church and state

The relationship of religion and government in predominantly Christian areas. Throughout most of history and in all parts of the globe, governments have been interested in religion. Indeed, for many peoples government was actually supposed to perform statewide religious observances. Where distinct religious and political institutions existed, questions generally concerned their relative power. Medieval Europe provides a good example. The church and the political rulers argued vehemently over who had the right to appoint priests. During the REFORMATION and its aftermath, Protestants such as the Anabaptists (see MENNONITES and AMISH), Baptists (see BAPTIST CHURCHES), and QUAKERS insisted that religion should be a purely private matter. Philosophers infl uenced by the intellectual movement known as the Enlightenment tended to agree. For a variety of reasons, their ideas fi rst took institutional form in North America. Most British colonies in North America originally had offi cial or "established" religions. But by the time of the Revolutionary War, a movement to "disestablish" religion was in progress. Massachusetts was the last state to disestablish religion. It did so in 1833. In the early 1800s the state of Massachusetts still tried and convicted some of its citizens for religious crimes such as HERESY. In 1789 the United States adopted its present Constitution. It was a strikingly secular document. The Constitution did not invoke GOD's name. It prohibited using religion to determine whether someone could hold offi ce in the federal government (Article 6, Section 3). But that was all it said about religion. It is likely that the framers of the Constitution simply decided to ignore religious questions and leave them up to the states. In 1791 the Bill of Rights added 10 amendments to the Constitution. Two clauses of the First Amendment deal with religion. The fi rst says that Congress cannot pass a law that tends to establish religion—not a religion, but religion in general. This clause is known as the Establishment Clause. The second clause says that Congress cannot prohibit people from practicing their religion freely. It is known as the Free Exercise Clause. The Fourteenth Amendment, passed later during the Civil War, prohibited state and local governments from taking away rights granted at the federal level. As a result, the First Amendment now applies at all levels of government, from the federal government to school boards. During the second half of the 20th century, many disputes arose concerning the interpretation of two religion clauses. In applying the Establishment Clause, the Supreme Court ruled that governments could neither promote nor inhibit religion. As a result, it declared unconstitutional many practices common in some public schools. For example, in 1962 the court ruled that schools cannot write prayers and have students recite them (Engel v. Vitale). Later, in 1985, the court also held that states cannot require public school students to observe a moment of silent meditation (Wallace v. Jaffree). According to a 1992 ruling, a religious offi cial, whether priest, minister, RABBI, or IMAM, cannot offer prayers at public school functions (Lee v. Weisman). Controversies also arose over the Free Exercise Clause. That clause clearly has its limits. People cannot simply do anything they want in the name of religious freedom. For example, no one suggests that human SACRIFICE should be legal. But where should the lines be drawn? In 1963 the court took a broad view of religious freedom. It said that if the government wanted to deprive someone of religious freedom, it had to do more than simply give a reason. It had to show that a "compelling interest" left it no choice but to violate religious freedom. The 1963 case involved a Seventh-Day Adventist (see SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM) who had lost her job because she could not work on Saturdays. She wanted unemployment compensation, and the court ruled in her favor (Sherbert v. Verner). Twenty-seven years later, in 1990, the court took a much narrower view of religious freedom. It said that religious freedom did not allow people to violate laws that applied to everyone. It only prevented the government from outlawing specifi c religious practices. The case at issue involved two Native American drug counselors. They lost their jobs because they had eaten peyote, an hallucinogen, in ceremonies of the Native American Church. (Their jobs required them to remain drug-free.) They, too, wanted unemployment compensation, but the court denied their request (Employment Division v. Smith). The narrow view of religious freedom does offer religious people some protection. For example, in 1993 the Supreme Court ruled that a Florida town could not pass a law against animal sacrifi ce (Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah). But many people felt that the narrow view did not provide enough protection. For example, what would prevent a state from convicting priests of serving alcohol to minors when they gave the EUCHARIST to teenagers? A state that convicted priests could claim that it was simply enforcing a law everyone had to follow. Concerns such as these led Congress to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. In line with the broader view of religious freedom, it required governments to demonstrate a compelling interest before they violated religious freedom. But in July 1996 the court declared this act unconstitutional, because Congress cannot tell the courts how to interpret the Constitution. At the time of writing, amendments to the First Amendment have been proposed in Congress, but it seems unlikely that any new constitutional amendments on religion will be ratifi ed.