Liberty Magazine | May / June 1998

http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=532[8/20/2012 12:25:14 PM]

HOME ABOUT US ARCHIVES SUBSCRIBE EDITOR'S BLOG IN THE MEDIA

CONTACT US

Whistlin' Dixie: Part 2

Brouhaha at Chi-Chi's

Op. Cit.

My Kingdom is Not of This World

Chandler's List

Immaculate Misconceptions

Iambs & Pentameters

When Faith Heals

MAY / JUNE 1998

Liberty Magazine | May / June 1998

http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=532[8/20/2012 12:25:14 PM]

NEW! LIBERTY ROUND TABLERead ongoing discussions on currentreligious liberty issues presented byleaders in the field. Read Now

EDITOR'S BLOGSchool prayer has been a matter ofserious contention for decades. In1962 the ...Read More

LIFEQUEST LIBERTYPodcast: Join Charles Mills andLincoln Steed as they look at ourreligious liberty. Listen Now.

CAMPAIGN RESOURCESWatch campaign videos anddownload resources to promote theReligious Liberty Offering. More Info.

SUPPORT LIBERTYYour donation will help us in ourpursuit to maintain the religiousfreedoms we enjoy.

ARCHIVESView andsearchpreviousissues ofLiberty

Obiter

Protecting the Protected

M AY / J U N E 1 9 9 8

When this nation or its people are attacked by foreign or domestic enemies or goes to war, such as the bombing in Oklahoma City,Operation Desert Storm, or the Cuban Missile Crisis, this judge will fine or put in jail teachers and students who publicly pray to theAlmighty for the protection of this nation and for the safety of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

This ruling cuts at he heart of all that is good in America and brings shame on our nation. Americans such as George Washington, whoratified and adopted the Constitution and its early amendments, participated in public prayers of dependence on God. Their children hadthe benefit of prayer in school. In that tradition I believe that the heartfelt prayers of Alabama citizens, whether uttered publicly orprivately, are rendered to God and God alone, and that the federal government has no right to interfere.

Judge DeMent ordered the appointment of a federal "monitor" to enter classrooms to look for any teachers or students who dare to prayto God contrary to his ruling, and then report back to the judge, like secret police, about which teachers or students he might want tohold in contempt, fine, or put in jail.

I wish another George Washington would arise to hold the office of president of the United States. President Washington, based on hisstatements in his Farewell Address condemning change to the Constitution by usurpation rather than an explicit and authentic act of thepeople, would be appalled at the prospect of American citizens jailed for praying to God. The justices and judges of that time knewbetter than to expect federal marshals and federal troops to enforce such an order. In fact, those judges who were privileged to hearWashington's Farewell Address well knew that they, and not praying citizens, faced jail if they engaged in tyranny by the judiciary.

Until justice prevails, Judge DeMent's injunction will presumably be enforced by federal authorities in Alabama. His "monitor" will combthe schools looking for those "dangerous criminals" who might, in a public setting, pray for the Father's blessing on this nation inviolation of his ruling. How many will be jailed for participating in traditional Thanksgiving programs for merely giving thanks to God?Judge DeMent will stand ready to round up these "criminals" and impose on them unwarranted restrictions on religious freedom.

It would have been a great day in the history of this country if Judge DeMent, who must know deep down that the Supreme Court hasillegally rewritten the Constitution, had exhibited the personal integrity and fortitude to obey his oath of office to the Constitution itselfrather than the political agendas of U.S. Supreme Court justices. The oath of office of a judge is like the oath of a witness to tell thetruth. The integrity of the legal system is destroyed by judges who see their duty as owed to the U.S. Supreme Court and not to the U.S.Constitution. I will resist Judge DeMent's order by every legal and political means with every ounce of strength I posses.

Liberty Magazine | Whistlin' Dixie: Part 2 http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=533

1 of 1 8/20/2012 12:17 PM

M AY / J U N E 1 9 9 8

BY: DIMITRI VASSILAROS

When Cora Miller said "No way, Jose," Chi-Chi's Mexican restaurant said "Adios, amiga." The Clinton, Maryland, attendant refused tosing a happy birthday song for a customer. It was her second day of work, and her last.

Cora Miller is a Jehovah's Witness. She chose serving God over enchiladas. Her religion forbids the celebration of all birthdays,including Christ's, so in obedience to her view of the Lord's will, she wouldn't sing the required ditty for the birthday boy.

I went to my local Chi-Chi's to witness for myself what the fuss was all about (and not just because it was an easy way to justify a mealwrite-off and mileage deduction). The birthday celebration at Chi-Chi's comes in a package called the TFM: Treasures From Mexico.Each child at the party gets a kid's meal, a card for a free meal, a restaurant tour, a hat and picture, and crayons. They also get to hearevery server who is not a Jehovah's Witness sing the Chi-Chi's happy birthday song. (Uno, dos, tres . . . )

Aye, yie, yie,

We wish you a happy birthday.

Chi-Chi's gang is here to say,

We wish you have a special day.

So aye, yie, yie,

We wish you a happy birthday.

Olé!

The servers wore silly hats and some shook their tambourines. So who could blame Cora Miller?

Of course, Cora had to put her foot down somewhere (not in tempo, though, with "aye, yie, yie"). After all, if she had sung the birthdaysong, what else could Chi-Chi's have demanded from her (had they kept her there long enough for the Sizzling Chajitas to cool)? Wouldshe have been asked to help decorate the restaurant for the religious holidays that she views as pagan abominations? If her religionforbids celebrating Christmas, Easter, and even the Fourth of July, how could she have obeyed her employer while obeying her God?

Despite the apparent silliness, this incident deals with a real problem facing thousands of American workers all the time: Can anemployee's right of religious freedom coexist with an employer's right to freely run a business?

If that were my Chi-Chi's, what would I have done? With the help of legal counsel, I would have had a job description for every position.If employees were expected to participate in tree-trimming or any other holiday events, those duties would be spelled out. Should aprospective employee have a concern about the birthday song thing or anything else that could conflict with their sincere religiousbeliefs, that problem could be discussed-and settled-right then and there (though, in fairness to Chi-Chi's, who would have thoughtbeforehand that singing a birthday ditty would run afoul of someone's religious beliefs?).

