John M Suarez

Scaling Jefferson's Wall

Honorary Vice-Chairman of the Centre for Inquiry West and member of the Board of Trustees of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, John Suarez examines the ongoing assault on the First Amendments provision for 'separation of church and state' (a term coined by Jefferson in 1802) in the US.

Fundamentalist Politics

IN THE spring of 1998, the leaders of the well-known Fundamentalist organisations - spearheaded by James Dobson, head and founder of Focus on Family - went to the Capitol Hill to meet their political representatives. Angrily they reminded the leading Republicans that they had been instrumental in their being elected and were disappointed, to say the least, that they were moving so slowly along the road to a theocracy. They issued an ultimatum, "either pick up the pace or risk losing our support".

As a result, numerous bills surfaced overnight, including many that were sitting in limbo because their authors felt that the climate was not right for passage. The most significant item and the crown of the package was the Religious Freedom Amendment. If passed it would have allowed overt religious activity in all aspects of government and public functions as well as in public schools, and in public money being used to support religion, including religious education. The vote in the House of Representatives on 4 June 1998 was 224 in favour and 203 opposed. It did not pass because a Constitutional amendment requires two thirds of the vote. But consider the outcome: Over half the members of the House of Representatives voted in favour of a measure to do away with the First Amendment. Other measures did pass, including many affecting the environment negatively and the concept of Charitable Choice, referred to later in this note.

Complementing the legislative effort is an equally frantic push at the grassroots level to inject religion into all aspects of public life. Although most of the activity is orchestrated by the national organisations, the actual incidents take place at state, regional and local levels. They include the posting of the Ten Commandments in public settings, including public schools and court rooms; the distribution of Bibles in public schools; prayers in classrooms, sporting events and graduation ceremonies; the elimination of evolution from the science curriculum; proselytising speakers at public schools; homosexual bashing etc.

Existing judicial guidelines, as those against the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools can be readily ignored because the number of challenges is so vast that pro First Amendment organisations like American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way etc. are being stretched to the limit in terms of personnel and finances.

The Fundamentalists, at least for now, do not expect to win most of these battles. These symbolic transgressions across the wall of separation between church and state serve another strategic goal: distraction. They attract media attention and popular discussion away from substantial developments that ultimately will change the social fibre in hard to reverse ways.

The major cultural war-prizes involve the elimination of public education and the direct financing of religious activity. Both entail huge amounts of public money. Both are key elements in the transition to theocracy.

For three decades now, the Radical Religious Right has been promoting 'school vouchers', i.e., the use of public funds to attend private schools, most of which are parochial. They have persisted, well aware of the prize, despite numerous public referenda that have expressed unequivocal opposition. The Religious Right, after each unsuccessful attempt, revises its voucher package proposal to gain more adherents. They do not believe in evolution, but they practice it.

Direct government funding of religious activity has been achieved through the passage of a bill called 'Charitable Choice'. It calls for equal funding of religious programs, such as welfare and teenage anti-drug campaigns, on a par with government run programs, but without the guidelines and protection that normally accompany federal grants. For example, a homeless individual can now be required to attend a religious sermon prior to being served a bowl of soup. Beyond the obviously unacceptable proselytising, the government in now engaging in bolstering and financing religious activity.

The absence of coverage of these malignant developments by the mainstream media is perhaps the most worrisome aspect of the entire nightmare. The Radical Religious Right continues to be viewed by most as a fringe operation without significant political clout. Newspapers, television and radio are presently controlled by a small cadre of business conglomerates which tend to be ultraconservative. It is thus not surprising that a comprehensive account of what is happening is not reaching the populace. The handling of School Vouchers and Charitable Choice are prototypical. The implementation of voucher programs, as they occur in different localities, are minimally reported, and usually without any significant discussion as to the threat posed to school education. It seems that only the extremists recognise the value of public education in the preservation of a democratic, pluralistic society. As to Charitable Choice, most people have not heard of it, let alone have any idea what it entails. Until and unless the majority - 'moral' or otherwise - awakens to the socio-political reality, a small faction of extremists will continue to legislate and aim the political process in a theocratic direction.

Finally, one has to note that the First Amendment needs the interpretation and support of the United States Supreme Court. The current Court with nine members is very closely divided between those who support church/state separation and those who feel that previous decisions were too illiberal and thus inimical to religion. Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President. Two or three vacancies (through death or retirement) are likely in the next few years, and so the next president of the United States will have a direct hand in the ideological shaping of the Court for years to come. All of the announced Republican candidates have made it clear that they support school vouchers, charitable choice and the ongoing assaults on the wall of separation. Even the leading Democratic candidate, Albert Gore, has suggested that a greater entanglement between religion and government would not be a bad thing. The start of the millennium promises to be rocky.