RELIGION IN UNITED STATES DOMESTIC POLICY
http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297a/Religion%20in%20US%20Domestic%20Policy.pdf
[EXCERPT]
Religion in U.S. Domestic Policy
Scott Kulchycki and Roger Wang
Page 3 of 50
In a nation originating with settlers seeking asylum from religious
persecution, the idea of “freedom of religion” stands as a cornerstone of
U.S. ideology and perhaps appears most noticeably in U.S. foreign policy.
For example, the Office of International Religious Freedom of the U.S.
State Department posts the following mission statement [ Given the U.S.
commitment to religious freedom, and to the international covenants that
guarantee it as the
• Promote freedom of religion and conscience throughout the world as a
fundamental human right
• Assist newly formed democracies in implementing freedom of religion and
conscience;
• Assist religious and human rights NGOs in promoting religious freedom;
• Identify and denounce regimes that are severe persecutors of their
citizens or others on the basis of
Religion has also always figured prominently in U.S. domestic policy. Even
in the early days of the founding fathers, when the Constitution and Bill
of Rights (first ten amendments) became the law of the land, freedom of
religion appeared first and foremost among guaranteed rights in the first
line of the first amendment—“…the First Freedom from which all others
flow.” [ 2 ]
Yet despite the commitment to freedom of religion, specific government
actions and occurrences within the U.S. have generated several troubling
issues suggesting a possible hypocrisy concerning religious freedom in U.S.
domestic policy. Indeed, U.S. politicians often include religion in their
platforms, Christian lobby groups continue to push for U.S. legislation
based on religious ideals, and the current Bush administration appears to
be seeking more church-state collaboration. These trends bring into
question the level of church-state separation existing in the U.S.
Separation of church and state has grown to become an implied footnote to
freedom of religion and inevitably arises as a key point when discussing
religious liberties. For example, American public opinion polls addressing
church-state issues such as the Pledge of Allegiance in schools and the
public display of the Ten Commandments ask mainly if the issue in question
violates “the principle of separation of church and state” [ 3 ]. The
question remains whether or not the Religion in U.S. Domestic Policy
Scott Kulchycki and Roger Wang
Page 4 of 50
intermixing of church and state affairs within the U.S. threatens the
political and social health of the nation.
This report first reviews the history of U.S. law regarding separation of
church and state and freedom of religion, starting from the Constitution
and continuing through relevant Supreme Court cases in U.S. history. The
discussion then briefly reviews the recent church-state issues of religion
in schools, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the public display of the Ten
Commandments. The focus of the paper then shifts to examining
actions of the current administration and the Christian Right in the U.S.
regarding churchstate relations. A detailed overview of the new Faith-Based
Initiative is discussed as an illustrative example of recent government and
religion collaboration; while a review of Christian activist groups, their
leaders, and Christianity within the Bush administration describes the
strength and influence of the Christian Right in U.S. politics. Finally,
the report summarizes public opinion regarding church-state issues,
referring to recent polls and surveys. This report concludes with two
conflicting arguments based on the information contained herein. One author
argues that a healthy separation of church and state derives not from an
external, absolute standard, but from the U.S. Constitution (which defines
the government) and the American people (who elect the government).
The other author argues that complete and absolute separation of church and
state is necessary for a healthy democracy.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN UNITED
STATES LAW
Starting directly with the United States Constitution, the only explicit
reference to religion in the original document is in the last line of
Article VI [ 4 ]:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the
several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both
of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or
affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever
be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
United States.”
Page 5 of 50
Article VI guarantees that any citizen seeking public office in the U.S. is
not subject to a religious test as a qualification procedure. At the time
of the Revolution, all thirteen states had religious tests for public
offices, which were reserved primarily for Protestants; and at the time of
the Constitutional Convention, Jews, Catholics, Unitarians, agnostics,
freethinkers, and atheists were barred from holding public office in all
thirteen states and could not even serve on juries in most states [ 5 ].
Thus, Article VI officially presented a clause implying a level of
church-state separation. James Madison, a key founding father,
believed that the wording of Article VI combined with the concept of
religious freedom already implied within the Constitution made an explicit
statement on religious freedom superfluous [ 6 ]. Given the context of the
time period, the inclusion of Article VI in the Constitution represented a
movement towards religious neutralism of the state. Most states matched the
language of Article VI in their respective constitutions, however North
Carolina and New Hampshire retained religious tests for public office until
1868 and 1946 respectively [ 7 ].
Even with Article VI, the ratification of the Constitution among the
thirteen states was made only under a promise of a Bill of Rights. For
example, ratification in Virginia came as a trade for the inclusion of a
Bill of Rights, with a specific provision for religious liberty [ 8 ]. In
fact, George Mason, who had written the Virginia Declaration of Rights
and served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention representing
Virginia, strongly opposed the Constitution because “It has no declaration
of rights.” [ 9] As a result, not long after the Constitution officially
achieved ratification in the summer of 1788, the House and Senate proposed
and passed a Bill of Rights by September 1789. By 1791, the Bill of Rights
became an official part of the Constitution as the first ten amendments.
Freedom of religion appears in the first line of the First Amendment, which
reads [ 10 ]:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Page 6 of 50
The amendment states that Congress, representing the government, cannot
pass a law that favors any religion above another and also cannot prevent
or force religion onto any person. The First Amendment is an explicit
statement for religious freedom. However, by law, the Supreme Court holds
the power to interpret and define “establishment” and “free exercise” on a
case-by-case basis as issues concerning religious liberties arise. A key
point is that separation of church and state, while implied in both Article
VI and especially in the First Amendment, does not appear explicitly in the
Constitution. The next section presents two definitions for the separation
of church and state—a “wall” of separation and a “line” of separation. For
completeness, the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in July 1868, addresses
the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens, and the equal
protection and due process clauses under the law [ 11 ]. In practice, as
defined by the Supreme Court, the Fourteenth Amendment has become the Bill
of Rights applied to the states since the first ten amendments of the
Constitution apply only to the federal government.
[end excerpt]
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
