Archived Laptops are available at http://www.dcstancil.com/daves_laptop 1 | P a g e

Theological Musings from Dave’s Laptop October 17, 2017

I accomplished something BIG today. I drove to the Greenbelt Metro station without GPS. I took the Metro to Union Station, even changing trains, and got back home again, all by myself.

Now to you seasoned denizens of “the Center of the Universe,” this doesn’t seem like much. But even though I grew up in Atlanta and have lived and worked in Ft. Worth, Dallas, and Louisville, travel in “the District” still intimidates me. I even reloaded and used my SmartTrip card without having

to ask for help. This is huge. Celebrate with me 😊.

I was not, however, making the trip just to prove that I could do it. I was going to a meeting of Mid-Atlantic Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (MACBF)

pastors, held at the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC), across the street from the Supreme Court.

Founded just after World War II, the BJC is the only religious group that advocates solely for religious liberty and for the separation of church and state. This focused expertise heightens the BJC’s effectiveness and has made the agency one of the nation’s most respected voices on church-state

relations.

This MISSION of BJC “is to defend and extend God-given religious liberty for all, bringing a uniquely Baptist

witness to the principle that religion must be freely exercised, neither advanced nor inhibited by government.” These member groups all sit on the BJC Board of Directors (you can “control-click” to go to their websites): Alliance of Baptists American Baptist Churches USA Baptist General Convention of Missouri Baptist General Convention of Texas Baptist General Association of Virginia Converge Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of North Carolina National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. National Baptist Convention of America National Missionary Baptist Convention North American Baptists, Inc. Progressive National Baptist Convention Religious Liberty Council Seventh Day Baptist General Conference

You can watch a short introductory video about BJC here: https://vimeo.com/213152820.

Archived Laptops are available at http://www.dcstancil.com/daves_laptop 2 | P a g e

Historians are generally agreed that the religious liberty established by the First Amendment to the Constitution is “the unique trophy of the Baptists,” and “free and faithful” Baptists defend that liberty to this very day. The BJC website has LOTS of good resources, as these screenshots demonstrate:

Archived Laptops are available at http://www.dcstancil.com/daves_laptop 3 | P a g e

Rather than my trying to interpret for you what BJC is about, I encourage you to read their publications that I have attached to this Laptop.

“Religious liberty” is the freedom to believe and exercise or act upon religious conscience without unnecessary interference by the government. Just as religious liberty involves the freedom to practice religion, it also means freedom not to practice religion. If you can’t say “no,” your “yes” is meaningless.

Just like any freedom, religious liberty is not without limits. As the old saying goes, “My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.” Some religions involve beliefs or practices that conflict with other laws, such as compulsory education laws, animal protection laws and anti-drug laws. In those cases, legislatures and courts must step in to determine how to accommodate sincere religious beliefs while protecting other government interests, including protecting those who may not share the same beliefs. So, when government makes exceptions for religious exercise, it must look out for the rights and well-being of others who may be detrimentally affected.

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty advocates a “golden rule” of religious liberty: Do not ask government to promote your religion if you don’t want government to promote somebody else’s religion; and do not permit government to hinder somebody else’s religion if you don’t want government to hinder your own religion.

How is religious liberty legally protected in the United States?The U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of religion in a distinct way, allowing people with vastly different beliefs to live peaceably together.

The first 16 words of the First Amendment have two protections for religion. The prohibition on an establishment of religion keeps the government from advancing or privileging religion. The protection of free exercise keeps the government from unnecessarily interfering with religious practice.

The First Amendment keeps government neutral — neither helping nor hurting religion, but allowing people to practice their religion (or practice no religion). Additional protections exist in various federal, state and local laws.

What about the separation of church and state?The phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. It is shorthand for the protections in the First Amendment and for a deeper truth: religious liberty is best protected when the institutions of church and state remain separated and neither tries to perform or interfere with the essential mission and work of the other.

People of faith generally agree that government should not unduly restrict religion. But, government promotion of religion is problematic. When government tries to aid religion — financially or otherwise — it also tends to regulate religion and often waters it down, robbing religion of its vitality. Decisions on religious matters are best left to individuals and houses of worship. As soon as government starts to meddle in religion or take sides in religious disputes — favoring one religion over another — someone’s religious liberty is denied and everyone’s is threatened. The separation of church and state ensures religious liberty in the United States.

Why do Baptists care about religious liberty?Baptists believe that we are inherently free to choose whether to worship God and follow Christ without efforts by the government to advance or restrain religion. This historic commitment to religious liberty for all people can be traced back to 17th century England and Colonial America, where Baptist leaders called for complete religious freedom. Baptists declared that the government was powerless to control conscience and was incompetent to dictate spiritual matters.

