PART I
Church-State Separation: A Keystone to Peace edition 3
Clark Moeller, January 2004 -- [Copyright 2004, Pennsylvania Alliance for
Democracy -- Printing, copying and distribution is encouraged with full
attribution.] This publication is also available in pdf format at
www.padnet.org/CSS2moeller2.pdf
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
http://www.padnet.org/CSS2/CSS2Intro.html#INT
A Review of Church-State Separation
SOCIETY
http://www.padnet.org/CSS2/CSS2Society.html
Religious Conflicts
Government Repression
An American Experiment
Peace-Keeping Theory
DEMOCRACY
http://www.padnet.org/CSS2/CSS2Dem.html
Culture
Civil Rights
Trust
Tolerance
EROSION OF DEMOCRACY'S FOUNDATION
http://www.padnet.org/CSS2/CSS2Erosion.html
Intolerance
Erosion of Religious Liberty
ORGANIZED RELIGION
http://www.padnet.org/CSS2/CSS2Organized.html
Government Regulation
Government Funding
Social Trends
CONCLUSIONS
http://www.padnet.org/CSS2/CSS2Conclusions.html
APPENDICES
http://www.padnet.org/CSS2/CSS2AppdxCrit.html
Notes and Citation
http://www.padnet.org/CSS2/CSS2Notes.html
*****************************************************************
http://www.padnet.org/CSS2/CSS2Intro.html#INT
Church-State Separation:
A Keystone to Peace (3rd edition)
Clark Moeller, January 2004 --
[Copyright 2004, Pennsylvania Alliance for Democracy -- Printing, copying
and distribution is encouraged with full attribution.]
INTRODUCTION
The quintessential American value of religious liberty is being eroded in
the United States today. The causes of this erosion are described in the
following, and the reasons why the effects of this loss will diminish other
civil rights, weaken our democracy, and sap the vitality and independence
of religious organizations are presented. These perspectives are based in
part, on a review of the historic and current experience of church and
state relations in the United States compared to those relations elsewhere
in the world. If these comparisons are reliable indicators, the loss of
religious liberty underway in the United States is now undermining the
remarkable progress we have made to build a nation of people who live in
peaceful co-existence while professing a greater variety of religious and
secular beliefs than occurs in any other nation in the world.1
Of the 195 countries in the world in 2001, only six had full
religious freedom according to ratings of Freedom House.2 These six were
Estonia, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United States.3
It is remarkable that the United States is included in this short list
because its religious liberty has been weakened, and unlike the other 5
countries, the U.S. is not a small, fairly homogeneous nation. It is a
large, heterogeneous country with a population of 281 million, 35% to 40%
of whom attend the religious services of 325,000 congregations.4 These
congregations belong to more than 2,000 religious denominations, many of
which espouse religious beliefs very different from one another.
It is often claimed that the diversity and the extent of religious
freedom enjoyed in the United States are the result of more than 200 years
of church-state separation as defined in the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Nevertheless,
religious liberty as defined by the First Amendment has been a source of
controversy since its adoption in 1791. The controversy continues today
among religious communities, at the municipal, county, state, and federal
levels of government, including among the nine members of the United States
Supreme Court.5
Although the specifics of these conflicts have changed over the
years, the underlying issues remain the same. These include whether
religion should play a formal role in the governance of this country at the
local, state, and federal levels, and if our government should underwrite
the costs of religious organizations, or otherwise support a religion or
various religions. The practical implications of these questions are being
vigorously debated today. For example, should taxes be used to fund
religious activities, pay for private, parochial schools, and build
churches? Should the phrase "under God" be included in the Pledge of
Allegiance recited in public schools? Should state-sponsored prayer be
permitted in public schools? Should creation-science or intelligent design6
be taught in public schools? Should religious organizations be running U.S.
Post Offices and distributing their religious literature in these
facilities?7 Does the government have a compelling state interest8 to
decide who marries, be they heterosexual or homosexual? Should the Ten
Commandments be posted in public buildings?9 Should tax-exempt, religious
organizations be permitted to engage in partisan, electoral politics?10
Given the durability of the underlying issues, some people have
suggested that it is time to rewrite the First Amendment in order, for
example, to permit state-sponsored prayer in public schools, as proposed in
the Religious Freedom Amendment11 introduced by Representative Ernest
Istook (R) of Oklahoma in 2001, and in his 2003 proposal to amend the First
Amendment, the Pledge and Prayer Amendment. This states, in part, "the
people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs,
heritage, and traditions on public property, including schools."
Before any rewriting of the First Amendment is undertaken, it is
important to evaluate the benefits of church-state separation. Toward that
end, this paper explores three questions. What benefits has church-state
separation added to society? to democracy? and to organized religions?
The focus throughout this paper is on the relationships among
organized religions, and between these and government. These relationships
influence the degree to which individuals are free to engage in their
spiritual and religious life in houses of worship, in their homes, and
community.12
A Brief Review of Church-State Separation: The term "church-state
separation"13 is commonly used as a synonym for the Establishment Clause
(bolded below) in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.
The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion,14 or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;15
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances."
There are two clauses in the first 16 words of the First Amendment:
the Establishment Clause, "make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or" and the Free Exercise Clause, "prohibiting the free exercise
thereof." Together these are intended to provide the constitutional
guarantee of religious liberty. The means for achieving this freedom was to
create a "wall of separation" between church and Congress, according to
Thomas Jefferson.16
To ensure that Congress did not make laws "prohibiting the free
exercise" of religion that might result in the punishment of or
discrimination against an individual because of his or her beliefs, the
founders separated church from state, and state from church, in 1791 by
including the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. Historically,
laws regarding religion in both Europe and the colonies had favored, de
jure or de facto, one religion, and .suppressed other religions.
To achieve church-state separation, the word ‘respecting' in "no
law respecting an establishment of religion" of the Establishment Clause
means no law ‘involving' or ‘concerning' religion. By constitutionally
preventing Congress from making laws respecting religion, the founders
intended to preclude the possibility that Congress would establish,
endorse, or promote any religion.17 In essence, the government should be
neutral, neither favoring one religion nor discriminating against others,
directly or indirectly.
In 1940 and 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that
church-state separation applied to the state governments as well as to
Congress. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the following
three-part test for evaluating whether a Congressional or state law is
consistent with the Establishment Clause: a law must have a secular
purpose; its purpose must not be intended to prohibit or promote religion,
and the law should not cause government to become very entangled with
religion.18
Church-state separation is intended to create for individuals the
widest opportunity for their "free exercise" of religion: to hold, express,
and practice their belief. But this freedom does not mean a person or a
religious institution can engage in activities that violate the law, such
as human sacrifice, or interfere with the religious freedom of others. This
is how each person's freedom is guaranteed while respecting that same
freedom for others. The American ideal of freedom is based on this concept
of fairness.
Readers who dismiss the validity of "church-state separation" are
referred to the Appendix where three common criticisms of church-state
separation are discussed. These include the complaints that the meaning of
the Establishment Clause does not imply the concept of separation of church
from state, that none of the separation phrases such as church-state
separation are found in the language of the First Amendment, and the
suggestion that America has been and continues to be a "Christian nation."
continue...
.
|
