Ruling on religion.

That Godless Court? Supreme Court Decisions on Church-State Relationships Ronald B. Flowers (Westminster John Knox Press, 2005, 2nd edition, 228pp) 0-66422-8917, $24.95

WHAT ROLE DOES AND what role should religion play in public life?

Retired professor Ronald Flowers' study of how the Supreme Court resolves complex church-state relationships is compact and accessible to both scholars and general readers. It is a comprehensive review of decisions that affect the lives of most Americans at one time or another, namely, the multiple interactions between religion and civil authority.

Flowers covers the entire gamut of these contentious issues that trace their origins to the two religious clauses of the US Constitution's First Amendment. He tells how the Court has resolved disputes over the major issues, such as vouchers and other schemes for aiding faith-based schools, church property and zoning conflicts, religion in schools and work places, religious symbols in public places and the accommodation of minority religious practices in the military and in prisons.

But he does not ignore the more peripheral issues that have found their way to the Supreme Court: whether clergy may hold public office, whether church properties should be taxed, the legitimacy of Sunday closing laws (still important to some constituencies) and whether there should be chaplains attached to legislatures. All receive their due from Flowers.

Flowers is particularly helpful in explaining the often convoluted reasoning of the Court in the close-call decisions. For example, he writes, "In the matter of religious symbols either financed with public money or sponsored by the government, the rule seems to be that if the symbol stands alone, it is a violation of the Establishment Clause. But if a display combines the symbols of several religions and is accompanied by some secular object, it passes the 'plastic reindeer rule,' or if the holiday clearly has a cultural as well as a religious dimension, the display meets constitutional approval."

THE RISE OF THE CHRISTIAN right in politics assures continuing debate and conflict in the political legislative realm and, thus, eventual conflict resolution at the High Court. While Flowers defends the right of a religious conservative movement to be active politically, he warns against "its political efforts to remake the country in its own image" and reminds it, "to try to impose specifically theological ideas on the nation through legislation is contrary to the Establishment Clause."

The author argues persuasively that many of the Court's decisions in the past two decades have weakened both clauses of the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause has been eroded at the fiscal line, always a warning signal, while ironclad Free Exercise guarantees have been declining, particularly for minority religions that confront government power. Says Flowers, "I believe there is much to fear in this trend. In its accommodationist decisions, the Court has put religion in the greatest danger, the danger of being either corrupted by too close association with the state or destroyed by too much deference to the state."

Flowers also argues that the greater danger in today's jurisprudence affecting religious freedom is not the occasional Establishment Clause victory, which the Right fatuously claims, but the weakening of the Free Exercise principle since 1990, particularly at the hands of so-called conservative justices. Flowers does not mince his words. "Religious freedom in our time is in great peril. From the Free Exercise Clause side, the decision in Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith, eliminating the 'compelling state interest test' and shunting the Free Exercise Clause to the position of being the most minimal of constitutional freedoms, has seriously endangered religious freedom."

In addition to its insightful analysis, Flowers' book has two other strong points. An introductory chapter tells how the Supreme Court chooses and rejects cases on appeal and explains lucidly how the federal court system works. Three appendices include a chronological table of all church-state cases decided by the Court from 1872 until the fall of 2004, and the texts of two vital documents of our political heritage, James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance" and Thomas Jefferson's "Act for Establishing Religious Freedom."

The author believes that separation of church and state is a cardinal American principle that undergirds all civil liberties. His eloquent defense of this concept deserves quoting in its entirety:</p> <pre>

"The claim is often made by accommodationists, especially those

from the Christian Right, that separation of church and state is hostile to religion. Just the opposite is true. Strict separation is not hostile to religion; strict separation is necessary for religious freedom. The religion clauses of the Constitution demand that government remain distant from religion so religion may flourish. Separation prevents government from meddling in matters of religion. It guarantees the free exercise of religion. Separation is better for the government and better for religion. It is better for government because it prevents government from assuming roles it was not intended to serve, such as involving itself in matters of conscience, persons' relationship with what they perceive as

the Divine, and finding meaning for life. It is better for government because it reminds government of its limited nature. Separation is better for religion because it allows religion to grow and prosper as it will, dependent only on its own vitality and persuasiveness." </pre> <p>In an epilogue, Flowers answers the question he posed at the beginning of his study: Is the Supreme Court godless? This charge comes from the political and theological Right, and is shown to be without merit. "The Court, by its very nature, is neither godly nor godless. It is, rather, an institution of a secular state." This secular state is by no means inherently hostile to religion. The voluntary nature of religious experience is protected by this arrangement. Religion may prosper or wither by its own accord, without help or hindrance from the government. "The state maintains the most benevolent attitude toward religion by keeping its distance from it." Those who support "original intent" and "strict construction," please take note.

ALBERT J. MENENDEZ is research director for Americans for Religious Liberty and editor of Voice of Reason.