The fight for religious liberty is an effort to prevent the government from doing what even God will not do: coerce faith.

What is Religious Liberty?

A threat to anyone’s religious liberty is a threat to everyone’s religious liberty.

First 16 words of theFirst Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

free exercise thereof

Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty BJConline.org • Facebook.com/ReligiousLiberty • @BJContheHill

The Baptist Joint CommitteeWorking for you in Washington, D.C.

Legislation Litigation Education

TESTIFYbefore Congress and lead congressional

staff briefings about religious liberty

issues

CONSULTwith the

administration and federal agencies

on policy

ADVOCATEby monitoring state

and federal legislation and

writing opinion pieces

MONITORcourt cases at state and federal levels

that impact religious liberty

FILEbriefs in the U.S.

Supreme Court to protect and promote

religious liberty

PROVIDEanalysis of legal

arguments to the media, church

leaders and others

SUPPLYnews, information and resources on current

issues through a monthly magazine,

website and blog

ENGAGEyouth and future

advocates through essay contest and internship

program

BJConline.org

BJConline.org/blog

Facebook.com/ReligiousLiberty

@BJContheHill

LEADeducational programs for churches, colleges

and communitiesacross the country

Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty • 200 Maryland Ave. N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002 • (202) 544-4226

The American Jewish Committee

Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs

The Interfaith Alliance Foundation

National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

A

Religious Liberty in the 21st Century

VisionShared

A Shared Vision: Religious Liberty in the 21stCentury was first published in July 1994.The original statement was signed by morethan 80 individuals and six religious andcivil liberties organizations. This versionwas updated by the below-listedorganizations to reflect legislative andjudicial developments in church-state lawsince the original release.

The American Jewish CommitteeBaptist Joint Committee on Public AffairsThe Interfaith Alliance FoundationNational Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

October 2002

A Shared Vision 1

America’s embrace of religious libertyhas produced the most religiouslypluralistic nation in history. The

success of that bold experiment in libertycannot be denied, but its future is always atrisk. As representatives of religious organi-zations, we reaffirm our commitment tomaintaining church-state separation as thebest means of assuring robust religious lib-erty and to creating a climate of mutualrespect in a religiously diverse culture.

We do so at a time when we are confrontedby two strikingly different and equallyinvalid views about the role of religion inpublic life. One portrays America as aChristian or Judeo-Christian nation. Thisview wrongly suggests that the Foundersnever meant to separate the institutions ofchurch and state or to prohibit the estab-lishment of religion. Such a view is histori-cally inaccurate and endangers our com-mon welfare because it uses religion todivide rather than unite the American peo-ple. This view of religion in public life,inaccurate and dangerous as it is, hasgained credence in reaction to another inac-curate and equally damaging view of theproper role of religion in public life. Theother view sees religion and religiousgroups as having a minimal role in — per-haps even being barred from — the vitalpublic discourses we carry on as a democ-racy. It sees involvement in the democraticprocess by people of faith as violating theprinciple of church-state separation. Itregards religious arguments as naive andseeks to embarrass any who profess reli-gious motivation for their public positionson political issues. This view denies ourcountry the powerful moral guidance ofour religious heritage and discourages

2 A Shared Vision

many of our brightest and most committedcitizens from actively participating in ourpublic life. Both of these approaches carica-ture the intent of the Framers.

As organizations committed to religiousliberty as well as a dynamic role for reli-gion in public life, we share a differentvision about the future: a vision that avoidsboth the theocratic tendencies on one sideand the hostility toward religion associatedwith the other. Now more than ever, theUnited States must maintain its commit-ment to freedom for persons of all faiths orno faith. We are beset by religious and eth-nic conflict abroad. Exploding pluralismchallenges us at home. At such a time, wemust reaffirm our dedication to providingwhat Roger Williams called a “haven forthe cause of conscience.” We agree withWilliams that conscience is best guarded bymaintaining a healthy distance between theinstitutions of religion and government.

But it is not enough to reaffirm thesetruths. This statement is a call to action. Wemust apply these principles in practicalways whether we are electing a schoolboard member or an American president,whether we are debating aid to parochialschools or prayer in public schools.

The ConstitutionCongress shall make no law respecting anestablishment of religion, or prohibiting the freeexercise thereof ... .

