Shared Vision

Religious Liberty in the 21st Century

We join in issuing this statement at a time when America has reaffirmed its commitment to religious freedom through the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and is again recognizing the vital moral and spiritual role religion plays in both our public and private lives.

Yet, at the same time, we are confronted by two strikingly different views about the proper role of religion in public life. One portrays America as a Christian or Judeo-Christian nation. This view wrongly suggests that the Founders never meant to separate the institutions of church and state or to prohibit the establishment of religion. Such a view is historically inaccurate and endangers our common welfare because it uses religion to divide rather than unite the American people. This view of religion in public life, inaccurate and dangerous as it is, has gained credence in reaction to another inaccurate and equally damaging view of the proper role of religion in public life. The other view sees religion and religious groups as having a minimal role in - perhaps even being barred from - the vital public discourses we carry on as a democracy. It sees faith-based involvement in the democratic process as violating the principle of church-state separation. It regards religious arguments as naive and seeks to embarrass any who profess religious motivation for their public positions on political issues. This view denies our country the powerful moral guidance of our religious heritage and discourages many of our brightest and most committed citizens from actively participating in our public life.

As individuals and organizations committed to religious liberty as well as a robust role for religion in public life, we share a different vision about the future: a vision that avoids both the theocratic tendencies on one side and the hostility toward religion associated with the other. Now more than ever, the United States must maintain its commitment to freedom for persons of all faiths or none. We are beset by religious and ethnic conflict abroad. Exploding pluralism challenges us at home. At such a time, we must reaffirm our dedication to providing what Roger Williams called a "haven for the cause of conscience." We agree with Williams that conscience is best guarded by maintaining a healthy distance between the institutions of religion and government.

But it is not enough to reaffirm these truths. We must incorporate them into our private lives as well as into our public policies. This statement is a call to action. We must apply these principles in practical ways whether we are electing a school board member or the President, whether we are debating aid to parochial schools or prayer in public schools.

The Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... .

The first sixteen words of the First Amendment form the backbone of the American experiment. Together they guarantee religious liberty for Americans of every faith as well as for those who affirm no faith at all. A profound belief in the free exercise of religion motivated the decision of the Founders to disestablish religion in the new nation. The connecting link between the two clauses is freedom of conscience.

While not divorcing religion from public life, the establishment clause separates the institutions of church and state. Grounded in the belief that (1) government should serve all citizens regardless of their religious belief or disbelief, and (2) authentic faith must be free and voluntary, the separation of church and state has been good for religion. This "lively experiment" has al-lowed American religions to flourish with unparalleled strength and diversity. The religious and ethnic diversity of the United States makes the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion more important than ever. No one wants government taking sides against their religion in favor of someone else's. That principle cuts both ways. In matters of faith, government must not take sides at all.

Critics of the establishment clause argue that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution and that society cannot survive without government support of religion. As to the former, they are correct. "Separation of church and state," like "separation of powers," "fair trial" or even "religious freedom," does not appear in the Constitution. Yet, Article VI's prohibition against religious tests for public office and the establishment clause's prohibition against laws even "respecting" an establishment of religion make clear that government is to be neutral in matters of faith. As to the latter, government support has proven a hindrance, not a help, to religion. History is replete with wrecked governments and wrecked churches brought down by the unhealthy union of church and state.

Some suggest that government support for religion should be permitted as long as no religion is favored over another and no citizen is forced to participate. The weight of the evidence suggests the Framers considered and rejected this approach. Even benign, noncoercive endorsements of religion make outsiders of those who are nonadherents of the prevailing faith. A proper interpretation of the establishment clause ensures that one's standing in the political community is not affected by one's standing in the religious community.

In practical terms, the separation of church and state requires that government refrain from promoting or inhibiting religion. Neutrality - by which religion is accommodated but never advocated by the state - should be the touchstone for interpreting both religion clauses.

The free exercise clause was designed to safeguard the inalienable right of Americans to believe, worship and practice any faith we may choose without government interference. Subsumed in this right is the freedom to change our religious beliefs as we may see fit and to live according to our individual and communal beliefs. All faiths must be free to order their own internal affairs without governmental intrusion. No faith can ever be prohibited, penalized or declared heretical by the government. All must be equally secure, minority as well as majority.

Like most constitutional rights, the free exercise of religion is not absolute. It cannot extend to practices that harm other human beings or threaten public safety and welfare. Absent some compelling reason, however, government should not be able to restrict religious exercise.

The free exercise clause can be only as vital and vibrant as the spirit of liberty abroad in the land. If that spirit is squelched or submerged, for whatever reason, the rights and freedoms of all citizens are at risk. In the words of the 1988 Williamsburg Charter: "A right for one is a right for another - and a responsibility for all."

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's enforcement of the free exercise clause has been uneven over the years. While the Court has frequently reaffirmed the value of full and robust religious expression, it has occasionally failed to protect these important principles when faced with claims by unpopular or politically weak groups. For some, the protections promised under the free exercise clause have been all too fleeting.

Tragically, the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) weakened the free exercise clause even further. Describing the traditional legal protections for religion as a "luxury," the Court rolled back a half century of legal precedent. After Smith, the government in most cases was no longer required to demonstrate a compelling reason for restricting religious exercise.

