Freedom of Religion

In recent years, as the so-called “Religious Right” has become more politically active and vocal, one hears calls for the return of prayer in the schools. Evangelicals, fundamentalists, and others have called for the teaching of “Creation Science” or “Intelligent Design” in the schools, the placing of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, the exhibition of crosses on government buildings, the display of nativity scenes on public property, and other measures reflecting belief in God. The proponents of these actions say that this country was founded as a “Christian Nation,” and that the only thing the Constitution forbids is the “Establishment of Religion.”

The First Amendment forbids the making of any law “respecting the establishment of religion.” The operative word in the amendment is not “establishment.” It is “respecting.” That word gives the prohibition a wider reach. It means not only that it is unlawful to establish a state religion but also that it is unconstitutional to enact a law which aids any religion, aids all religions, prefers one religion over another, or prefers religion over non-belief. Thomas Jefferson said that the First Amendment was intended to erect “a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Somehow, people of the Religious Right tend to dismiss the rights of non-believers. There are millions of atheists, agnostics, and others in America who are offended by governmental endorsement of religion. They have no problem with the private pursuit of religion and the display of religious symbols on private property, but they pay taxes too, and they feel that taxes should not be used to sanction other people’s religions. In the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that “No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.” The absence of prayer in the schools and of religious symbols on governmental property does not constitute a governmental endorsement of secular humanism, as some people claim. It constitutes governmental neutrality on the issue of religion.

In 1960 the State of New York required grade and high school students to start the school day by reciting a prayer that went, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.” I remember saying the prayer when I was a high-school student in New York. In the case of Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court ruled that the prayer was unconstitutional. The Religious Right is still incensed by this ruling. They claim that the prayer was denominationally neutral and could not be identified with any specific religion. The Supreme Court found that governmental bodies should not be in the business of writing prayers for public school students. It did not matter whether the prayer was neutral or not. It was a prayer, and many people who either did not believe in God or did not believe in public prayer objected. Atheists do not acknowledge any dependence on God. This may anger religious people, but atheists have a constitutional right to hold such views. They have a right to object to the payment of taxes to support schools where prayers are said. People who want to have their children say prayers in school have the right to send their children to parochial or private schools. There are thousands of parochial and private schools all over America, and it is to those schools that the promulgation of prayers and worship should be confined.

The people of Religious Right assert that their religion is under attack by organizations such as the ACLU. Such claims are dishonest. I would like to have somebody point to one instance of attack on Christians’ right to worship in their churches, homes, and private places. I would like to have somebody demonstrate a case where the ACLU or any other group challenged the right of Christians to display their crosses, nativity scenes, or other religious symbols on church or private property. Can anybody show that the right of children to say prayers in parochial and private schools is under attack? It seems that it is not enough for these people that they have total freedom to worship in America. They demand the right to thrust their beliefs into the faces of those other people whose beliefs or non-beliefs they resent. They demand the right to appropriate public property for the display of their religious symbols. They insist on the right to impose their beliefs on school children whether the children and their families share those beliefs or not.

It would be nice to say that these demands reflect deep piety, but in many cases they appear to be motivated by intolerance toward other forms of belief. For some reason, many adherents to the Religious Right resent people who choose Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, and other beliefs and ways of life. They seem to believe that people should have no right to hold other forms of belief. Such intolerance has no place in a democracy like America. In the middle ages the Church persecuted people who held heretical views. During the Inquisition people were burned alive for failing to adhere to orthodox Christianity. We have come a long way since then, but the embers of those fires continue to smolder in the hearts of people with backward views.