Standing Up for Separation of Church and State

PART IV
D. Religious Organizations should not Seek Federal Grant Funds

Christians and Christian organizations should not seek federal
funding for their pervasively religious organizations to provide social
services and they should not seek federal funding for their schools. State
support comes with many strings attached. Even if current officials of
this Presidential Administration issue guidelines waiving various
requirements that have been routinely required of all federal grantees,
there is nothing to stop a future President or Congress from changing the
rules mid-stream, requiring, for example, the hiring of individuals that
have beliefs and life styles inconsistent with those of the religious
organization. They may also add new documentation requirements and proof
of a distinct separation between religious and social service aspects of
the organization.
Religious organizations that have become dependent on the
federal handout may find it tempting to succumb to the new federal
requirements rather than forfeit they money needed to pay mortgages, pay
employees and pay off operating expenses. Other organizations may simply
take the money and fail to adhere to the new, more stringent rules of the
next Administration. They may be ordered to repay the government
thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars, pursuant to government
audit reports finding violations of the federal requirements. And they may
be shocked to find no mercy from the government when they can't find enough
money to repay their grants. They could very well find their buildings
pad-locked by the government and sold to the highest bidder or taken over
for government purposes. Those who would cheer as the wall of separation
of church and state is torn down may soon regret their rash actions.

VIII. Exercising Spiritual Conscience in the Political Arena

Perhaps one reason some religious leaders have been pushing for
religious symbols such as the Ten Commandments to be a part of the
government buildings is that they feel they are under attack by those in
our society who would remove all reference to God and conscience from the
public discourse. There are those who assert that reference to one's faith
in God should not be made by elected officials when arguing for or against
legislation. To suggest that in public debate it violates the principles
of separation of church and state for an elected official to voice his
religious beliefs is not supported by a reasonable reading of the First
Amendment to the Constitution. As well stated by the Bishop of the Roman
Catholic Church of Colorado Springs, Colorado, "Among the many distortions
and misrepresentations that prevail in the current debates about the
relationship between religion and the social order (politics) is the
assertion that faith and politics are to be kept separated. This,
apparently, is based upon the American doctrine of the separation of church
and state. In fact, the wall that separates church and state is the
safeguard against both the establishment of a state religion and the
imposition of sectarian religious beliefs and practices, such as particular
denominational forms of worship or theological tenets. In no way does the
American doctrine of separation of church and state even suggest that the
well-formed consciences of religious people should not be brought to bear
on their political choices."[xxxvii]
Some strong advocates for separation of church and state have
also incorrectly interpreted the Constitution to bar students from bringing
their Bibles to school or from meeting on school property for religious
club meetings. As a result organizations like the American Center for Law
and Justice, represented by its Chief Counsel, Jay Sekulow, have sued
numerous school districts to preserve the rights of students to the free
exercise of their religion and equal access to school property for their
meetings and programs. Fortunately, this type of litigation has been
largely successful. But unfortunately, as much of secular society seems
set on eliminating all reference to God in any place other than the privacy
of one's home or church, the response of religious organizations has gone
overboard the other way in trying to force a secular adoption of God into
the public and even into the government.

IX. Conclusion

This paper is written with the firm conviction that America and
the Christian faith are best served by maintaining a strong, high wall
separating church and state. This wall gives equal protection to all
people to exercise their free will to exercise (or not exercise) religion
as their conscience may dictate. This wall also protects religion from
interference of government that might otherwise cause one or more religions
to become unduly influenced and beholden to the government by virtue to
government actions and tax dollars being used initially to their benefit
but ultimately to their demise. One of our Nation's great believers in
religious freedom, Benjamin Franklin, wisely said, "When a religion is
good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support
itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are
obliged to call for help of the civil power, ‘tis a sign, I apprehend, of
its being a bad one."[xxxviii] Stated plainly, those today who believe
that their religion is blessed by God should look to God and not the
Government for their sole support.

X. Hypotheticals for Contemplation and Discussion

Perhaps a series of hypothetical scenarios might help the
reader to better appreciate the issues and arguments presented in this
paper. Sometimes the best way to learn what we genuinely believe is to
subject ourselves to a series of hypothetical situations to observe how we
react. With this in mind, please consider each hypothetical below and
observe how you feel.

Hypothetical 1 -- Assume that you are a Christian resident of a
community in Michigan that is predominantly Muslim and that a majority of
the judges serving in the local courthouse are Muslim. Assume further that
the chief judge there decides to place a set of commandments derived from
the Koran, the Muslim Holy Book, onto a large plaque and post it in the
entry to the courthouse. Assume further that the mayor is Muslim as are a
majority of the town council and that they decide to post a similar Muslim
plaque on the wall of the council chambers. Finally, the principal of the
school is Muslim and decides that these are sound moral principles for
every girl and boy to study and to apply to their lives. So he posts a
similar plaque in every class room.
(1) As a parent, how do you feel about your children seeing these
Muslim plaques in the courthouses, official government offices, and
schools?
(2) If you oppose their placement into these buildings, what is the
basis for your opposition?
(3) If you say you oppose them because America is a "Christian nation" are
you suggesting that you believe the Judeo-Christian faiths are to be
favored over the Muslim religion? And, if so, how does that square with the
Constitution's First Amendment prohibiting the government from favoring one
religion over another?

Hypothetical 2 –. A state law has been enacted in your state
allowing for school prayer. Each school is to set aside time during the
first class of the morning for teachers to allow student volunteers to lead
a prayer and present a spiritual reading of their individual choice.
Your town population is 40 percent Buddhist, 10 percent Hindu,
10 percent Muslim and 20 percent Roman Catholic Christian, and 20 percent
Protestant Christian. Based on these percentages, your Protestant child
will participate in Buddhist practices 40 percent of the mornings, Hindu
practices 10 percent of the mornings, Islamic practices 10 percent of the
mornings and Roman Catholic practices 20 percent of the mornings. The
school tells you this is fair since the government is not endorsing any
religion but rather is treating all religions equally by allowing them all
to have their day in the classroom.
(1) How do you feel about this?
(2) Are you concerned that your child might be influenced by
teachers that he or she respects or by the majority of students who are
meditating with Buddhist teachings?
(3) Could the readings from Buddha or the Koran and the
mediations to Buddha and prayers to Allah in the classroom undermine your
teaching of Christian beliefs in your home? Are you comfortable with that?
(4) Do you feel that the Christian readings might influence
the religious beliefs of the other students who are not Christian? Do you
feel that is appropriate in a public school setting?

Hypothetical 3 – Congress appoints an advisory committee to
revise the Pledge of Allegiance to make it more politically correct and
acceptable to people of all religions including those who have subscribe to
no religion. The people on this advisory committee are carefully selected
from virtually every special interest group and religious group. Following
the recommendations, Congress enacts legislation adopting a new Pledge of
Allegiance. It reads: "I pledge allegiance to America , one nation under
the influence of an impersonal, higher power, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all."
(1) Would you be willing to pledge your allegiance to the
country that you love even if you had to acknowledge an impersonal higher
power? How is this different from requiring an atheist to recite a pledge
acknowledging a God they do not believe exists?
(2) If the new pledge is to be recited in all public schools,
how would uou feel about your child saying it?
(4) In order to help weed out terrorists, the new pledge is to
be recited by every person before voting at their polling place. It is
also to recited by every person enlisting for the military. How do you
feel about this?