There is an interesting case out of Perkins, Oklahoma where Federal Reserve officials reportedly ordered a small bank (The Payne County Bank) to remove religious Christmas displays. I fail to see the authority of Federal Reserve officials to limit the free speech to a bank, particularly religious-based speech. If the bank wants to marginalize non-Christian customers through sectarian displays, I think it has a constitutionally protected right to do so. What it cannot do is actually discriminate in the establishment or handling of accounts.
Federal Reserve examiners reported came for one of their visits (every four years) and saw a posted daily Bible verse, hanging crosses, and buttons saying “Merry Christmas, God With Us.” There was also a Bible verse on the Internet. All were ordered removed by the federal examiners.
The action is based on the Federal Reserve’s “Non-Discouragement” rule contained in Title 12 (Section 202.4). The same section as an anti-discrimination policy:
§ 202.4 General rules.
(a) Discrimination. A creditor shall not discriminate against an applicant on a prohibited basis regarding any aspect of a credit transaction.
(b) Discouragement. A creditor shall not make any oral or written statement, in advertising or otherwise, to applicants or prospective applicants that would discourage on a prohibited basis a reasonable person from making or pursuing an application.
Regulation B further states:
Regulation B
Sec. 202.1 Authority, scope and purpose.
(b) Purpose. The purpose of this regulation is to promote the availability of credit to all creditworthy applicants without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract); to the fact that all or part of the applicant’s income derives from a public assistance program; or to the fact that the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The regulation prohibits creditor practices that discriminate on the basis of any of these factors. The regulation also requires creditors to notify applicants of action taken on their applications; to report credit history in the names of both spouses on an account; to retain records of credit applications; to collect information about the applicant’s race and other personal characteristics in applications for certain dwelling-related loans; and to provide applicants with copies of appraisal reports used in connection with credit transactions.
The discouragement provision is hopelessly vague and ambiguous. Most anything could discourage some people. I would be discouraged to see a bank displaying White Sox testimonials rather than loyalty to the Cubs. Moreover, there is no apparent requirement of intent. I have not read any report that the bank preferred only Christian customers, alone actively sought to exclude non-Christians. Discriminating on the basis of religion is a “prohibited basis,” but displaying religious text or symbols is not prohibited for a private company. Section (a) is perfectly understandable and should suffice in this regard. Any active effort to deny service to non-Christian would be a form of prohibited discrimination.
I don’t like sectarian messages in banks. (I prefer a demonstration of economic knowledge rather than blind faith from my bankers). However, I find it deeply troubling to see federal examiners branching out into speech regulation. I would think that they have enough to do with banks failing across the country in this economy.
In an update, the Feds have backed down on the postings after a call from the president of Payne County Bank, Lynn Kinder. I remain, however, a bit concerned about the claimed authority here. Clearly, this regulation has not been challenged and I wonder how many of banks have simply complied with such speech limitations. There remains a troubling regulation on the books and regulators who believe that they have the right to demand the removal of such displays.
On its website, today’s biblical quotation is
Luke 2:1, 4-5
“[The Birth of Jesus] In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.”
A survey of the entire Federal Reserve actions under the non-discouragement policy might also merit a decree or two.
Jonathan Turley
I wasn’t serious. I have a live tree and lots of lights.
I don’t believe in AGW.
“Missed takes happen” (J. Brian Harris)
==============================================
The number of takes I’ve missed … blooper was my middle name
Buddha,
You are right about the wrong ball being watched.
Lottakatz, I like the sparkly lights too. I have a fake tree now, so don’t take away my blinking lights!
Bdaman: “Christmas should be banned entirely. People who celebrate it consume to much. They cut down trees and hang Christmas lights.”
—–
Are you nuts? I’ll give you the trees but the lights, no way. Life is just to short and mean as it is to get rid of twinkly lights and sparkly stuff. We should have twinkly lights and sparkly stuff adorning our homes, public places and personal space every single day of the year. The armed services should be re-purposed as caretakers of the fireworks and punctuate every major and minor holiday with grandiose fireworks exhibitions all night long, and parades…
Uh, what was the question? Sorry, the 3 cups of coffee didn’t bother me but finishing the big bowl of sugar- coated cereal just pushed me over the edge. Never mind. 🙂
raff,
I have no issue with the Prof’s statement that the regulators went too far on this particular issue. My issue is simply that regulators are clearly watching the wrong ball.
And your slavish devotion to free markets shows you as an anti-government, anti-law buffoon, Chan. Without laws there is anarchy and oppression. The fallacy of your myth, that business looks out for the interests of customers, is self-evident.
