"The State of the Wall Address:
Separation
of Church and State in
A Sermon by the Rev. Bruce Clear
Sunday, February 22, 2004
All
The Founders of this nation warned us that "constant vigilance" is the price of liberty. By that they meant, of course, that our freedoms would be secure only to the extent that we pay continuing attention to the threats that face them.
The heart of American freedoms is, of course, the Bill of Rights, the first
ten amendments to the constitution. It is no accident that the first words of
the first amendment were written to protect religious liberty:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I say it is no accident that those words come first in the document
protecting our freedoms because the framers of the constitution knew well that
the merging of religion with government has, over the centuries, been among the
most effective means of oppression. James Madison, the author of those words,
reviewed the history of church and government by observing this:
"What influence in fact have the ecclesiastical establishments had in
Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny. . .; in many instances they have been seen
upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen
as guardians of the liberties of the people."
It was clear at the time of the founding of this country that political
freedom required religious freedom. The colonies experienced state-sponsored
churches, along with frequent persecution of religious minorities. The voices
for liberty could not ignore that separating religion from government was the
only way to secure freedom. Listen to these words from 1784, and take a guess
as to their source:
"Every person ought to be left entirely free in respect to matters of
religion. The Holy Author of our religion needs no such compulsive measures for
the promotion of his cause. Taxing the people for the support of the Gospel. . . will be destructive to religious liberty."
That comment came from the General Committee of Virginia Baptists. In the early days of this country, the Baptists were among the strongest advocates of separation of church and state. There was a reason for that. Baptists were among the persecuted then. They knew first hand the dangers of government support of sectarian religion.
The phrase "separation of church and state" comes from
The "wall of separation" is actually a very good metaphor. A wall, like a chain, depends on securing its weakest points in order to remain standing. When a crack appears in the wall, if it is not repaired, it serves to make the wall more fragile. Any single crack by itself may bring down the wall, but accumulate enough little cracks and the wall may fall without notice. For the remainder of the morning, I wish to look at what seem to me to be cracks that are appearing in our time that threaten the wall of separation.
At any given moment in our nation's history, there exist a number of issues before us that demand our attention in order to keep safe the wall of separation between church and state. My intent this morning is to give a sort of "State of the Wall" address, reviewing some of the issues before us which threaten the health of religious liberty. I can't mention them all in the time I have this morning, and most of them I'll simply mention briefly, but a few of them I'll address in some detail, primarily because they are new issues.
Before doing that, though, I would like to review from the history of this church an example of why the issue can be so important. In my work over the last year in researching the centennial history of All Souls, it is clear that the principle of religious freedom has been an important theme. One example remains a vivid memory for many of our members of fifty years and more.
In the early 1950s,
On the surface, it sounds fair, doesn't it? There's no coercion involved. Everyone can choose what church to go to, and so forth. But a deeper look reveals that whenever government agencies, such as schools, become entangled in religious practice, harm is done to society, to religion, and to the constitution. Religious instruction was clearly offered on school time. Those students who did not go to a church had to remain at the school, attending a study hall, since school was still in session. They, of course, were singled out and publically identified as not being affiliated with a church. Whether non-affiliation happened because of conviction or because of indifference, it became a public fact about them. There was psychological pressure, from schools and peers, to pick a church for religious indoctrination. One consequence of the practice would be that a child's religious affiliation was no longer a private manner, but received public attention. Furthermore, though the government, through the schools, was not coercing any particular affiliation, it was in the business of monitoring religious affiliation.
Perhaps it's not a huge matter. But there is no question that when the government involves itself in facilitating sectarian religious instruction of children, a crack appears in the wall separating church and state. What religion a child chooses to follow or not follow is not, and never should be, the concern of our government.