On the other hand, what would I do if I were Cora Miller? Should I turn to the government for help? After all, there are laws, passed byCongress, that are supposed to help protect against this sort of thing. In 1972 Congress amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (whichalready forbade employment discrimination based on religion), to include as a form of religious discrimination the failure to accommodatereasonably an employee's religious needs, unless that accommodation would impose what is termed an "undue hardship" on the

Liberty Magazine | Brouhaha at Chi-Chi's http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=534

1 of 2 8/20/2012 12:18 PM

employer. The question is, How undue of a hardship might it have been on the Chi-Chi's management to get Catholic, Lutheran,Moonie, or Rastafarian servers to sing instead of poor Cora Miller, trying in her own way to witness to Jehovah?

But before Big Brother is drafted in the crusades against the infidels, could religion win this battle by persuasion instead of brute force?Before I left Chi-Chi's (barely avoiding the fried ice cream), I picked up a 3 x 5 card with a questionnaire to fill out with suggestions forimprovement. Perhaps, before calling the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and filing a complaint, Cora could haveasked many of her coreligionists to fill out the cards and explain to the management the principles of religious freedom.

Maybe it would have made a difference, maybe not. But if it did-wouldn't that be the preferred solution, rather than dragging all sorts oflawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats into our religious disputes?

Olé.

Dimitri Vassilaros is a radio talk-show host in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a columnist for the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

Liberty Magazine | Brouhaha at Chi-Chi's http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=534

2 of 2 8/20/2012 12:18 PM

M AY / J U N E 1 9 9 8

Better Late Than Never

I was first made aware of your magazine when I was a member of the Montana House of Representatives due to your habit of keepinglegislators informed of your views. I want you to know that during my eight years in Montana government, I did not receive a publicationthat I valued more highly than yours. I found the articles informative without being demeaning of others' views, and the informationpresented in a balanced way. On numerous occasions I worked quotes from your articles into debate. Always, I felt, they elevated thequality of the exchange. So, thanks for giving me the free ride.The Bill of Rights is not a partisan political document, no matter how much one political party or another tries to make it so. My cousin,who is an important figure in the South Carolina Republican Party, and I, a Montana Democrat, do not disagree on the beneficence ofthe Establishment Clause for this country, and we have both worked to keep religion out of government. Your magazine has made iteasier to do, and hence, this long overdue letter of appreciation.JIM ELLIOTTTrout Creek, Montana

"When Faith Kills": Christian Scientists Respond

Religious freedom advocates appreciate and benefit from thoughtful, informed discussion about the legal and societal issues arising outof reliance on prayer for healing, especially as it relates to children. Unfortunately, the recent article in your magazine, "When FaithKills," by Steven G. Gey, presents a highly distorted impression of the theology, healing practice, and efficacy of Christian Science.First, details about the Twitchell case presented at the outset of the article give a very faulty impression of what actually occurred.During their child's illness-and during the trial-the Twitchells reported seeing ups and downs in their son's condition (not the unrelievedsuffering implied in the article). Even during the day on which he died, he appeared to be improving.Robyn Twitchell died of an undiagnosed bowel obstruction, as the article states, but Mr. Gey implies that had the parents soughtconventional medical care, the condition would have been readily diagnosed and could then have been corrected through surgery. Suchan assumption was called into question by expert medical testimony at the trial. And, in fact, the same year of the Twitchell tragedy(1986), Heather O'Rourke, the 12-year-old movie star of Poltergeist fame, died of an undiagnosed bowel obstruction, even though shehad the best medical care available. Worth considering is how differently parents in these two cases were treated: parents relying onspiritual healing were prosecuted while those who relied on conventional medicine were not (and I do not mean to imply that they shouldhave been). This situation is mirrored in the larger observation that parents who rely on spiritual healing are generally held to a higherstandard.The "Faith" article also presented a very distorted picture of Mary Baker Eddy, founder of the Christian Science Church, repeatingunfounded accusations and rumors about her character, physical health, and authorship of Science and Health With Key to theScriptures-all of which have either been debunked or reasonably explained in several biographies by authors outside of as well as inChristian Science. Her recent induction into the National Women's Hall of Fame as well as the recognition of Science and Health by theWomen's National Book Association as one of 75 books by "women whose words have changed the world" reveal widespread,sustained recognition of her accomplishments.Another point may have confused your readers. The boxed story that followed Mr. Gey's article-in which Mark Twain spins a yarn aboutan experience he had-is entirely fictional, fabricated solely to make light of Christian Science. There would have been more balance tothe presentation, too, had it been coupled with noting that Twain also wrote in praise of Mrs. Eddy and Christian Science, as severalcontemporary biographers have commented.While a letter to the editor could never set forth fully the theological views of any religion, it's important to at least clarify that, contrary toMr. Gey's statement that Mrs. Eddy "developed a systematic theory of the supremacy of mind over body," neither a "mind over body"philosophy, nor "faith healing," has anything to do with Christian Science. The foundation of healing in Christian Science is anunderstanding and systematic application of the laws, not of the human mind, but of God, found in the Bible, and which were the basisof the healing works performed by Jesus Christ during His ministry. "Faith healing," if by that term is meant a blind trust in God, or awillingness to allow disease or suffering as God's will, is completely inconsistent with Christian Science.Regarding the claim that 1974 federal law regulations were the reason that states passed religious accommodation laws, Mr. Gey hasthe cart before the horse. By 1974 many states were already in the process of adding a medical neglect category to their child abuseand neglect state statutes. At the same time, these states were adding language which would ensure children would not be labeledneglected simply because of the parents' religious practice. Rather than forcing states to change their statutes, the federal regulationwas simply the result of a national trend in this direction. The fact is that most state law accommodations respecting spiritual healingexist because legislators became informed about the efficacy of Christian Science, and reached an understanding that this is aresponsible religious practice.And that leads to the most troubling aspect of the article, which is its premise that spiritual healing as practiced in Christian Science isineffective to bring about healing. This premise sets the stage for the constitutional discussion which assumes that the interests of

Liberty Magazine | Op. Cit. http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=535