The first sixteen words of the FirstAmendment form the backbone of theAmerican experiment. Together they guar-antee religious liberty for Americans ofevery faith as well as for those who affirm

A Shared Vision 3

no faith at all. A profound belief in the free-dom of conscience motivated the decisionof the Founders to disestablish religion inthe new nation and to specifically protectthe free exercise of religion. Both clausesrequire the separation of church and stateas the means of ensuring religious liberty.

While not divorcing religion from publiclife, the Establishment Clause separates theinstitutions of church and state. Groundedin the belief that (1) no citizen’s rights oropportunities should depend on religiousbeliefs or practices, resulting in a govern-ment that serves all citizens regardless oftheir religious belief or disbelief, and (2)authentic faith must be free and voluntary,the separation of church and state has beengood for religion. This “lively experiment”has allowed religions to flourish withunparalleled strength and diversity. Thereligious and ethnic diversity of the UnitedStates makes the constitutional prohibitionagainst laws respecting an establishment ofreligion more important than ever. No onewants government taking sides againsttheir religion in favor of someone else’s. Inmatters of faith, government must not takesides at all.

Critics of the Establishment Clause arguethat the phrase “separation of church andstate” does not appear in the Constitutionand that society cannot survive withoutgovernment support of religion. As to theformer, they are correct. “Separation ofchurch and state,” like “separation of pow-ers,” “fair trial” or even “religious free-dom,” does not appear in the Constitution.Yet, Article VI’s prohibition against reli-gious tests for public office and the Estab-lishment Clause’s prohibition against laws

4 A Shared Vision

even “respecting” an establishment of reli-gion make clear that government is to beneutral in matters of faith. As to the latter,government support has proven a hin-drance, not a help, to religion. History isreplete with wrecked governments andweakened churches brought down by theunhealthy union of church and state.

Some suggest that government support forreligion should be permitted as long as noreligion is favored over another and no citi-zen is forced to participate. The weight ofthe evidence suggests the Framers consid-ered and rejected this approach. Evenbenign, non-coercive endorsements of reli-gion make outsiders of those who are non-adherents of the endorsed faith. A properinterpretation of the Establishment Clauseensures that one’s standing in the politicalcommunity is not affected by one’s stand-ing in the religious community.

The separation of church and state requiresthat government refrain from promoting orinhibiting religion. Neutrality — by whichreligion is accommodated but never advo-cated by the state — should be the touch-stone for interpreting both religion clauses.But far from the kind of neutrality pro-posed by some who would tear down thewall of separation between church andstate — a vision of neutrality that wouldtreat religion the same as secular pursuits,for good or for ill — the neutrality envi-sioned by the Framers often requires gov-ernment to treat religion differently.

The Free Exercise Clause was designed tosafeguard the inalienable right of Ameri-cans to believe, worship and practice anyfaith they may choose without government

A Shared Vision 5

interference. Subsumed in this right is thefreedom to change our religious beliefs aswe may see fit and to live according to ourindividual and communal beliefs. All faithsmust be free to order their own internalaffairs without governmental intrusion. Nofaith can ever be prohibited, penalized ordeclared heretical by the government. Allmust be equally secure, minority as well asmajority.

Like most constitutional rights, the freeexercise of religion is not absolute. It can-not extend to practices that harm otherhuman beings or threaten public safety andwelfare. Absent such compelling reason,however, government should not be able torestrict religious exercise.

The Free Exercise Clause can be only asvital and vibrant as the spirit of libertythroughout the land. If that spirit is sub-merged or squelched, for whatever reason,the rights and freedoms of all citizens areat risk. In the words of the 1988 Williams-burg Charter: “A right for one is a right foranother — and a responsibility for all.”

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s enforce-ment of the Free Exercise Clause has beenuneven over the years. While the Court hasfrequently reaffirmed the value of full andspirited religious expression, it has occa-sionally failed to protect these importantprinciples when faced with claims by un-popular or politically weak groups. Forsome, the protections promised under theFree Exercise Clause have been too elusive.

Tragically, the Supreme Court’s decision inEmployment Division vs. Smith (1990) weak-ened the Free Exercise Clause substantially

6 A Shared Vision

further. Describing the traditional legalprotections for religion as a “luxury,” theCourt rolled back a half century of legalprecedent. After Smith, the government inmost cases was no longer required todemonstrate a compelling reason forrestricting religious exercise. Our “FirstLiberty” was not only no longer first, it wasbarely a liberty.