This story in the our church history illustrates
commitment to religious freedom. When
Many members became involved in public advocacy against the policy. Every
All Souls parent, at one level or another, felt the
tug of controversy affecting their children as their religious affiliation
became a focus of their public education. Backus retired before the issue was
resolved, and the new minister, Jack Mendelsohn, continued to speak on the
issue. He was quoted in the newspaper as threatening a lawsuit against the city
schools. In fact, such a lawsuit had been previously been filed in
I tell this story in some sense to personalize the issue. It is real and it can affect us directly. I will turn now to other issues before us today that seem to me to threaten the strength of our wall of separation that guarantees our liberty.
There are some issues that seem perennial. Prayer in schools is one such issue. It is clear in public surveys that the majority of people don't see why we can't allow prayer in schools. The irony is, that in terms of truly voluntary personal prayer, we do allow it. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits students from voluntarily praying whenever they want in silence. The issue of religious liberty arises when that prayer becomes a public focus, endorsed and promoted by the government.
At the moment, the laws prohibiting government sponsored prayer, whether voluntary or not, are clear. The Constitution prohibits it. Every now and then there is a movement to offer a constitutional amendment permitting prayer in schools. It interests me that even suggesting such an amendment is a recognition that under the Constitution as written, public prayers are prohibited by what the framers intended.
Another issue that doesn't seem to go away in modern times is the teaching
of evolution and creationism in schools. Just when you think the courts have
settled the matter - that evolution is science and
creationism is religion, and the schools can't be ordered for political reasons
to confuse the two - then some new religious attack on evolution emerges. The
recent case in
Another recent event that threatened the wall of separation but ended with a fortunate outcome was the incident in Alabama when the state Supreme Court Chief Justice refuse a court order to remove a stone display of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the state Judicial Building. When Chief Justice Roy Moore arrogantly defied a federal court order, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary unanimously voted to remove him from the Supreme Court.
A relatively new area of concern for church-and-state issues is what has been called government "faith-based initiatives." On the surface, the idea has a certain appeal. Various religious groups already sponsor community programs for feeding the poor or offering housing to the homeless or tutoring at-risk children and so forth. The President has signed an executive order allowing such religious groups to receive government money to support their programs.
The main problem, though, is that there are no guidelines prohibiting such activities as religious discrimination or religious proselytizing within the program. For example, I think the Salvation Army does good work. It offers food to the homeless among other things. This is something most of us would applaud. There is nothing inherently wrong with the fact that in many cases they tie to that food a sermon: "If you want a dinner, come in and hear about Jesus, and we'll serve dinner afterwards." Again, I have no objection to the practice whatsoever. It may not be how I'd do things, but then again, I'm not doing it.
Now add to the picture that our taxes are going to pay for the program which offers creedal sermons in exchange for food for the homeless. Our government is funding a program to proselytize the souls of the homeless for Jesus. If you value separation of church and state, the picture starts turning a little bit uglier.
Not all faith-based programs, of course, would be so blatantly offensive as what I just described. But the policy as it stands has no protections to prevent it. Religious groups are not subject, for example, to the same "non-discrimination" policies as secular welfare agencies.
The dangers of such a program are evident in a speech the President gave
last month to a church in
"Problems that face our society are oftentimes problems that, you know,
require something greater than just a government program or a government
counselor to solve. Intractable problems, problems that seem impossible to
solve, can be solved. There is the miracle of salvation that is real, that is
tangible, that is available for all to see. . . .
Miracles are possible in our society, one person at a time, but it requires
willingness to understand the origin of miracle. Miracles happen as a result of
the love of the Almighty. . ."
The proposal for faith-based initiatives is certainly not the death-knell
for religious liberty in this country. But then probably no single event by
itself, short of repeal of the first amendment, would be. Yet there is little
question that this policy provides one more crack in the wall that protects the
unhealthy entanglement between church and state.
Another concern about government sponsoring of faith-based community services is that of simple religious discrimination. The plans, of course, forbid discriminating against different religious groups - Catholic and Protestant, Jewish and Muslim, Mormon and Fundamentalist groups would all be eligible for government money and support. But it is clear that when it comes to religion, human prejudice runs deeper than we can expect. An incident last Fall, which received very little press, illustrates how prejudice can seep into government actions even if well-intentioned.