1 of 2 8/20/2012 12:18 PM

religious freedom and of protecting children are inherently in conflict. This assumption does not square with the facts. No letter to theeditor could begin to describe the countless instances throughout the world when relying on Christian Science prayer alone resulted inhealing, nor come to grips with the extensive healing record Christian Science has established over the last 125 years. A significantpercentage of these healings have been of medically diagnosed diseases. Any dismissal of this healing record as "merely anecdotal,"therefore, simply flies in the face of reality.The article also focuses on the recent litigation about the federal Medicare and Medicaid statutes, arguing that many religiousaccommodations will be successfully challenged as violations of the Constitution's Establishment Clause. The constitutional problemfound by the Court, however, was that the provisions accommodated only Christian Science and no other religion, and not thataccommodating religion is an Establishment Clause problem. In fact, the Court's concern was whether similarly situated religions wouldalso receive accommodation in the law, not that Congress could not accommodate any religion. A new provision now in the lawaddresses this problem by making the religious accommodation "sect-neutral." The other prong of the constitutional provisions onreligion, the Free Exercise Clause, should mean at least that the healing record in Christian Science must be known before any decisionas to whether its healing method is a responsible approach to health care can be made.Children do have the right to effective health care. Parents who choose Christian Science for healing do so because, based on theirexperience, it is just that.DEBORA A. GEORGATOS,Legal CounselChristian Science Committee on PublicationWashington, D.C.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I appreciated the spirit of tolerance for other faiths shown in several articles in your January/ February issue. That's why I was surprisedto read in "When Faith Kills," the implication that Christian Science parents would choose to martyr their children rather than resort tomedical treatment. Neither church policy nor the practice of individual Christian Science parents supports that implication.In my 1993 annual report distributed to all Christian Scientists in Arkansas, describing meetings with every Christian Sciencecongregation, I wrote, "In children's cases, we accepted the responsibility to place the child's welfare above all else." In a public talk in1996 I stated, "The child's welfare is top priority, above the parents' religious rights."Our parents know to turn immediately to an understanding of God's all-power for effective healing. Parents in Arkansas have reported asolid record of children's healings, including polio, diphtheria, tuberculosis, scarlet fever, whooping cough, scoliosis, and severalnewborns not expected to live. They have resorted occasionally to medical care when serious cases did not yield to prayer, but due totheir overall past successes, their natural first choice is spiritual treatment.The child's welfare is paramount. Is it any wonder that Christian Science parents turn to what they have found to be the best care, God'shealing love?ROBERT D. WRIGHTChristian Science Committee on PublicationMaumelle, Arkansas

Liberty Magazine | Op. Cit. http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=535

2 of 2 8/20/2012 12:18 PM

M AY / J U N E 1 9 9 8

BY: ELLEN G. W HITE

But today in the religious world there are multitudes who, as they believe, are working for the establishment of the kingdom of Christ asan earthly and temporal dominion. They desire to make our Lord the ruler of the kingdoms of this world, the ruler in its courts andcamps, its legislative halls, its palaces and market places. They expect Him to rule through legal enactments, enforced by humanauthority. Since Christ is not now here in person, they themselves will undertake to act in His stead, to execute the laws of His kingdom.The establishment of such a kingdom is what the Jews desired in the days of Christ. They would have received Jesus, had He beenwilling to establish a temporal dominion, to enforce what they regarded as the laws of God, and to make them the expositors of His willand the agents of His authority. But He said, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). He would not accept the earthly throne.

The government under which Jesus lived was corrupt and oppressive; on every hand were crying abuses-extortion, intolerance, andgrinding cruelty. Yet the Saviour attempted no civil reforms. He attacked no national abuses, nor condemned the national enemies. Hedid not interfere with the authority or administration of those in power. He who was our example kept aloof from earthly governments.Not because He was indifferent to the woes of men, but because the remedy did not lie in merely human and external measures. To beefficient, the cure must reach men individually, and must regenerate the heart.

Not by the decisions of courts or councils or legislative assemblies, not by the patronage of worldly great men, is the kingdom of Christestablished, but by the implanting of Christ's nature in humanity through the work of the Holy Spirit. "As many as received him, to themgave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of theflesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12, 13). Here is the only power that can work the uplifting of mankind. And the humanagency for the accomplishment of this work is the teaching and practicing of the word of God.

When the apostle Paul began his ministry in Corinth, that populous, wealthy, and wicked city, polluted by the nameless vices ofheathenism, he said, "I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2). Writingafterward to some of those who had been corrupted by the foulest sins, he could say, "But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but yeare justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." "I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of Godwhich is given you by Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1:4).

Now, as in Christ's day, the work of God's kingdom lies not with those who are clamoring for recognition and support by earthly rulersand human laws, but with those who are declaring to the people in His name those spiritual truths that will work in the receivers theexperience of Paul: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me" (Galatians 2:20). Then they will laboras did Paul for the benefit of men. He said, "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we prayyou in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God" (2 Corinthians 5:20).

Excerpted from Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, pp. 509, 510

Liberty Magazine | My Kingdom is Not of This World http://libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=536

1 of 1 8/20/2012 12:19 PM

M AY / J U N E 1 9 9 8

BY: LAURIE A. LATTIMORE

Michael Chandler has been trying to figure out why he's different. A product of northeast Alabama, Chandler has lived in De KalbCounty all his life. As he walks along his deck, pointing out the boundaries of his 30-acre property, Chandler tells his junior high son notto stay out too long on the four-wheeler-it's getting cold.

He saunters into the garage to show off his 1966 silver Corvette Roadster. Then to the 1950 candy-apple red Mercury with remotecontrol doors and the 1951 black Ford. Pointing to the black beauty, Chandler says, "This was my first car. I got it in 1967 and have hadit ever since." Jesse is partial to the Corvette; the 14-year-old is counting the days until he gets to take over his dad's wheels.

Chandler grew up Southern Baptist and married a Methodist. He's been teaching in De Kalb County since he graduated from nearbyJacksonville State University and the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, just 100 miles down the road.

Chandler is not a troublemaker. A dedicated educator and self-professed Christian, he's just doing what he believes is right.Unfortunately, his fight to uphold the First Amendment put him at odds with many of his neighbors. When he was responsible for gettingAlabama's 1993 school prayer law overturned last spring, the opposition let loose. When the federal court judge followed up his March12 decision with an October 29 injunction for De Kalb County, the opposition turned into hysteria.

