The Real Issue: Free Exercise of Religion

The Real Issue: Free Exercise Of Religion

Behind all this furor lies a basic issue. It concerns religious people, and also those who treasure Judeo-Christian values. (Though these two groups overlap, they are not identical. And evangelicals are a part—but only a part—of both groups.) The basic issue facing both is this: Shall they have the freedom to preserve their heritage and to communicate it effectively to the next generation? In the past, these values were central in our society. Today many of us are fearful that they are being pushed to the periphery of American life.

Certainly evangelicals are not seeking a return to a New England-type theocracy. Nor do they wish to support the establishment of religion—either their own or some innocuous civil religion. They are unequivocally committed to the First Amendment and to its extension to state and local governments.

The issue is over the free exercise of religion. For evangelicals—and, indeed, for most Americans—our faith in God, our freedom to worship as we choose, our commitment to basic Judaeo-Christian values, and our right to hand these on to our children are worth fighting and dying for.

Moreover, most Americans are convinced not only that religion and religious values are basic to the social structure of our society, but that they are essential to the preservation of our American freedoms as well. They claim the freedom to express the centrality of these values and to preserve them as a treasured portion of our culture. For the health of the nation, it is imperative that we do not seek to dam up these spiritual forces. It is dangerously short-sighted to allow those opposed to religion, or those appealing to a misapplied sense of liberty, to destroy freedoms so thoroughly imbedded in our nation’s history.

Yet we must also safeguard the liberties of those who reject these values. We must take care not to foist on any minority a religion or value system they do not wish for themselves and their children.

The Dilemma We Face

To put the issue succinctly: The “free exerise” clause of the First Amendment has run into conflict with its “establishment” clause. Evangelicals, as well as most Americans, are equally committed to both.

The establishment clause demands that no national or state law or local school board shall force religion upon unwilling citizens, including children in public schools. It means that the government cannot support a religion, or favor one religion over another, or over no religion at all.

All Americans want to preserve the constitutional ban against the establishment of religion. But all Americans—and especially evangelicals—are also concerned about the “free exercise” portion of this basic freedom: they urgently want the right to preserve their heritage of Judaeo-Christian values and to be free to pass it on to future generations.

The Swing Of The Church-State Pendulum

In the early days of the Republic, many state and local governments maintained quasi-religious establishments. Gradually through the nineteenth century, beginning with Rhode Island and Virginia, the churches became disestablished. Most of this development took place by the direct influence of evangelicals committed to freedom and to the protection of nonevangelicals.

Then in the middle of the present century, the pendulum began to swing toward a more rigorous application of the establishment clause with a view to wiping out any possible support for religion. A series of Supreme Court decisions began in 1947 (Everson v. Board of Education) in which Justice Hugo Black set the tone. Harking back to Thomas Jefferson’s phrase “wall of separation,” he argued that the First Amendment “erected a wall of separation between church and state.… Neither a state nor the federal government … can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.… No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions.”

No doubt most who supported this trend had a sincere desire to protect minorities. But many evangelicals came to think that it was motivated by an opposition to their cherished Judaeo-Christian values. They are convinced that a relatively small segment of the population (with a high percentage in leadership roles) is opposed to these values and working through the educational establishment and governmental agencies to destroy them. Zeal to protect the minority from an establishment religion has jeopardized the freedom of the majority to practice and preserve religious and moral values for their children.

A Solution To The Church-State Problem

Evangelicals believe both in disestablishment and in free exercise. And we believe that these two freedoms are compatible. It is possible to secure the freedom of a minority from government support for an undesired religion, and, at the same time, to safeguard the freedom of any group (whether it is a majority or a minority) to exercise their right to preserve their religion, and to pass it on to the next generation.

What is needed is a clear statement of guidelines for public schools. At the moment, 90,000 elementary schools and 16,000 secondary schools are wandering around in no man’s land on this issue. School boards, principals, superintendents, legislators, and the general public do not know where to turn. Consequently, they tend to play it safe by backing away from any pressures, just to keep out of trouble. In practice, this usually means keeping religion completely out of our public schools.

Evangelicals have nothing to lose and everything to gain by coming up with an enlightened policy that will (1) safeguard a minority’s right to be free of an imposed religion, and also (2) safeguard the right of free exercise of religion and its effective transmission to future generations.

Instead of a wall of separation (which our founding fathers never introduced and which our nation has never really practiced throughout its history), we propose this guideline: Accommodation without preference and without coercion.

This would allow for indirect government support of religion for its values, but not because the government approves of religion as religion. Thus tax exemption for churches would be permissible, as would indirect support for private schools. This guideline would allow military and legislative chaplains so as not to deprive public servants of their freedom of worship, and recourse to prayer if they wished it. It would allow the recognition of the historical role played by the Christian religion and by Judaism in the development of America, and an expression of appreciation for such contributions (see the Supreme Court decision approving governmental funds for the Pawtucket crèche). It would allow direct financial support for students in religious schools, and not discriminate against them because they chose to study in such schools.

“Free Access”: An Ideal Example

The bill currently before Congress to support “free access” to public school facilities for religious groups provides an excellent example of “accommodation without preference and without coercion.” Most public schools “accommodate” students who wish to participate in all sorts of special interest groups such as social clubs, or clubs for drama, photography, or stamp collecting. By what right can students with a special interest in religion be denied such privileges when they are freely granted to others?

The principle of “free access” would protect the free exercise of religion by permitting religious people a practical means of transmitting their religion and their values to their children. And evangelical students in our elementary and secondary public schools could meet for prayer and Bible study, or for instruction in the Christian faith or basic ethical values—areas so greatly lacking in their education today.

Somehow if we Americans are to preserve our heritage, we must work out a practical means of transmitting it to our children. We believe that to do this effectively we must vigorously reassert what has been the basic position of our nation through most of its history: not a wall against religion; not even an absolute line of separation between church and state; but a policy of true freedom for all, based on accommodation without preference and without coercion.

KENNETH S. KANTZER

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.