"RETHINKING THE SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE"

"RETHINKING THE SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE" by the Rev. Roger Bertschausen
Fox Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship 2600 E. Philip Ln. P.O. Box 1791 Appleton, WI 54912-1791 (920) 731-0849 Website: www.fvuuf.org
March 2-3, 2002

Call to Gather: from Paul Robeson

I shall take my voice wherever there are those who want to hear the melody of freedom or the words that might inspire hope and courage in the face of despair and fear. My weapons are peaceful, for it is only by peace that peace can be attained. The song of freedom must prevail. [1]

Readings: from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Baptist Association of Danbury, CT

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people [the First Amendment] which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. [2]

From Justice Hugo Black in the 1947 Everson vs. Board of Education decision

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and state."...That wall must be kept high and impregnable. [3]

**********
One of the miracles of our whole remarkable system of government is that is based on a relatively short document written in a vastly different era. But while the Constitution is largely fixed and unchangeable--amending it is a difficult and rare occurrence--the government it creates is incredibly flexible and changeable. This is surely part of the great genius of the Constitution.

You can see this process in the constant evolution of the relationship between church and state. An important part of the fuel for this evolution is built right into the First Amendment itself. The First Amendment contains two clauses. The first states that the government shall take no action "respecting the establishment of religion." The second states that the government shall not prohibit the "free exercise" of religion. The first clause, in other words, says that the government can do nothing to establish religion; the second says that the government can also do nothing to bar people from practicing their chosen religion. The Constitution charges the government with neither encouraging nor discouraging religion. There is a balance to be struck, and this balance has been the focal point of the evolution of church/state relations over the centuries.

Central to this balance over the years has been this question: Is it acceptable for the government to aid religion if it does so in ways that don't aid particular sects over other sects? This question goes back to the beginning of the republic. Some answered yes, some no. The leader of one side was Patrick Henry. He answered this question "Yes": it is acceptable for the government to give aid to religion as long as it is doesn't favor one religion over another. His fierce opponents James Madison and Thomas Jefferson answered "No." They argued that there should be, in Jefferson's words, a wall of separation between church and state. If there is a wall of separation, then it is clear that governmental support of religion--whether preferential or non-preferential--is never acceptable.

Right now we are in a relatively intense period of rethinking the relationship between church and state. A focal point of this reconsideration is the question Henry, Madison and Jefferson first debated.

For much of the twentieth century, the Jefferson/Madison interpretation of a strict wall of separation between church and state held sway--especially in Supreme Court decisions. You can see this in the Hugo Black decision that I quoted earlier. In the last decade or two, as the Court has become increasingly more conservative, Patrick Henry's view has gained ground. When it comes to church/state issues, the Supreme Court is now rather evenly divided between followers of Jefferson and Madison on the one hand, and followers of Patrick Henry on the other. In fact, in general there are four justices on each side, with Sandra Day O'Connor in her customary position of being the decisive vote in the middle. With the Court so evenly divided, no wonder this issue is particularly intense right now.

As citizens and as religious people, this period of rethinking the church/state relationship provides us with a good opportunity for focusing our attention on this important issue. Today I want to share my view of the church/state relationship in hopes that it might help each of you come up with your own view.

In church/state issues, I side with Jefferson and Madison. Since they were so central in the drafting of the Constitution--unlike Patrick Henry, who bitterly opposed the Constitution--I think their view of a wall of separation is more in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution. I do not support any governmental support of religion--regardless of whether support is conferred on particular religions or is non-preferential.

Actually I don't think non-preferential treatment of religion is even possible. To me this truth is already very evident in President Bush's faith-based initiative. The faith-based initiative is designed to promote federal aid to religious groups that provide social services and to create church-state partnerships to deal with social problems.

Are we really willing to support social service programs of all religions with our federal tax dollars? Is our government really willing to support Wiccan, atheist, Muslim, white supremacist or Unitarian Universalist social service programs, to name a few of the more controversial faiths? If we say that the program is non-preferential--which we have to say if governmental support of religion is to have any chance at all of passing Constitutional muster--then we have to be ready to support all religious organizations. Is Jerry Falwell really going to abide his tax dollars supporting a wiccan social service ministry? Or a Unitarian Universalist ministry? Am I going to want my tax money supporting the Nation of Islam or Jerry Falwell's social service initiatives? No way! Non-preferential treatment of religion is a fantasy. It ain't gonna happen!