"I can't figure out," Chandler says, "why nobody else sees it."

At least one important player does see it his way. Judge Ira DeMent determined in March 1997 that a state law allowing student-initiatedvoluntary prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The state law allowed for "nonsectarian, nonproselytizingstudent-initiated voluntary prayer, invocation and/or benedictions" during compulsory or non-compulsory school-related events, includingassemblies, commencement exercises and athletic events.

In the 18-page decision for Chandler v. James, DeMent argued that while much of the religious activity in De Kalb County may havebeen led by students, it still carried government endorsement because of its time, place, and manner. Subjecting all students to listen toa prayer offered to God or to a scripture reading from the Bible is the school's sponsorship of Christianity-even if student-initiated andstudent-led.

"Because the resources and facilities of the state are utilized when a 'student-initiated' prayer is given in the public schools, thosehearing the prayer may be led to believe the state is associated with or endorses either the speaker's religion or religion overnonreligion," DeMent wrote. The judge explained that what is considered permissible religious activity in some settings actually violatesthe government's neutrality toward religion in public schools. Quoting from the landmark Lee v. Weisman (1992), in which prayers wereoutlawed during graduation exercises, DeMent noted that what believers may think is merely asking for respect of their religiousconvictions is often an attempt to employ the state, via the public schools, to "enforce a religious orthodoxy."

And that is exactly what Chandler found. Videotaping school assemblies and football games for more than 10 years, Chandler, theassistant principal at Valley Head High School, was able to convince the judge that De Kalb County schools were essentially endorsingChristianity and stopping just short of trying to evangelize it. In fact, one letter to the editor in the Alabama Baptist News Journal statedthat the paper's support of the judge's ruling was blasphemy because the decision prohibited the mission to spread the gospel in publicschools.

But in his March ruling and October injunction, DeMent carefully stressed that he is not banning students' rights to religious expressionat school. In fact, the judge distinguishes the legal from the illegal in his injunction: students can use religious textbooks if material ispresented in an historical/ objective manner; express religious beliefs in their homework, reports, artwork, and other assignments orthrough personal jewelry and clothing; engage in religious activity during noninstructional time; pray individually at a graduationceremony or make reference to God during a speech as long as it does not call on audience response; make announcements over PAsystems about meeting times for religious clubs or activities; and distribute religious material during noninstructional time. Students caneven gather a group to pray together during noninstructional hours as long as only those who wish to participate are involved.

On the other hand, he said that students are not allowed to offer vocal prayer, scripture readings, or devotion during instructional time,even if student-led; lead a public prayer or give a devotional during graduation exercises; say a prayer over the PA system at school orschool-sponsored athletic events; and allow outside groups to pass out Bibles on campus and during instructional time. The judge

Liberty Magazine | Chandler's List http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=537

1 of 5 8/20/2012 12:19 PM

dismissed the idea of students leading prayers during classtime and just announcing that those who do not want to participate are notforced to.

"Students can really do anything they want as long as they don't force others to do it with them," Chandler said, noting the decision doesnot take away rights but rather clarifies the religious liberty students do have. Because school administrators in Alabama can be suremost prayers and other religious activities will come out of a Christian faith, they aren't worried about prayers broadcast over PAsystems and at assemblies, he added. "They wouldn't be in favor of freedom of religious expression if it weren't Protestant."

Chandler's concern over illegal religious activity started in the early 1980s, when a new student to Valley Head Elementary Schoolrequested not to sit in on the religion classes. The young Jehovah's Witness would not stand for listening to a Protestant preacher whileattending a public school.

"I didn't know we had religion classes, but I found out it was true-a pastor came in every week and made the rounds to every classroomfor a Bible study lesson," Chandler said, adding that he promptly arranged for the girl to spend the religion period sitting in his office.However, this led to ridicule by her classmates. "I went to the school board and they refused to stop it. They told me the classes didsome good."

Having failed to put an end to the unconstitutional practices through a school board mandate, Chandler began documenting hiscomplaints with written records and videotapes. Such labor for more than a decade was the bedrock of evidence in DeMent'sdetermination that De Kalb County was in fact violating the First Amendment by following the state's school prayer law. Some ofChandler's cited violations include prayers before required school assemblies, prayers broadcast over the PA system at school and atfootball games, and Bibles passed out by Gideons during classtime.

"The Gideons would walk down the aisles of a classroom and hand out Bibles," Chandler recalled. In one instance a boy refused to takethe Bible. "He drew back, and the Gideon asked why wouldn't he want to take the Book that could change his life. That made me mad,because kids feel pressured."

Chandler and his wife, Barbara, knew that once he contacted the ACLU over the religion in schools issue, the family would take someheat. But Chandler admits he did not expect the barrage of opposition over what he considers a fairly cut-and-dried constitutional matter.

"They've been doing it so long, they actually think they've got the right to continue," Chandler stated.

As is often the case, the most vocal against DeMent's ruling have no idea what his decision prohibits and what it permits. Prayer is nolonger just a spiritual act in De Kalb County; it is a political agenda across the state.

Since the October decision, students at various De Kalb County schools have protested. Twenty-three students in Fyffe weresuspended for cutting class to participate in a prayer demon-stration. In Boaz hundreds of students filed out of classes to meet on thetennis courts and pray. Nearly 60 students in Albertville refused to go to classes. Instead they marched to City Hall and prayed aroundthe flagpole. Students at Sardis, Crossville, Glencoe, and Sand Mountain high schools met at midfield during the halftimes of theirhometown football games to pray-more for protest than conviction, no doubt.

A Saturday night rally in Rainsville the week after DeMent's order attracted thousands to the local community center. Headed by DeanYoung, rally organizers claimed DeMent's ruling "took God out of schools" and violated students' rights to religious liberty. Young, chiefof Alabama's Christian Family Association, is most widely known for his association with Judge Roy Moore, the Etowah County judgewho has gained notoriety and celebrity for his fight to keep the Ten Commandments on his courtroom wall.

Ignoring the U.S. Constitution and legal precedent for the last 30-plus years, Young is calling for the religious tradition of the Bible Beltto be the order of the day.