We applaud the passage of the 1993Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA),which restored the protections for religiousliberty stripped away by Smith. Unfortu-nately, the Supreme Court in City of Boernevs. Flores (1997) struck down as unconstitu-tional RFRA as applied to the states, eventhough several courts have held that it con-tinues to apply to limit the power of thefederal government to burden the exerciseof religion. Fortunately, many states haveadopted their own religious freedom actsand some interpret their state constitutionsto afford more ardent protection for theexercise of religion. And Congress passedthe Religious Land Use and Institutional-ized Persons Act (2000) to provide greaterprotection for religious organizations fromunreasonable zoning and land-use regula-tion and for institutionalized persons —such as prisoners — when their religiousliberty is burdened without a compellingstate interest.

In a related area, while the U.S. Consti-tution does not prevent private employersfrom instituting work rules that burdenreligion, the U.S. Congress wisely legislat-ed in 1972 that it is a form of religious dis-crimination when employers, absent unduehardship, refuse to provide reasonableaccommodation of an employee’s religious

A Shared Vision 7

practice. Unfortunately, judicial interpreta-tion has greatly weakened this importantprotection of freedom of religion in theworkplace, necessitating a legislative reme-dy to clarify Congress’ intentions of somethree decades ago.

We long for the day when the Court againrecognizes the exercise of religion as a fun-damental constitutional right entitled to thehighest level of legal protection.

Religion and PoliticsAs concerned citizens, religious people canand do seek public office. Article VI of theConstitution wisely provides that no reli-gious test shall be required for publicoffice.

As voices of conscience, religious organiza-tions can and do seek to express their pro-phetic witness by influencing moral valuesand public policy. Separation of church andstate does not mean the separation of reli-gion and politics. Nevertheless, attempts ataffecting public policy should be temperedby tolerance for differing views and recog-nition that a multiplicity of voices is crucialfor the success of a democratic society.

While religious groups serve an importantrole in holding government accountable forits actions, that role can be fulfilled onlywhen a healthy distance is maintainedbetween religion and government.

Neither church nor state may control, dom-inate or subjugate the other. The idea thatAmerica is a “Christian nation” violates theAmerican commitment both to democraticgovernment and religious liberty. In themost religiously pluralistic nation in the

8 A Shared Vision

world, any government endorsement ofreligion inevitably will make some peoplefeel like outcasts in their own land.Accordingly, we must:

Defend the right of individuals andorganizations to speak, debate andadvocate with their religious voices inthe public square;Stand firm by the principle that gov-ernment action without a secular pur-pose or with a primary effect thatadvances or inhibits religion violatesthe separation of church and state.

Similarly, we should:Discourage efforts to make a candi-date’s religious affiliation or nonaffili-ation a campaign issue;Discourage the invoking of divine au-thority on behalf of candidates, poli-cies and platforms and the characteriz-ing of opponents as sinful or ungodly.

Religion and Public EducationOne of the most critical issues facing ourcountry is how best to educate our chil-dren. While recognizing the contributionsof private education in serving particularconstituencies, we affirm the vital impor-tance of the public school system to ensur-ing the education of all. Public schoolsbelong to all citizens regardless of theirfaith perspectives. Public schools have thedifficult task of equipping children from allsectors of society for citizenship and trans-mitting to them our civic values. They offerthe opportunity — because of the diversityin public schools — to teach about and pro-mote respect for differing cultures, nation-alities and religions.

The primary goal of the public schools isthe education of children in an increasingly

A Shared Vision 9

diverse society, not to provide a captiveaudience for the transmission of religiousbeliefs. As a result, schools must not allowthe public trust to be manipulated for reli-gious goals. Schools are not to sponsor anyreligious exercises or to allow religious cer-emonies at school-directed events. Asagents of the state, they must not promoteor endorse any religion or even religion ingeneral. Nevertheless, public schoolsshould accommodate the religious rights ofstudents when that can be done withoutdisrupting the learning process or interfer-ing with the rights of others.

Applying these general principles, schoolsmay teach about religion so long as it isaccomplished from an academic, objectiveperspective that eschews proselytizing.Teaching about religion should occur whenthe subject naturally arises in the curricu-lum. We oppose interjecting religiousbeliefs into the curriculum at inappropriatepoints, such as attempting to teach cre-ationism in biology class under the guise ofscience. Schools may not sponsor orencourage prayer or other devotional activ-ities in the public classroom or at school-organized student gatherings. They shouldnot take sides in religious disputes or sug-gest one religious tradition is superior toothers. They should not teach in a way thatundermines the student’s sense of citizen-ship because of his or her religious beliefs,or lack thereof.

