Response to C. Truett Baker
Response to C. Truett Baker
By Brent Walker, Executive Director
Baptist Joint Committee, Washington, D.C.
Truett Baker has used the occasion of my review of Philip Hamburger`s book, Separation of Church and State, to critique the separationist point of view in general and my views of church-state relations in particular.
My main problem with Hamburger`s book is that he sets up a caricatured view of the separation between church and state and then attacks it as being hostile to religion. Baker, in his response to my piece, does much the same thing.
The separation of church and state is not hostile to religion. The two clauses in the First Amendment-no establishment and free exercise-both require the separation of church and state as an avenue to ensure religious freedom for all. The goal of religious liberty often requires the government to treat religion differently under these two clauses.
Sometimes religion gets unique accommodations to lift burdens on the free exercise of religion. This includes a variety of concessions such as tax exemption for churches, housing allowances for clergy, exemption for churches from some non-discrimination provisions in civil rights laws and a reprieve from having to register under the lobbying laws. By the same token, full religious liberty is promoted by imposing on religion certain constraints or disabilities under the no establishment clause. Government can spend tax dollars for many things, but it does not support the teaching of religion. Teachers can say a lot of things in the classroom, but they should not lead in prayer.
Treating religion differently on both sides of the First Amendment promotes religious liberty, protects the rights of conscience and preserves the autonomy of religious organizations. The separation of church and state is simply what we call this salutary treatment of religion under the First Amendment.
Baker himself recognizes the dangers associated with government-funded religion and religious discrimination. The "charitable choice" provisions of the president`s faith-based initiatives-which allows tax dollars to be funneled to churches and other pervasively religious organizations-would clearly violate this principle and threaten the autonomy of religious organizations.
But, there are many ways that government and religious organizations may work together to promote the common good without running the risks that attend government-funded religion.
· Government and even pervasively religious organizations may cooperate in non-financial ways. They need not be in opposition or engaged in a tug-of-war.
· Government should lift onerous restrictions and regulations on religious organizations that unreasonably interfere with their ministries. (I, like Baker, do not count reasonable licensing and health and safety regulations among these.)
· Government may encourage increased private giving by changing the tax law to expand the deductibility rules for charitable giving.
· Finally, houses of worship and other pervasively religious organizations may set up a separate, affiliated organization to accept tax funds to pay for social ministries. These ministries can be discharged out of religious motivation, to be sure, but without integrating religion in their programs.
These are the right ways to do right. They create a win-win situation: social services are delivered by religious organizations and the autonomy of houses of worship is ensured, all without violating the constitutional principles that protects everyone`s religious liberty.
Thus, there is a place for the delivery of religiously based social services-including the kind of child care to which Baker has dedicated his life-without foregoing the protections for religious liberty that have served us well for over 200 years.
I am amazed that Baker thinks this sensibly balanced view of church-state separation can now be discarded without dire consequences. He concludes by saying, "The paranoia and persecution complex mentality of earlier centuries is not appropriate in the 21st Century." Oh really? I wish I could be so sanguine. You don`t have to be paranoid to understand that someone might want to take away your liberty. The September 11 tragedy, the atrocities of the Taliban, and modern-day theocracies from East to West show what can happen when cock-sure religious zeal is combined with deadly, coercive power-even in the 21st century. I don`t want to take even the first step in that direction. The stakes are simply too high.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