"It is a sad day in this state and nation when a single judge can force his opinion on the people of Alabama when the vast majority of thecitizens in this state disagree with that opinion," Young stated. "If one federal judge can dictate to the people of this state how theycannot perform religious activities, we are not very far from the time when they will remove all religious rights of the people."

It hasn't helped that Alabama's Governor Fob James and Judge Moore are two of the most outspoken against DeMent's order. After all,down South, school prayer is a good vote-getter at election time in November. James stated his support for the student protests andeven encouraged such reaction. "I am totally sympathetic to students, teachers, and all Alabamians who lawfully protest Judge DeMent'sunlawful order to strip them of their constitutional right to acknowledge God in or near public schools," the governor said.

The problem stems from a basic conflict over the meaning of church-state separation. Since the Supreme Court first identified the legalseparation of church and state in Engle v. Vitale (1962), the balance between the free exercise of religion and a state- sponsored

Liberty Magazine | Chandler's List http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=537

2 of 5 8/20/2012 12:19 PM

religion has been a sticky one. The Court ruled in Engle that a prayer recited before school every morning was state-sponsored andtherefore unconstitutional. A year later the Supreme Court said reading a scripture and reciting the Lord's Prayer were advancingreligion-a position the Court has reinforced in a variety of cases over the past three decades.

Alabama's early attempts to pass a state law permitting prayer in schools were shot down in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985); the Court saidthe way the law was written made the moment of meditation or voluntary prayer cross the line of separation between religion andgovernment. Now Judge DeMent has said the Constitution still reads the same as it did in 1985, as it did in 1962-that governmentattempts to legislate prayer into public schools violates First Amendment guarantees.

But Alabama has a history of being stubborn. In spite of the legal precedents, Alabama officials are determined to push the issue on theU.S. Supreme Court once again.

The day of DeMent's October injunction, the American Center for Law and Justice of Alabama was already inundating pressrooms witha release stating its opposition.

"This is a classic case of overbreadth," said Stuart J. Roth, executive director of the ACLJ of Alabama. Roth claimed DeMent hadproscribed vocal prayer, Bible devotionals, scripture readings, and distribution of religious materials completely. "This injunction willinevitably create 'religion-free' zones in public schools throughout the state and invite government censorship of clearly protected freespeech."

Taking advantage of the situation by offering legal counsel to students who believed their constitutional rights were abridged as a resultof the injunction, Roth has since joined with Alabama attorney general Bill Pryor in filing an appeal in U.S. district court and has beenlitigating the issue for students who believe their rights have been violated.

"[DeMent's] order strikes at the very heart of fundamental religious liberties," Roth stated. "Our country's religious liberties must beprotected so that public school students have the right to share their religious beliefs with fellow students in the marketplace of ideas."

Pryor, who curiously supported DeMent's ruling in March when the judge struck down Alabama's latest school prayer law, is most likelyappealing the ruling for its political boost (informal polls in the local press suggest that anywhere from 60 to 80 percent of respondentsfavor prayer in school). Pryor is concerned only with portions of the ruling that he claims limit constitutional religious expression. "I amcommitted to this appeal and to the restoration of our students' right to prayer and free expression of their religious feeling," Pryorstated.

Some of the opposition revolves around the monitors Judge DeMent ordered in each De Kalb County school to ensure the schools donot continue with the unconstitutional religious practices. While almost all legal scholars recognize these "prayer police" are potential redflags if their authority is abused, DeMent's watchdog plan is taken directly from the 1960s, when courts used monitors to guarantee thatthe civil rights of all students were obeyed.

"This federal monitor business is an injustice," said Dean Young. "We are seeing our children being squeezed out of their religiousliberties, and if we don't do something now, it will continue to get worse."

Pamela Sumners, a Birmingham attorney working with the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Chandler, noted that the ACLUagreed to join in having those phrases withdrawn, but the state refused. Sumners believes the governor and attorney general have toomuch political popularity to milk from this case before letting it go.

"The response we got was that there would be no accommodation to rewriting the case. It is an election year, and they want to appeal,"she said. "It is the sheerest, crassest propaganda I have ever seen."

Sumners believes the governor is just wasting taxpayer money with his lawsuit. "If the Supreme Court doesn't just throw it out at thebeginning, I think they'll just tell James the same thing they told him 12 years ago . . . that he is wrong."

For now the governor is enjoying chastising the Supreme Court and the federal courts for "wrongfully taking power away from thestates" in his estimation (see box). Ironically, James would like to see the matter of state's rights answered by federal power-the U.S.Congress. And in the immediate case, James wants President Clinton to go over the court decision and rule it does not apply to thestate of Alabama.

"If Clinton had the guts of the great presidents-Jefferson, Jackson, and Roosevelt-he would not allow this order to be followed," Jamessaid.

But while James and Pryor continue making the prayer issue a political one, Michael Chandler, with his list of abuses, is fighting to teach

Liberty Magazine | Chandler's List http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=537

3 of 5 8/20/2012 12:19 PM

his students that they do have religious rights-individual rights granted by the Constitution, not rights promulgated through majorityrule-and that those rights apply to everyone, not just Christians.

Chandler knew when he started this fight more than a decade ago that it could come to this. But for the sociology/psychology teacherwho was given the 1997 Religious Freedom Award from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, constitutional rightsare always worth standing up for.

"I have no regrets. I'll go to the Supreme Court if I have to," Chandler said, noting his motivation is for the students. "I hope they can goto school and are free to think whatever they want . . . with no coercive prayers."

Laurie A. Lattimore is news editor of the Alabama Baptist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Side Bar

WHISTLIN' DIXIE

by Laurie A. Lattimore

Judge DeMent's ruling against De Kalb County's violation of the First Amendment has become quite a platform for Alabama governorFob James, who will run for his second term in November. When a Dothan high school principal reported that the band would not beallowed to play three religious Christmas carols in its program, the governor used the incident to broadcast another address on hisopposition to DeMent. The governor failed to mention that the Dothan city school board had overruled the principal and determined thereligious songs would not be a violation of DeMent's order.