Nevertheless, schools should accommodatethe free exercise rights of students. Privatedevotion or religious exercise on the part ofa single student or a group of like-mindedstudents, including private prayer, Biblereading or other religious activities, is per-

10 A Shared Vision

mitted so long as it does not interfere withother students’ rights or with the educa-tional process. Schools should not discour-age students from discussing their faithwith other students except for reasonabletime, place and manner restrictions and theprotection of students from unwantedharassment. Under Supreme Court prece-dent, schools are generally free to permitvoluntary student religious groups to meetand to allow released time programs offcampus for religious studies without aca-demic credit.

In sum, public schools should not advancereligion, but should accommodate the freeexercise of religion. They may not confer abenefit on religion but may lift governmen-tally imposed burdens on the free exerciseof religion. They may not promote a reli-gious perspective but may teach about reli-gion.

Aid to Religious InstitutionsWe agree with Jefferson and Madison thatit is wrong to tax citizens to support theteaching of religion. In the words of theVirginia Statute for Establishing ReligiousFreedom: “No man shall be compelled tofrequent or support any religious worship,place, or ministry whatsoever ... .” Receiptof such aid — accompanied as it certainlywill be by government conditions and reg-ulations necessary to assure accountabilityand the appropriate use of public funds —brings with it a grave danger to the integri-ty and autonomy of religious institutions.As the late Rev. Dean Kelley, a religious lib-erty advocate, often said: “With the King’sshilling, comes the King.” While in its deci-sion in the Zelman case, the U.S. SupremeCourt held that, under the circumstances of

A Shared Vision 11

that case, indirect aid (vouchers) to a reli-gious school is constitutional, it did not dis-turb the time-honored prohibition on directfinancial aid to such schools. In any event,what may be constitutional is not alwayswise or good public policy. Therefore, weoppose direct and indirect governmentfunding of parochial schools at primaryand secondary levels and of pervasivelyreligious colleges and universities.

On the other hand, government aid to cer-tain social service programs sponsored byreligious organizations enjoys a long histo-ry. Aid to religious institutions, such as reli-giously affiliated hospitals or social serviceagencies, that provide secular services doesnot pose a threat to religious liberty, if serv-ices are provided on a nondiscriminatorybasis. However, if an institution indoctri-nates its clients with religion, or discrimi-nates based on religion in its admission oremployment policies in government-fund-ed services, receipt of government aid pres-ents substantial concerns. Because of theseconcerns, which arise from both constitu-tional and policy considerations, weoppose the “charitable choice” approach togovernment funding of social-service pro-grams, which would permit pervasivelyreligious organizations to receive publicfunds to provide social services and whichlacks other necessary church-state and anti-discrimination safeguards.

Having said this, we recognize that specialquestions arise when funded social servic-es, such as foster homes, are residential innature. In such cases government mustarrange for residents’ religious needs to bemet, where possible through access toexisting ministries in the community.

12 A Shared Vision

In sum, several broad and unifying princi-ples should be applied in determiningwhen it is appropriate for religious socialservices providers to receive governmentaid. Reference should be made to the typesof institutions and services involved, theconstituency to whom the services are pro-vided, and the adequacy of church-stateand anti-discrimination safeguards.Further, government’s partnership withreligious institutions for purposes of facili-tating the availability of social servicesshould recognize that privately fundedprograms in those institutions need notoperate under the same standards as pub-licly funded programs. In addition, reli-gious institutions that receive governmentfunds for secular programs should be per-mitted, consistent with constitutional prin-ciples, to maintain their religious identities.

ConclusionOur heritage of religious liberty and church-state separation must be reaffirmed. Theincreasing religious pluralism in our coun-try beckons us to turn this heritage into alegacy. The aspirations of the Founders —that religion should involve a voluntaryresponse and that government shouldremain neutral toward religion — must beconverted into practical reality. DanielCarroll of Maryland said it well over 200years ago when he declared that “the rightsof conscience are ... of particular delicacyand will little bear the gentlest touch ofgovernmental hand.” Carroll’s lofty view ofconscience captures our understanding ofour past and guides our vision of thefuture. We commit ourselves to makingthis ideal a reality in the 21st Century.

The American Jewish Committee1156 15th St., N.W., Suite 1201

Washington, D.C. 20005202-785-4200www.ajc.org

Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs200 Maryland Avenue, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20002202-544-4226

www.bjcpa.org

The Interfaith Alliance Foundation1331 H Street, N.W., 11th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20005202-639-6370

www.interfaithalliance.org

National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.110 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Suite 108

Washington, D.C. 20002202-544-2350

www.ncccusa.org

Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism2027 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 202-387-2800www.rac.org