You can already see this in the faith-based initiative. President Bush has announced that he would not allow funding for Nation of Islam social service programs because in his view the Nation of Islam preaches hatred. Well, I happen to agree with his assessment of the Nation of Islam. But who gets to decide which religion is worthy of governmental support and which isn't? Who decides who's in and who's out? Who decides that the government shouldn't support the Nation of Islam? Well, the government, of course. Suddenly the faith-based initiative is a preferential program, favoring one religion over another. Catholic Social Services and Lutheran Social Services would get federal money; the Nation of Islam would not. Suddenly whatever Constitutional support could be mounted for the faith-based initiative evaporates. If the faith-based initiative truly is non-preferential, then the Nation of Islam would have to be eligible for funding, too.

Thankfully, the wall of separation between church and state saves us from the quicksand of trying to figure out which religions deserve and do not deserve governmental support. It says simply that we should support none.

I think the wall of separation is good for other reasons, too. Most importantly, I believe it is good for our nation. Our government is based on the premise that individuals should have the freedom to make choices about important matters. And what could be more important--and personal--than one's choice of faith? This is why many immigrants over the years--starting with the Pilgrims--came to this land: to be able to freely practice their faith. It is a precious part of our heritage. Government support of religion flies in the face of this free religious heritage.

A huge part of what makes the United States such a great nation is our religious diversity. Though it is not always easy--whoever said democracy is easy?--I think the burgeoning diversity of religion in our nation is a wonderful thing. Just look around the Fox Valley. You can now see thriving Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Baha'i, Native American and Unitarian Universalist communities, to name a few. These diverse communities are a tremendous source of the richness of our area.

I know in these past six months I have developed an even deeper appreciation for the presence of the Fox Valley Islamic Society in our community. Because of this congregation's presence, Islam in the Fox Valley is more than an abstract, media-sensationalized idea. Here Islam has the face not of distant fanatics depicted in the media, but of friends and neighbors and co-workers and classmates. When our Coming of Age youth wanted to learn about Islam, they didn't have to learn second-hand through books or videos. Instead they visited the mosque in Neenah and had face-to-face conversations with Muslim neighbors. What a wonderful gift from our community's diversity!

Our nation's and our community's growing religious pluralism is a wonderful thing because it helps all of us learn more about the diverse world in which we live. It helps us speak and act out of understanding rather than ignorance. This thriving religious pluralism in our community and nation would not be possible without religious freedom. And a key linchpin of religious freedom is the separation between church and state. Once the state gets involved in religion, our religious freedom inevitably erodes.

I also support Jefferson's wall of separation because it is good for religion. I think it is incredibly illuminating to note that religion is languishing in countries where it enjoys state support, and thriving in countries like the United Sates in which there is little or no state support. Why is this? The answer is simple: because religious freedom is necessary for religion to thrive. A lack of choice--or the sense that because the state supports the church I don't have to--saps religion of its vitality and energy.

I ran across some interesting data lately on religion in colonial America. I was amazed to learn that only one in five people in colonial New England belonged to a church. One in fifteen in the middle colonies belonged to a church, and even less in the South. Religion in colonial America--which enjoyed state support--was just like state-supported religion in Europe, then and now: lethargic and unpopular. Only with independence and religious freedom did religion take off in the United States. [4]

Today there are many hot-spots in the evolving relationship between church and state. I want to examine a few of these.

The first, already alluded to, is President Bush's faith-based initiative. This initiative was of course a major plank in Bush's campaign and is a priority in his administration. I am against the faith-based initiative because I believe it significantly erodes the wall between church and state. As the Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State observes, "Forcing taxpayers to subsidize religious institutions they may or may not believe in is no different from forcing them to put money in the collection plates of churches, synagogues and mosques." [5] Forcing me to subsidize a ministry that discourages reproductive freedom and opposes gay and lesbian rights is a horrible violation of my freedom of conscience, just as forcing a fundamentalist Christian to support a ministry that encourages reproductive freedom and gay rights would be a violation.

I have nothing against religious organizations working to help individuals in need and our society to become more just. In fact, through the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee among other organizations, I support such programs with my money. The UU Service Committee and other organizations do a lot of good, and I am grateful for them. But my support is voluntary. Social service ministries should be supported by voluntary contributions, not government subsidies.