Smith has been applied in dozens of free exercise cases around the country. The regrettable - though not unexpected - result has been that the citizen has lost almost every one of these cases. Orthodox Jews and Hmongs have been subjected to mandatory autopsies, violating their deeply held religious beliefs. Evangelical churches have been zoned out of commercial areas, severely impeding their ability to worship. Churches have been subjected to historical landmarking laws as local governments attempted to dictate the configuration of their buildings. The rights of prisoners to freely exercise their religion have been routinely denied. After Smith, our "First Liberty" was not only no longer first, it was barely a liberty.

We applaud the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which restores the protections for religious liberty stripped away by Smith. Thankfully, our system of checks and balances allows Congress to enact laws providing more protection for the exercise of religion than was recognized by the Supreme Court in Smith. Still, we long for the day when the Court again recognizes the exercise of religion as a fundamental constitutional right entitled to the highest level of legal protection.

Religion and Politics

As concerned citizens, religious people should and do seek public office. As a conscience in society, religious organizations should and do seek to influence public policy. Separation of church and state does not mean the separation of religion and politics or, for that matter, of God and government.

While religious groups serve an important role in holding government accountable for its actions, that role can be maintained only when religion maintains a healthy distance from government.

Any attempt at affecting public policy should be tempered by a tolerance for differing views and a recognition that a multiplicity of voices is crucial for the success of a democratic society. Neither church nor state may control, dominate or subjugate the other. Article VI of the Constitution wisely provides that no religious test shall be required for public office. Portraying America as a "Christian nation" violates the American commitment to both democratic government and religious liberty. Where religion is concerned, no person should be made to feel an outcast in his or her own land.

Accordingly, we must:

· Defend the right of religious individuals and organizations to speak, debate and advocate openly in the public square;

· Stand firm by the principle that government action with a primary purpose or effect that advances religion violates the separation of church and state.

Similarly, we should:

· Discourage efforts to make a candidate's religious affiliation or nonaffiliation a campaign issue;

· Discourage candidates from invoking divine authority for their policies and platforms or from characterizing their opponents as sinful or ungodly.

Religion and Public Education

One of the most critical issues facing our country is how best to educate our children. While recognizing the usefulness of private education, we affirm the particular importance of the public school system in accomplishing that task. Public schools belong to all citizens regardless of their faith perspectives. Public schools have the difficult task of equipping children for citizenship and transmitting to them our civic values.

The primary goal of the public schools is the education of children in an increasingly diverse society, not to provide a captive audience for the transmission of sectarian values. As a result, schools must not allow the public trust to be manipulated for religious goals. Schools are not to sponsor any religious exercises or to allow religious ceremonies at school-directed events. Public schools must remain neutral toward religion. As agents of the state, they must not promote or endorse any religion, or even religion in general. Nevertheless, public schools should accommodate the religious rights of students when that can be done without disrupting the learning process or interfering with the rights of others.

Applying these general principles, schools may teach about religion so long as it is accomplished from an academic, objective perspective that eschews all forms of proselytizing. Teaching about religion should occur when the subject naturally arises in the curriculum. We oppose interjecting religious beliefs into the curriculum at inappropriate points, such as attempting to teach creationism in biology class under the guise of science. Schools may not sponsor or encourage prayer or other devotional activities in the public classroom. They should not take sides in religious disputes or suggest one religious tradition is superior to others. They should not teach in a way that undermines the student's sense of citizenship because he or she does not conform to a prescribed religious norm.

Nevertheless, schools should accommodate the free exercise rights of students. Private devotion or religious exercise on the part of the students, including private prayer, Bible reading or other religious activities, is permitted so long as they do not interfere with other students' rights or with the educational process. Schools should not discourage students from discussing their faith with other students except for reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. While some of us disagree on the advisability of doing so, schools are generally free, under Supreme Court precedent, to permit a voluntary student religious group to meet and to allow release time programs off campus for religious studies without academic credit.

In sum, public schools should not advance religion, but should accommodate the free exercise of religion. They may not confer a benefit on religion but may lift governmentally imposed burdens on the free exercise of religion. They may not promote a religious perspective but may protect the religious exercise of students.

Aid to Religious Institutions

We agree with Jefferson and Madison that it is wrong to tax citizens to support the teaching of religion. In the words of the Virginia Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom: "No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever ... ." Therefore, we oppose direct or indirect government funding of parochial schools at primary and secondary levels and of pervasively sectarian colleges and universities.

On the other hand, government aid to certain social service programs sponsored by religious organizations, such as homes for children and the elderly and hospitals, enjoys a long history. Aid to religious institutions that provide manifestly secular services (e.g., hospitals) does not pose a threat to religious liberty, if services are provided on a nondiscriminatory basis. However, if an institution indoctrinates its clients with religion, or discriminates based on religion in its admission policies, it should be deemed ineligible for government aid.

Some services are at the margins between education and social services and may require safeguards to protect church-state separation. Other questions arise when funded social services (e.g., foster homes or homes for the elderly) are residential in nature. In such cases government must arrange for residents' religious needs to be met, where possible, through access to existing ministries in the community.

