CHURCH AND STATE.

Post-Election Reflections

As far as religious liberty and church-state separation issues go, the contrast couldn't be greater. Outgoing President Bill Clinton, so popular in the last year of his term that he could have been reelected if the Constitution permitted, was the best presidential defender of the wall of separation since Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Clinton opposed and vetoed attempts to divert public funds to sectarian private schools. From his first day in office, he staunchly defended reproductive freedom and vetoed congressional efforts to chip away at abortion rights. In 1995 he headed off Republican efforts to get government-sponsored devotions into public schools; he had Education Secretary Richard Riley issue an advisory memorandum to all school districts in the country explaining what may and may not be done in public schools with regard to religion. This action helped defeat the sneaky Hyde-Istook proposed voucher-cum-school-prayer amendment and was credited by the National School Boards Association with greatly diminishing confusion over church-state issues by school boards.

President George W. Bush is a whole other story. Losing the popular vote to Al Gore by over a half million votes, possibly losing Florida's popular but not recounted vote, Bush was handed the keys to the White House by his two favorite Supreme Court justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who in the opinion of some lawyers should have recused themselves for conflict of interest.

Though calling himself during the campaign a "uniter, not a divider," and promising a moderate government, Bush proceeded to offer his most important cabinet post to former Senator John Ashcroft--the favorite of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and the religious right.

Then, a mere two days into his administration, Bush reinstated the old Reagan-Bush-I global gag rule on overseas family planning agencies. This action--announced on the twenty-eighth anniversary of Roe v. Wade removes funding from agencies that advocate the widest latitude in providing reproductive health service, regardless of whether or not abortion services or counseling are provided. The ramifications of this decision will affect millions of women and the children they are forced to bear into poverty.

And he won't stop there. Bush has already begun his push for vouchers--or "portability credits"--for sectarian and other private schools and for tax support for sectarian charities (the Ashcroft-Olasky "charitable choice" gimmick), without restrictions on discrimination or proselytizing. To this latter end, he began the second week of his administration by establishing the new White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. And it won't take him long to initiate domestic restrictions on abortion rights and, probably, some sort of school prayer.

How far Bush will get depends upon the congressional Democrats and moderate Republicans. But the country is unquestionably in for a rough ride. And we haven't even mentioned his forth-coming judicial nominations which, according to Paul Bedard of U.S. News & World Report, could include John Ashcroft as the Bush team's choice to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist on the Supreme Court.

Good News!

The recently elected Kansas Board of Education moved in January 2001 to restore evolution in the state science curricula, replacing the August 1999 standards that had sought to downgrade evolution. Creationists made a last ditch effort to head off the move. Jody Sjogren of the Intelligent Design Network told a board hearing, "You will be legislating naturalism into the public-school curriculum. We need to stop making evolution a religion."

Public Support of Separation

U.S. citizens are generally supportive of church-state separation--according to "For Goodness Sake," a new survey sponsored by Pew Charitable Trusts (www.publicagenda.org)--but with interestingly diverse and not altogether consistent positions. The results released in January 2001 are worth looking at, though this column isn't long enough for extended comment.

Of the general public, 62% agree that "one of the most important reasons our political system is successful is the principle of separation of church and state." Eighty-seven percent of the Jewish respondents, 81% of those nonreligious, 72% of journalists, 63% of elected officials, and 53% of "Christian leaders" agree.

On "opening the door to more religious influence on such things as education and government," 54% of respondents agree that it is "realistic" to be concerned that "things could easily get out of hand and religious extremists would try to take over." At the same time, 70% indicate that they "want religion's influence on American society to grow," 6% would prefer it to weaken, 22% want it to "stay the same," 21% think it would be their own religion, while 76% think it "does not matter which religion it is."

On public school prayer, 53% prefer a moment of silence to 6% who prefer "Christian prayer which refers to Jesus," 20% who prefer "a prayer that refers to God but no specific religion," and 19% who say "public schools should avoid all of these." Thus, 72% would oppose the kind of school prayer that the religious right would like to see installed in schools through a constitutional amendment. In the same poll, 56% agree that "school prayer is effective in improving the values of young people," yet 57% agree that school prayer is "unfair to parents who think they should decide what to teach about religion" and 52% agree that it "embarrasses and isolates students whose religion is different."

On bringing up one's religious beliefs at social occasions, 63% agree that they "should be brought up only with care" and 22% that it should be avoided if possible. In the workplace, 60% think beliefs should be brought up only with care and 30% not at all; 61% agree that "deeply religious people are being inconsiderate if they always bring up religion when they deal with other people."

On politics, 48% agree that "the nation needs more politicians with honesty and integrity [but not] who are religious," while 49% agree that "if more politicians were religious they would be more likely to be honest and have integrity."

On the controversy over "charitable choice" legislation--using public funds to subsidize "faith-based" charities--23% think it's a good idea "only if these programs stay away from religious messages" (the Al Gore position), 44% approve "even if these programs promote religious messages" (the Bush-Ashcroft-Olasky position), and 31% say "it's a bad idea for government to be funding religious organizations" (the strict separationist position).

Fifty-six percent of respondents agree that "too many journalists have a built-in bias against religion and religious people"--a view promoted by the religious right and with which 68% of evangelicals responding to this poll agreed. Yet 53% of evangelicals--like 53% of other respondents--prefer moments of silence in school to vocal prayer. Nonetheless, evangelicals are considerably more likely than citizens in general to say that politicians should base their votes on their religious beliefs on such issues as abortion rights, gay rights, and the death penalty.

While only 31% of the respondents generally think that prejudice toward religious minorities would grow "if many more Americans were to become deeply religious," 54% of Jewish and 67% of non-religious respondents think so.

This Public Agenda poll didn't cover the controversies over abortion rights or school vouchers.

So, while U.S. citizens generally support church-state separation, that support is soft at crucial points and needs constant shoring up.

Edd Doerr is president of the American Humanist Association, executive director of Americans for Religious Liberty, and the author or coauthor of numerous books and articles on church-state separation and First Amendment liberties. He and his wife Herenia recently published Como mantener la cordura en un mundo loco (their translation into Spanish of Sherwin Wine's book Staying Sane in a Crazy World).