"The attorney general and the governor saying that a valedictorian can't deliver a speech about how Mother Teresa influenced her life,and claiming that students can't use their Bibles in school or sing 'Silent Night,' are just blatant falsehoods," said Pamela Sumners of theACLU, adding that polls indicating many Alabamians support the governor proves their ignorance. "We get what we elect."

And what they elected is a governor who believes the real issue in this case is not school prayer but jurisdiction. While lawyers andlegal scholars debate the provisions of Judge DeMent's order, the governor is fighting to get the case thrown out. James believes thestate constitution, not the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, is controlling, and therefore, federal courts, including DeMent's, have noauthority on school prayer.

"We need to deal with the fundamental issue that Judge DeMent does not have the legal authority to meddle in the legal affairs of thepeople," James said from his Montgomery office, which lies less than 500 feet away from the historical site marking the birth of theConfederacy-the epitome of state's rights versus federal authority. "There is no shadow of a doubt that [DeMent] is out of line."

Feeling so strongly about his position, James wrote a 34-page letter to DeMent last June, claiming that the Constitution gave onlycertain authority to the federal government; where life, liberty, and property were concerned, the Constitution relegated power to thestates. James argues religious liberty is therefore defined by the state, not the First Amendment. He further contends that using theFourteenth Amendment to apply the First Amendment to the states is an illegal use of the Court's authority.

Sumners laughs at James's "secessionist tirade," pointing out the spanking Alabama received 13 years ago in the Wallace v. Jaffreecase. James and his attorney son, Fob James, Jr., argued to the Supreme Court then that the application of the First Amendment to thestates through the Fourteenth Amendment was absurd. The Court rejected the claim and subsequently struck down Alabama's schoolprayer/moment of silence law.

Thomas Berg, a law professor at Cumberland Law School in Birmingham, is a little softer in his criticism of James's opinion.Nevertheless, he thinks the governor's argument is a moot point. The law professor pointed out that historically there is some questionabout whether the Fourteenth Amendment was to apply to the states. Berg cited a statement by J. Bingham and J. Howard, two of theproposers of the 1867 amendment, in which they say clearly it is meant to apply to the states. "So that is definite evidence," he said.

Liberty Magazine | Chandler's List http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=537

4 of 5 8/20/2012 12:19 PM

However, Berg said there is a legitimate rebuttal as well. In 1875 Congress considered, and rejected, an amendment specifically statingthat no state could establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. Governor James and others like him believe that such anamendment would never have been proposed had it been clear in 1867 that the Fourteenth Amendment was applying the FirstAmendment to the states.

But Berg-and more importantly for James, the Supreme Court-doesn't even question that the First Amendment does override stateconstitutions.

"It has been binding precedent for 50 years, and I think people want the Bill of Rights to apply to them," Berg said. "James will have noluck getting the Supreme Court to think otherwise."

Berg believes there are questionable areas in DeMent's ruling, but he would advise remanding the order back to the judge forclarification and more precise wording.

"Overall, the judge is right in line with the Supreme Court, and in my opinion, is constitutionally right and morally right," Berg said, whichmeans that Governor James, with his assault on the incorporation of the First Amendment to the states, is, basically, whistlin' Dixie.

Liberty Magazine | Chandler's List http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=537

5 of 5 8/20/2012 12:19 PM

M AY / J U N E 1 9 9 8

BY: MELISSA ROGERS

"Tear down the wall! Tear down the wall!" the crowd shouted, inspired by Alabama governor Fob James's remarks at a rally in support ofJudge Roy Moore's practice of opening sessions with prayer and of displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom.

"The Supreme Court's 'wall of separation,'" the governor told the crowd, "reminds me of another wall of separation to protect Communistregimes so evil they had to erect walls to keep their people in. On one side of the Berlin Wall was freedom; on the other was tyranny.We have a wall of separation in America erected not by the American people but by a few elitist judges."

No doubt many churchgoing, God-loving, self-proclaimed Christians made up a majority of those cheering Governor James as heattacked separation of church and state.

These same Christians, however, weren't shouting against the kind of church-state separation that prevents the government frominterfering with their religious beliefs, practices, and ministries. No way. They don't shout against that kind.

What kind, then, do they shout against?

First, they shout against the kind of separationism that they believe dampens their evangelistic efforts.

Judge Moore's case is a perfect example. The judge says that ceasing official court prayer and removing the Ten Commandments wouldviolate his obligation to spread the Christian faith. Now, it is true, the Bible does encourage Judge Moore (and all Christians) to spreadthe faith; but it's just as true that the Bible doesn't give much encouragement to use the power of the government to do so.

Look at Jesus Himself. He constantly resisted the temptation to use government machinery to produce spiritual conversion. When, forinstance, Jesus appeared before Pontius Pilate (the Roman ruler who questioned Him before the crucifixion), Pilate asked, "Are you theKing of the Jews?" Jesus answered: "My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that Imight not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world" (John 18:33, 36).* His words clearly express a principlethat divides secular power from the work of advancing His kingdom.

Jesus also shunned earthly power after performing a miracle near the Sea of Tiberias. After feeding 5,000 people with just five loaves ofbread and two fish, Jesus perceived that the crowd was "about to come and take him by force to make him king." He responded to theiradvances by withdrawing again to the mountain by himself" (John 6:15). Again, Christ shunned anything political.

These few scriptural examples are consistent with Jesus' most explicit teaching on church-state separation. "Render . . . to Caesar thethings that are Caesar's," He said, "and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21). With one statement Jesus separated andlegitimized civil and religious authority, while encouraging Christians to recognize the difference between the two.

But was Jesus a great evangelist? Of course He was. There is no conflict between evangelism and church-state separation. Christiansare called to be God's prophets. Nothing about church-state separation requires Christians to make anything less than a full commitmentto their faith. Separation merely insures that coercive civil power will not be used to carry out sacred missions. By shunning the use ofgovernmental power to advance religion, each person is allowed to respond to God freely and meaningfully, rather than being a captiveaudience of official courtroom prayer or paying compulsory taxes to aid religion.

When church and state operate as a joint venture, Christians often drive away the very people they are interested in reaching. Forexample, many Jews and Muslims have searing memories of being ostracized when their public school-sponsored prayers or otherChristian activities-experiences that are hardly conducive toward making them followers of Christ.

