Letter-to-Editor Writers Weigh In on Separtion of Church & State Issue

   Over the past few weeks, three of our readers have weighed in on the issue of religious freedom as it pertains to government and, more specifically, public schools. This topic is more familiarly called ‘Separation of Church and State.’

    A student bringing a Bible or Koran or some other text sacred to them, or expressing opinions based on their beliefs (and citing that text to support their position) would seem an exercise in religious freedom as well as free speech. A teacher or administrator doing that in a public school—as a paid employee of government (i.e. the school district) causes a different consideration.

   While the adult, like the student, is entitled to his or her belief and right of free speech, doing so from a position of governmental authority and power has been judged by the courts to fall within the realm of an endorsement or sponsorship, thus a violation of the First Amendment.

   No everyone likes that judicial interpretation, or the concept of a wall of separation, thus the ongoing debate.

    The context of the speech or religious display, of course, plays a part. Presumably, given the make-up of our society, an educator espousing a Christian viewpoint, would be applauded by many people. However, were that person championing another religion, for example, Buddhism or Wiccan, a goodly number of those same folks would likely object.

   Since an educator, in either case, possesses the same right of expression, and since government is not supposed to create an established religion by supporting one creed over other ones, the question arises: Is it better to have a continuous turmoil over this issue, or have our schools stick with teaching kids how to read, write, and calculate and leave religious matters to the family and church?

   Yet schools as well as other realms of government are not islands unto themselves, but part of the larger society and culture. And religion, in particular Christianity, is part of our society and culture. Hence, we will likely continue having these debates; gray areas where many people prefer (or only see) a white-and-black demarcation.

   Two of the Letter-to-the-Editor writers, Dr. Thomas Higby and Douglas Helzerman, delved into the historical record on the issue of ‘Separation of Church and State.’ They offered their interpretations based on that record, with their viewpoints and conclusions being a bit different.

   I enjoyed the exchange of letters: first, because it offered information and detail that helped to better inform me, and second, the tone was civil and thoughtful. I’m tired of the shouting heads who try to dominate every discussion on public policy or social belief, and am weary of those who think that insults and attacks on character are an adequate substitute for logical reasoning.

   Inspired by their effort, I did my own research on the ‘Separation’ issue and have a better understanding of the historical record cited by those who feel government is supposed to be neutral on religious matters and by those who feel the country was founded on Christian principles and that this Christianity ought to be allowed, without hindrance, in our schools, in our other governmental institutions and activities, and presumably in our laws.

   Statements by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, along with George Washington and Benjamin Franklin are part of the record. The religious affiliations of all members of the Constitutional Convention, not just the historical stars, are pointed. Rogers Williams and his founding of Providence Plantation in what became Rhone Island is an important part of the history, as is Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli, signed in 1797 during the administration of John Adams and ratified by the United States Senate.

     What I found quite interesting in my research (because I was more familiar with it) are excerpts from a major speech that presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave during the 1960 campaign to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a Protestant organization, on the issue of his religion. At the time, many Protestants questioned whether Kennedy's Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as president independent of the church; of whether his allegiance would be to the United States or the Pope. Kennedy decided to go into the lion’s den (so to speak) and address those concerns before a skeptical audience of Protestant clergy.

   The speech was among the highlights of the campaign and, after he was assassinated, it became part of the Kennedy legend.

     I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

      I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

  . . . I do not speak for my church on public matters—and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President—on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject—I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. But if the time should ever come—and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

  Fifty-five years later, in the midst of another presidential campaign, the issue of religious loyalty is once more front and center, only now it involves Americans who take Islam as their faith and who regard the Koran as their sacred book. Their allegiance to an authority or law other than the United States and the Constitution is being questioned, just as Kennedy’s was.