Deregulation started this debacle.
The answer isn’t a hands off/no regulation approach to business.
Business needs to be put back on the leash. The shorter the better.
But that would be against your interests and goals of fascist oligarchy, wouldn’t it?
Buddha,
You are right that the Obama administration has backed down from doing the right thing in the face of Republican pressure, both real and imagined. Since I have formerly worked in bank Trust Departments until November of this year, I can tell you that the regulators really can shake up the bank management. I do agree with Prof. Turley here that they went too far. But bankers always think that the regulators have gone too far, even when they go under.
Clinton got lucky with the growth of the Internet and a change-up in how goods and services are delivered. He also benefited from a fairly robust economic framework given to him by Reagan.
But spin it anyway you want. People who actually know something about economics know what really happened.
Oh did I mention a republican congress forced him to cut spending?
How come you are wrong most of the time? Must be that public school education you had.
Wonder if the Payne County Bank would consider this verses ripe for its site:
“And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.”
~Luke 6:34 ESV
or, for those Old Tesatment lovers around:
“You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not charge your brother interest, that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.
~Deuteronomy 23:19-20 ESV
Krugman has an ax to grind. He isn’t a very good economist in any event. He has been wrong on most everything and is a darling of the far left.
That he thinks what he does is in no way surprising or earth shattering. He is trying to protect his own failed ideas.
Considering a bail-out and stimulus are not free market ideas and considering we don’t have free market capitalism and haven’t had it for a good long while and considering the FED controls interest rates which pretty much controls the economy, Krugman making a statement like that just shows what a buffoon he really is.
But then again, no surprise there.
it may not mean anything, I was just curious.
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/opinion/20krugman.html?_r=1&hp
“When historians look back at 2008-10, what will puzzle them most, I believe, is the strange triumph of failed ideas. Free-market fundamentalists have been wrong about everything — yet they now dominate the political scene more thoroughly than ever.
How did that happen? How, after runaway banks brought the economy to its knees, did we end up with Ron Paul, who says “I don’t think we need regulators,” about to take over a key House panel overseeing the Fed? How, after the experiences of the Clinton and Bush administrations — the first raised taxes and presided over spectacular job growth; the second cut taxes and presided over anemic growth even before the crisis — did we end up with bipartisan agreement on even more tax cuts?
The answer from the right is that the economic failures of the Obama administration show that big-government policies don’t work. But the response should be, what big-government policies?”
If he did, so what?
So did Newton.
J. Brian Harris PhD:
what is your opinion on the possibility that E. Kant had Aspergers or some degree of autism?
Christmas should be banned entirely. People who celebrate it consume to much. They cut down trees and hang Christmas lights. So these people cut down tree’s that takes CO2 out of the air and in turn consume products that generate more CO2.
Missed takes happen
“Is anything required, according to U.S. constitutional principles, for anyone to become establish a religion other than merely saying so?”
has a editing typo blunder of mine, and would better be:
“Is anything required, according to U.S. constitutional principles, for anyone to establish a religion other than merely saying so?”
Since the Citizens United decision, corporations have unlimited free speech?
What is, and what is not, a religious establishment?
Who has the actual capability of deciding for someone else what is and is not of religion?
Is anything required, according to U.S. constitutional principles, for anyone to become establish a religion other than merely saying so?
Can one person be a religious establishment?
If not, whosoever so rules is in violation of the non-establishment provision(s)?
Unintended consequences, slippery slopes?
Who can truthfully state, unequivocally, that the “framers of our constitutions” (federal and individual states) actually, and without error, understood what they were doing, in the sense of fully informed consent?
What is religion?
What is not religion?
What is neither religion nor not religion?
Is it forbidden to ask such questions, if questions they be?
Is it forbidden to not so ask?
What is bullying?
What is not bullying?
A little child asked me, of life, “Why does it hurt so much?”
How about making sure the banks are adequately capitalized and their commercial and financial operations are segregated so bullshit like credit default swaps aren’t possible? Hmmm? You know – ACTUAL REGULATION.
Oh, that’s right. I forgot. The government exists solely to service the banks.
I guess hanging crosses is ok at this time of year, like masks and costumes at Halloween…try it after this time and add a little gas….you get…extra attention….
“I don’t like sectarian messages in banks. (I prefer a demonstration of economic knowledge rather than blind faith from my bankers) However…”
LOL, amen to that. Maybe though, this is what passes for bank regulation these days.