H. James Towey was appointed by the President as
Director of the program, which is called the White House Office of Faith-Based
and Community Initiates. He is sometimes referred to as the "Faith
Czar." His credentials and reputation are good. An attorney, he founded a
group called "Aging With Dignity," which
helps support families with elderly members during serious illness. He had
previously been head of
Last November, Towey participated in an on-line question and answer session about the White House office he heads. At some point, a questioner asked whether pagan groups "should be given the same considerations as any other group" that applies for government funds.
Here is how he answered: "I haven't run into a pagan faith-based group yet, much less a pagan group that cares for the poor! Once you make it clear to any applicant that public money must go to public purposes and can't be used to promote ideology, the fringe groups lose interest. Helping the poor is tough work, and only those with loving hearts seem drawn to it."
As the head of a government agency designed to support religious institutions in a free and diverse society, his comments reveal a shockingly ignorant and insensitive posture.
For those who may not know about the pagan religion - which is the case for the vast majority of people in this country - let me say a few brief words. Paganism is the ancient earth-centered religion that honors the cycles of nature. It seeks harmony between our life as human beings and the world we live in. Its rituals and practices have a longer history than any other religion on earth. It includes the Native American religiongs which honor and give back respect to nature.
The stereotypes of paganism are all wrong. They are not devil worshipers, they do not sacrifice babies, they don't cast evil spells. Not only are the stereotypes of pagans wrong, but those stereotypes were intentionally invented centuries ago by the established Christian church to foment hatred of and oppression for those who practiced the pagan religion. The comments by the President's "Faith Czar" illustrate that he is as susceptible to prejudicial lies as anyone else. He is as ignorant as most people on the subject. The problem is, it is his job not to be.
After this incident, Washington Post reporter Alan Cooperman researched the work of organized pagans in the country, of which there may be as many as 300,000. In the last three years, on what they call Pagan Pride Day, they collected 74,000 pounds of food and donated over $50,000 to homeless shelters, interfaith food banks and other charities. Massachusetts Pagans gave $20,000 for a children with AIDS program.
Director Towey's comments clearly revealed his uninformed opinion that pagans don't care for the poor and don't have loving hearts. He has been asked to apologize for his religious insults, and so far hasn't done so.
In some ways, this sounds like a minor story. It depends, of course on whose
ox is being gored, as they say. After all, not many people are alarmed when
they hear someone say bad things about people who call themselves pagans, even
if the insults come out of the mouth of an official spokesman for the
There is one more comment I want to make about this so-called
"faith-based" initiative of the federal government. My comment has
little to do with the question of separating church and state, but I think it
is worth raising. The Preamble to the Constitution of
the
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution."
Notice that the Founders declared among the purposes of our government is to
"promote the general welfare." In other words, the community welfare
programs, helping the poor, caring for the sick and homeless and so forth, that
the government is asking churches to do are programs that are the government's
legal responsibility in the first place. It concerns me to what extent these
new "faith-based" initiative programs may become a way for the
government to shirk its responsibility, both constitutionally and financially,
for what the constitution calls "the general welfare" and make it the
responsibility of the religious institutions.
The same concerns that arise about faith-based government initiatives supporting religious programs can be applied to the highly controversial proposals for private school voucher systems. Again, on the surface, it has a certain common sense appeal. Instead of a public school monopoly on free education, children would be given financial vouchers so that their parents could choose whether to use tax money to send their children to a private school or a public school. There is no question that in some areas public schools are inferior to private ones.