Moreover, government-approved Christianity rarely makes converts. The motto "In God We Trust" on our money hasn't won many (ifany) to Christ. By calling for the right of Judge Moore to post the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, a congressional representativemay save their seat, but not their (or anyone else's) soul. A nonsectarian, nonproselytizing prayer before a legislative session mayoffend no one, but it doesn't usually inspire anyone either.

Another form of separation that Christians shout against is the kind that seems to them unfair and overly legalistic. The following quotesare typical among Christians today:

Liberty Magazine | Immaculate Misconceptions http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=538

1 of 2 8/20/2012 12:19 PM

"Why can't official prayers be offered in courtrooms or the Ten Commandments posted in solitary grandeur on the courthouse wall?"

"It's tradition, it's comfortable. Why can't the ACLU just keep their hands off?"

"Who is hurt by a few prayers said by schoolchildren in the morning before class?"

Part of the problem is simple misunderstanding. When judges prevent official prayer in a courtroom or a public school or the posting ofthe Ten Commandments on a courtroom wall, they do not rob anyone of these religious practices; nor are these practices driven out ofthe public square. Prayers can be offered silently by everyone, any time, anywhere-even by a judge in a courtroom. Citizens generallycan hold religious rallies and pray aloud in public parks as long as such parks are open to other free-speech activities. The TenCommandments can be posted in every home and church in Alabama and the rest of the nation. Further, the Ten Commandments caneven be displayed in a courtroom if part of a larger display of historical items not intended to advance religion.

Judge Charles Price, who prohibited Judge Moore's Ten Commandments display, explained that contrary to the beliefs of thoseprotesting his decision, "my ruling guaranteed their religious freedom-the religious freedom from public officials." Judge Price, (an AMESunday school teacher), said that the Ten Commandments "are not in peril. The Ten Commandments have been here since God gavethem to Moses. How can you threaten the Ten Commandments? It's God's word."

Judge Price cogently observed that government sponsorship of religion seems all right when "it's your religion, but tomorrow it will besomebody else's religion, and then we're going to have problems."

A recent story in The Washington Post told of a 10-mile stretch of highway in Montgomery County, Maryland, dotted with nearly threedozen congregations: three Catholic churches, one Ukrainian Orthodox, two Seventh-day Adventist, two Jehovah's Witness, 21 MainlineProtestant and Baptist, one synagogue, one mosque, one Buddhist temple, one Hindu temple, and one Unitarian church. This is only asmall illustration of the continuing diversification of faith in our country. Thus if Christians support government endorsement of religion,then they must be ready to support government endorsement of all these faiths, and more, in public schools and with tax dollars. If thegovernment can't endorse the thousands of religions in this country (and let's face it, it can't), it will have to pick and choose whichreligions get an official stamp of approval, possibly triggering the kind of unrest that has often made life miserable in countries where thegovernment endorses some religions and not others.

Finally, the last kind of separation that Christians shout against is the kind that they fear leads to moral anarchy. If the government isagnostic or neutral toward Christianity, won't morality just go to the dogs? Hasn't it already?

Christians who have this fear should examine the many polls that demonstrate that the United States has produced a more vibrantreligious landscape than countries in which church-state alliances are common. Keeping church and state separate in the United Stateshad produced more, not less, religious activism, which ideally tends to create a more moral society. Whatever the reasons for America'smoral problems, they can't be found in church-state separation. A look at Ireland or Bosnia shows that morality and peace are betterensured when the government stays out of the business of endorsing some religions over others.

The only way Christians will change America and help reverse its moral slide is through practice of the radical Christianity that Jesustaught-loving our neighbor as ourselves, blessing those who curse us, serving God rather than mammon, and being merciful, pure inheart, and meek (Matthew 5-7). Conventional wisdom and public piety were never Jesus' answers; they shouldn't be ours.

In the end, separation of church and state doesn't hamper evangelism, needlessly disrupt our traditions, or unleash immorality. Instead,church-state separation models biblical imperatives: that Christians keep the earthly kingdom and God's kingdom separate and respondto God with a free heart and a joyous spirit.

Thus, however handy, Governor James's Berlin Wall analogy just doesn't apply. The wall of separation, far from being oppressive, hasbeen a wall of protection for everyone, including those Christians who cheered the governor's attack on some of the very principles thatgave these people the religious freedom to stand there and shout against what they know not in the first place.

Melissa Rogers is associate general counsel at the Baptist Joint Committee in Washington, D.C.

Liberty Magazine | Immaculate Misconceptions http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=538

2 of 2 8/20/2012 12:19 PM

M AY / J U N E 1 9 9 8

Those adamant about imposing religious exercises in public schools in Alabama now have the children to sanctify their cause. Acrossthe state, students are protesting, holding rallies, and even walking out of classes-all over the injunction by a federal district judgeprohibiting public schools from promoting religious activity in the classroom. One can wonder how many Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish,Jehovah's Witness, or Rastafarian students (citizens who, last we heard, are protected by the Bill of Rights from religious coercion) areamong those taking part in this children's crusade south of the Mason-Dixon line. Probably not many; instead, the crowds surely arecomposed of assorted Protestants (maybe a few Catholics thrown in)-those whose theology dominates the prayer, devotions, andreligious exercises that Judge Ira DeMent was morally and legally obligated to ban. Never mind that these students can pray all theywant in school, can read their Bibles in school, can have private devotions with other students in school, can even use school propertyto hold after-school religious meetings, and can talk about their faith in school subject to the same reasonable restrictions placed onother verbal activities. All that they are asked to do, and all that the judge's ruling demands, is that they respect the rights of thosestudents-Buddhists, Muslim, Jewish, Jehovah's Witnesses, Rastafarian, atheist, sun-worshipers-who might not appreciate beingsubjected to religious exercises that offend their sensibilities, especially since these students are required by law to attend publicschool.

Interestingly enough, Liberty (see Op. Cit., March/April) was attacked for insinuating that Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things,supported legislated religious exercises in school, when according to the letter to the editor, he didn't. Well, in his February issue,Neuhaus comes out squarely against Judge DeMent's ruling. "It should be obvious to all," he wrote, "that Judge Dement's order is doingprecisely what the federal government is constitutionally forbidden to do, namely, interfering with the free exercise of religion. . . . Norshall the federal courts, or so it was thought until Everson (1947) and its judicial progeny."