Another current hotspot in church/state relations is school vouchers. The United States Supreme Court is currently considering the landmark case of Cleveland's school-voucher program. In the 1999-2000 school year, ninety-six percent of the 3,800 students who received vouchers in Cleveland attended religious schools. The Cleveland program--like programs in Milwaukee and elsewhere--shifts tax dollars from public schools to private, mostly religious schools. During the six years of the Cleveland program's existence, nearly forty-six million dollars has been transferred from public school coffers to private, mostly religious schools. Everybody in Cleveland is supporting religious schools with their tax dollars, regardless of their religious affiliation.

The Cleveland case will likely decide the constitutionality of school vouchers. I hope the Supreme Court preserves rather than tears down the wall of separation between church and state by finding vouchers unconstitutional. Again, I have nothing against religious schools. Some families within this Fellowship have opted to send children to religious schools, and I totally respect their choice. But they--not all of us--should pay for their choice. Our tax dollars should go to the tremendous challenge of making public schools the best schools they can possibly be, not to private schools. [6]

A third hot issue right now involves whether congregations should engage directly in partisan politics. Since the 1950s, a law has punished congregations that engage directly in partisan politics by taking away their tax-exempt status. This law has a dubious origin: then Senator Lyndon Johnson pushed it through Congress in order to lessen the support conservative Christian churches could give to a potential opponent. In spite of this dubious origin, I think the law is a good law. It strengthens the wall between church and state without restricting basic freedoms. A church can decide to engage in partisan politics (and therefore also pay taxes). Individuals within a church community can still get together to engage in politics; they just can't do their political work in the name of the church. And of course the church can--and should, I believe--remain a place where politics are discussed and individual political actions are encouraged.

A final church/state hotspot focuses on the largely symbolic issues. These include things like posting the Ten Commandments in courthouses or schools, school prayer, portraying religious scenes like the Nativity in public spaces, and the effort to make "God Bless America" our official or de facto national anthem. Once again, I opt for a clear wall of separation between church and state. Posting the Ten Commandments, for example, privileges Judaism and Christianity and symbolizes more than anything else that these religions are or should be the official, state-supported religions of our country. This is very potent symbolism. I join those who work against symbols that attempt to unify rather than keep divided church and state.

From Patrick Henry to George Bush, our country has always had people who seek to erode the wall of separation. And we have always had people like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who toil tirelessly to keep the wall of separation strong and high. I find inspiration in Jefferson and Madison, and in many less famous Americans who have been willing to lay it on the line to preserve the wall of separation.

I find inspiration in Emily Lesk, a high school student who objects to a Virginia law requiring public schools to have a moment of silence each day. She believes that the moment of silence is the beginning of bringing prayer into the public schools. Every day, Emily conducts a sixty-second protest by leaving her classroom and standing in the hall. A practicing Jew, Emily believes that our personal faiths don't need the support of the state in order to thrive.[7]

I find inspiration in a youth member of our Fellowship who had the courage to stand up to a high school teacher who pushed religion on his students. When the teacher dismissed this student's objections, she shared her concern with her parents, with me and with her principal. As a result, the teacher was told to quit pushing religion on his students.

I find inspiration from Robert Nordlander, a member of our Fellowship with whom I disagree more often than I agree. But Robert works tirelessly and consistently to shine the light of our community's attention on violations of church/state separation. I am grateful for Robert's work.

These folks show me my duty as a concerned citizen: to be vigilant about church/state separation and to be willing to speak and act on my convictions. Eternal vigilance is truly the price of freedom.

[1] Reading #462 in Singing the Living Tradition (Boston: Beacon Press, 1993).
[2] Quoted in Edd Doerr, "Jefferson's Wall," The Humanist, vol. 62(1), January/February 2002, p. 10.
[3] Ibid., p. 10.
[4] Sidney M. Goetz, "Would the Freethinking Jefferson Be Elected Today," The Humanist, vol. 62(1), January/February 2002, p. 14.
[5] Press release from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, February 20, 2001, http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/0220-03.htm.
[6] Warren Richey, "Voucher case tests church-state wall," Christian Science Monitor, February 20, 2002, pp. 1, 10; and Gail Russell Chaddock, "Key case in future school choice," Christian Science Monitor, February 19, 2002, pp. 1, 4.
[7] Emily Lesk, "My 60-Second Protest From the Hallway," Newsweek , June 11, 2001, p. 13.