RELIGION IN UNITED STATES DOMESTIC POLICY FINAL REPORT FOR EDGE297A Fall Quarter 2003 Scott D. Kulchycki Roger WangReligion in U.S. Domestic Policy Scott Kulchycki and Roger Wang Posted at http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38eb4d4a07c6.htmReligion in U.S. Domestic Policy Scott Kulchycki and Roger Wang Page 3 of 50 In a nation originating with settlers seeking asylum from religious persecution, the idea of “freedom of religion” stands as a cornerstone of U.S. ideology and perhaps appears most noticeably in U.S. foreign policy. For example, the Office of International Religious Freedom of the U.S. State Department posts the following mission statement [ 1 ]: Given the U.S. commitment to religious freedom, and to the international covenants that guarantee it as the inalienable right of every human being, the United States seeks to: • Promote freedom of religion and conscience throughout the world as a fundamental human right and as a source of stability for all countries; • Assist newly formed democracies in implementing freedom of religion and conscience; • Assist religious and human rights NGOs in promoting religious freedom; • Identify and denounce regimes that are severe persecutors of their citizens or others on the basis of religious belief. Religion has also always figured prominently in U.S. domestic policy. Even in the early days of the founding fathers, when the Constitution and Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) became the law of the land, freedom of religion appeared first and foremost among guaranteed rights in the first line of the first amendment—“…the First Freedom from which all others flow.” [ 2 ] Yet despite the commitment to freedom of religion, specific government actions and occurrences within the U.S. have generated several troubling issues suggesting a possible hypocrisy concerning religious freedom in U.S. domestic policy. Indeed, U.S. politicians often include religion in their platforms, Christian lobby groups continue to push for U.S. legislation based on religious ideals, and the current Bush administration appears to be seeking more church-state collaboration. These trends bring into question the level of church-state separation existing in the U.S. Separation of church and state has grown to become an implied footnote to freedom of religion and inevitably arises as a key point when discussing religious liberties. For example, American public opinion polls addressing church-state issues such as the Pledge of Allegiance in schools and the public display of the Ten Commandments ask mainly if the issue in question violates “the principle of separation of church and state” [ 3 ]. The question remains whether or not theReligion in U.S. Domestic Policy Scott Kulchycki and Roger Wang Page 4 of 50 intermixing of church and state affairs within the U.S. threatens the political and social health of the nation. This report first reviews the history of U.S. law regarding separation of church and state and freedom of religion, starting from the Constitution and continuing through relevant Supreme Court cases in U.S. history. The discussion then briefly reviews the recent church-state issues of religion in schools, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the public display of the Ten Commandments. The focus of the paper then shifts to examining actions of the current administration and the Christian Right in the U.S. regarding church-state relations. A detailed overview of the new Faith-Based Initiative is discussed as an illustrative example of recent government and religion collaboration; while a review of Christian activist groups, their leaders, and Christianity within the Bush administration describes the strength and influence of the Christian Right in U.S. politics. Finally, the report summarizes public opinion regarding church-state issues, referring to recent polls and surveys. This report concludes with two conflicting arguments based on the information contained herein. One author argues that a healthy separation of church and state derives not from an external, absolute standard, but from the U.S. Constitution (which defines the government) and the American people (who elect the government). The other author argues that complete and absolute separation of church and state is necessary for a healthy democracy. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN UNITED STATES LAW Starting directly with the United States Constitution, the only explicit reference to religion in the original document is in the last line of Article VI [ 4 ]: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”Religion in U.S. Domestic Policy Scott Kulchycki and Roger Wang Page 5 of 50 Article VI guarantees that any citizen seeking public office in the U.S. is not subject to a religious test as a qualification procedure. At the time of the Revolution, all thirteen states had religious tests for public offices, which were reserved primarily for Protestants; and at the time of the Constitutional Convention, Jews, Catholics, Unitarians, agnostics, freethinkers, and atheists were barred from holding public office in all thirteen states and could not even serve on juries in most states [ 5 ]. Thus, Article VI officially presented a clause implying a level of church-state separation. James Madison, a key founding father, believed that the wording of Article VI combined with the concept of religious freedom already implied within the Constitution made an explicit statement on religious freedom superfluous [ 6 ]. Given the context of the time period, the inclusion of Article VI in the Constitution represented a movement towards religious neutralism of the state. Most states matched the language of Article VI in their respective constitutions, however North Carolina and New Hampshire retained religious tests for public office until 1868 and 1946 respectively [ 7 ]. Even with Article VI, the ratification of the Constitution among the thirteen states was made only under a promise of a Bill of Rights. For example, ratification in Virginia came as a trade for the inclusion of a Bill of Rights,