a chapel, even if (as Shannon promises) it’s funded by private dollars, would occur in a building plagued with plumbing, electrical and structural problems. Notably, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Enterprise Services, headed by a gubernatorial appointee, said House leaders had not discussed the chapel plan during last year’s budget negotiations.
The spokesman noted, “The raw sewage backups, crumbling facade and litany of other problems the Capitol building faces are urgent issues that have to be addressed with limited resources” and suggested those problems “should be the priority, especially those posing health and safety concerns.”
Indeed. While some lawmakers might use a chapel as a place for spiritual reflection during the four-month session, lawmakers already have ample opportunity for that activity today without spending another dime. For example, Democratic and Republican lawmakers voluntarily participate in regular Bible studies.
As for its legality, outfitting the chapel using private funds is irrelevant. The chapel would still be in a public building, just as the privately-funded Ten Commandments monument is on public land. That monument will likely not survive a pending legal challenge.
No one doubts that legislators could benefit from religious contemplation. But the Capitol doesn’t need a designated room to achieve that goal — particularly if its construction adds to the perception that money is being diverted from public safety needs in a way that could indirectly put lives in danger.