There are several dimensions to this issue. The important church/state question is whether tax money ought to be used to support religious institutions whose purpose is to indoctrinate sectarian creeds. Take an extreme case. If a private school is created by the white supremacist Aryan Nation church, and in addition to teaching reading, writing and math, it teaches children that non-white races are inferior and should be deported or worse, would they be eligible for support from our taxes through a school voucher system? Or a bit milder example: a fundamentalist school that doesn't overtly teach hatred, but instructs its students that non-Christians such as Jews and Muslims, and even false Christians such as Catholics and Mormons, are not accepted by God and will be going to hell. Or even milder still: a Catholic parochial school that teaches tolerance toward different religions, but still requires students to attend mass.
At what point in the line do we say government money should be made available, through school vouchers, to this religious group, but not that one? It seems obvious that it would be an outrage for government to finance a church that teaches racial hatred. But the more serious question is, do we want our government to be in the business of determining which religions are worthy of support and which are not?
Using the school voucher system to support private religious institutions is, to me, an obvious crack in the wall separating church and state, with a potential of becoming a huge hole in that wall.
The First Amendment is divided into two parts. The first part, called the "establishment clause," says the government cannot pass laws that support the establishment of religion. The second clause, called the "free exercise clause," prevents the government from preventing a citizen's right to exercise their religion. In recent years, that right has also been challenged, and that challenge has come from the Supreme Court itself.
There have been incidents in which religious practices have been determined to be injurious to society. For example, the courts have upheld restrictions on the practice of polygamy, even if it is a religious practice. But in general, the courts have required greater proof from the state that the practice is harmful, than is required from the individual. The doctrine is called "compelling state interest," and it suggests that the state cannot restrict religious practice unless it can prove a compelling interest to society that the practice be restricted.
That position was abandoned by the Supreme Court in 1990 when it ruled in a
case concerning the ritual use of peyote by the
The reaction from religious groups was strong. An unusual coalition of liberal and conservative, mainstream and fringe groups joined together to lobby Congress to pass a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, designed to restore "compelling state interest" as the standard for determining when religious practice can be restricted. The law passed in 1993, but four years later the Supreme Court overturned it, again allowing states to regulate religious practice and ritual whenever it thought it reasonable.
As it stands, the "free exercise" rights of American religious groups is about as fragile as it has ever been, and there is no indication that the current court is interested in finding otherwise.
One more church/state issue deserves mention. I refer to the federal court
ruling in
The issue is simple, but the feelings around the issue are intense. Over the years, the courts have consistently ruled that the First Amendment requires government policy must be neutral toward religion. Last summer's federal court ruling said that requiring students to pledge allegiance to one nation "under God" violates that constitutionally-mandated neutrality.
Beyond that, those who brought the suit are concerned that the pledge as currently used unnecessarily confuses patriotism with religious views. The message to children is that loyalty to one's country is inextricable from faith in God. The implication is clear that being a good American means believing in God. The original pledge made no mention of God, but when the phrase was added in 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower signed the law stating that the new pledge means that school children would daily "proclaim the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." It would appear, then, that the pledge offends, in spirit and practice, the idea of government neutrality toward religion.
I can't see any other interpretation than that the coerced recitation of a religious belief is contrary to the doctrine of separation of church and state. Like any of the other issues I raised, it may not on its surface appear to be a momentous concern, but like every other church/state issue, permitting a little crack in the wall here and a little crack in the wall there combines to weaken the wall altogether enough that it risks collapsing of its own weight. The Supreme Court decision on this issue is to be handed down this summer in the middle of a heated presidential election. Watch for the fireworks!
In a book on religious liberty in
The original Founders who shaped our country held certain beliefs with
almost faith-like conviction. They believed that religion is healthier when the
government stays separate. [Two hundred years have proven this true. The
Most of all, they believed that any human quest for truth must be free from the influence of political authority. They believed, one might say as an article of their faith, that truth, knowledge, and enlightenment are discovered only in an environment of freedom.
I close by observing that these convictions are also central to, and in fact are the very heart of, our Unitarian tradition. Our religion stays free of creed precisely because it is our faith that there should be no fetters on our pursuit of truth. Like the Founders, it is our faith that, in the words of the UUA Statement of Principles, "a free and responsible search for truth" is what we cherish in religion.