Several broad and uniting principles should be applied in determining when it is appropriate for religious social services providers to receive government aid. Reference should be made to the types of institutions and services involved; the constituency to whom the services are provided; and the adequacy of church-state safeguards. Further, government's partnership with religious institutions for purposes of facilitating the availability of social services should recognize the nonfunded programs in those institutions need not operate under the same standards as publicly funded programs. Religious institutions receiving governmental funds for secular programs should be permitted, consistent with constitutional principles, to maintain their religious identities.

Conclusion

Our heritage of religious liberty and church-state separation must be reaffirmed. The increasing religious pluralism in our country beckons us to turn this heritage into a legacy. The aspirations of the Founders - that religion should involve a voluntary response and that government should remain neutral toward religion - must be converted into practical reality. Daniel Carroll of Maryland said it well over 200 years ago when he declared that "the rights of conscience are ... of particular delicacy and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand." Carroll's lofty view of conscience captures our understanding of our past and guides our vision of the future. We commit ourselves to making this ideal a reality as we approach the 21st Century.

Al Albergate
The Rev. Dr. Jimmy R. Allen
Mimi Alperin
American Jewish Committee
American Jewish Congress
Americans for Religious Liberty
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Dr. Nancy T. Ammerman
Dr. Sarah Frances Anders
Anti-Defamation League
Baptist Joint Committee
General Board of Baptist State Convention of North Carolina
John F. Baugh
Dr. B. Bert Beach
The Rev. Dr. John Leland Berg
The Rev. Charles Bergstrom
Rabbi Louis Bernstein
The Rev. John Buchanan
Scott Bunton
The Rev. John Burns
The Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell
The Rev. Dr. Tony Campolo
Jerome Chanes
Dr. Harvey Cox
The Rev. Dr. Calvin Didier
Edd Doerr
Bishop R. Sheldon Duecker
The Rev. Dr. James M. Dunn
The Rev. Dr. William R. Estep
The Rev. Dr. David Albert Farmer
The Rev. Dr. Ronald B. Flowers
Richard T. Foltin
Rabbi Lori Forman
Steven M. Freeman
Bishop Edwin R. Garrison
Dr. Edwin S. Gaustad
Dr. Alan Geyer
The Rev. Elenora Giddings Ivory
Rabbi Joseph B. Glaser
Rabbi Alfred Gottschalk
Leonard Greenberg
Phyllis Greenberg
Rabbi Leonard Guttman
James A. Hamilton
Dr. Robert T. Handy
The Rev. Dr. Walter Harrelson
The Rev. Dr. Stan Hastey
The Rev. Dr. E. Glenn Hinson
The Rev. Dr. Clint Hopkins
Richard Ice
Dr. Gregg Ivers
The Rev. Dr. Dan Ivins
Norman Jameson
The Rev. R. Mark Jordon
The Rev. Dean M. Kelley
The Rev. Dr. Thomas Kilgore, Jr.
John Klingenstein
The Rev. Leon Lawton
Norman Lear
The Rev. Dr. Bill J. Leonard
Charles Levendosky
The Rev. Dr. Dean H. Lewis
Rabbi Mordechai Liebling
Robert Lipshutz
The Rev. Barry Lynn
The Rev. Dr. Henry J. Lyons
The Rev. Dr. Robert L. Maddox
The Rev. Dr. Dean Majette
Rabbi Joel H. Meyers
Alfred H. Moses
The Rev. Dr. James A. Nash
National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.
National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council
The Rev. Dr. Alan Neely
People for the American Way
The Rev. Troy W. Petty
Dr. Richard Pierard
Samuel Rabinove
The Rev. Dr. Robert Rainwater
The Rev. J. George Reed
The Rev. Dr. John E. Roberts
Dr. Gary M. Ross
Rabbi A. James Rudin
Rabbi David Saperstein
The Rev. Dr. David Sapp
Rabbi Alexander Schindler
The Rev. Dr. Cecil Sherman
The Rev. Paul H. Sherry
Donald W. Shriver, Jr.
Peggy L. Shriver
Carroll D. Stevens
Rabbi Alan Silverstein
The Rev. Dr. Wallace Charles Smith
The Rev. Dr. Gordon L. Sommers
The Right Rev. R.L. Speaks
Marc D. Stern
Phil D. Strickland
The Rev. Dr. John Swomley
Bishop Melvin G. Talbert
Rabbi David A. Teutsch
The Rev. Oliver S. Thomas
The Rev. Robert W. Tiller
Earl Trent
The Rev. Dr. Tim Turnham
The Rev. J. Brent Walker
The Rev. Dr. Daniel E. Weiss
The Rev. Bill Wilson
The Rev. Dr. Philip Wogaman
The Rev. Aidsand Wright-Riggins

A Shared Vision: Religious Liberty in the 21st Century is a joint project of the American Jewish Committee, the Baptist Joint Committee and the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S. A. These groups led in drafting the document, soliciting the broad range of singers and publication of the statement in 1994, fulfilling a need for a positive and pro-active statement regarding America's First Freedom.