First of all, it was Cantwell (1940), not Everson, that incorporated the Free Exercise Clause (via the Fourteenth Amendment). Secondly,the issue in Alabama isn't a free exercise but an establishment issue-a crucial distinction but one that those who want legislated religionin public schools need to blur (after all, making it sound like kids are being denied the right to practice their faith produces good soundbites). The truth is that laws forbidding the students from holding devotional exercises in public school no more violate their free exerciseof religion than do laws forbidding them from spray painting Dokken rock lyrics across the town hall violate their free speech rights. Thefree exercise of religion doesn't mean one is free to exercise religion in ways that infringe upon the basic rights of others, which is whatthese devotions were doing and what Judge Dement's order stops.

It's kind of ironic that Neuhaus, a Catholic priest, takes this position, especially when in the last century the little religious violence thatever tainted the United States did so because Catholic kids objected to the same kind of religious exercises in public schools that FatherNeuhaus now deems protected by the U.S. Constitution. No doubt, just as in the last century, those in the streets seeking to keepreligious exercises in public schools weren't Catholics, those in the streets seeking the same in Alabama aren't Jews, Buddhists, orMuslims. That's a point one would think Neuhaus, a Catholic, would be sensitive to. But, as Reinhold Niebuhr wrote in The Nature andDestiny of Man, it's all too common that those groups crying for liberty of conscience and religious freedom are usually just crying for theliberty of their own conscience and freedom for their own religious practices, and once they get it they are manifestly insensitive to thefreedoms of others. Using British history as an example, Niebuhr wrote that Presbyterianism "pled for liberty of conscience when it wasitself in danger of persecution; and threatened all other denominations with suppression when it had the authority to do so."

Neuhaus, fortunately, doesn't have the authority. What his attitude does show, however, is what he would do if he ever did.

Five Righteous Men?

At Yale, five orthodox Jewish males refuse to live in the college dorms because of the prevalence of women who spend the night withtheir boyfriends or the one-night stands. The Yale Five, as they are dubbed, aren't asking that the school impose any kind of draconianmorality on the campus and ban women from sleeping in the men's dorm (heaven forbid!); instead, all they want to do is live elsewherewhere they don't have to walk into the men's room in the morning and find women there. The school said they could move out, but onlyafter they cough up the $7,000-a-year cost for a dorm room, which these modern Shadrachs, Meshachs, and Abednegos refuse to do.The boys offered a compromise: assignment to single-sex suites with the university expelling those who violate the code. Of course, thatwould be enforcing sexual morality on a college campus, something that a progressive college like Yale could never do, and so the fivehave filed suit in federal court, asking only that the government stop Yale from enforcing its immorality upon them. Who knows what willhappen, but in post-RFRA America, the five Hebrew worthies are likely to get tossed in the fiery furnace anyway.

Liberty Magazine | Iambs & Pentameters http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=539

1 of 2 8/20/2012 12:20 PM

Disestablishing the Establishment Clause

Not since the 1970s, when Congress voted (against) a prayer amendment to the U.S. Constitution, has the House been asked to voteon any kind of amendment that would radically alter the basic principles of the religion clauses. This March all that changed, when theHouse Judiciary committee, in a 16 to 11 vote along strict party lines (Republicans pro, Democrats con) approved Representative ErnestIshtook's misnamed "Religious Freedom Amendment," which will now face the full House for a vote anytime. If this bill ever became theTwenty-eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it would essentially undo all the Establishment Clause protections that Americanshave enjoyed since it was incorporated against the states in Everson. It would do to the First Amendment what the Twenty-first did tothe Eighteenth-and that is, essentially, repeal it.

Americans shouldn't be fooled by the language of the proposal, which states specifically that "Neither the United States nor any Stateshall establish any official religion." If interpreted the way proponents want it interpreted, this amendment would allow practices that theU.S. Supreme Court had ruled do, indeed, establish an official religion.

The bill, for example, says that the right to pray in public schools "shall not be infringed." First, this language implies that children don'thave that right to begin with, which is false. That right has never been infringed. What has been infringed is their "right" to pray in schoolin ways that infringe upon the freedom of others, a prohibition that has been a pillar of Establishment Clause jurisprudence, and rightlyso. If passed, this amendment would then allow for the majority religion to impose its forms of worship, prayer, and doctrine upon others.The bill's guarantee that no person shall be required to "join in school prayer or other religious activity" is not protection of religiousfreedom. On the contrary, in numerous rulings, the Supreme Court has said that merely pressuring a person, especially a child, topartake of, or even be exposed to, forms of worship that offend them, is an establishment of religion. That a Muslim child isn't forced topray to Jesus or to sing hymns honoring the Trinity, but is merely required by law to sit there and listen to them while the rest of theclass does, isn't what religious freedom in America is about. Excusing kids from the exercises isn't a solution, either. As a New YorkTimes editorial in 1962 said regarding Engle: "The establishment clause is a keystone of American liberty: and if there is one thing thatthe establishment clause must mean, it is that government may not set up a religious norm from which one has to be excused-as wasthe case with the children in the New York school who did not wish to recite the prayer." And as will be the case with thousands of otherchildren, not just in New York, but all over America, if the Ishtook bill ever became part and parcel of the United States Constitution.

That such a bill could even make it to the House floor is a testimony to the clout of the Religious Right, which, according to critics, wantsa vote taken on this issue in time for the Christian Coalition's voter guides to be distributed before House elections this November. Afterall, what Republican (many of whom might even owe their seat to Christian Right support) wants to be listed in a voter guide as"against" prayer in school or against "religious freedom"? Fortunately, there appears to be enough of them, so that the bill isn't likely tomuster the two-thirds majority needed to pass the House, much less the Senate-where the needed two-thirds is even less likely-andthen on to the states for ratification (it must pass three-fourths of the states before it can become part of the U.S. Constitution).

It's times like these that Americans should marvel at the wisdom-and the foresight-of its Founders, who made the amendment process adifficult one, precisely to protect the nation against the kind of proposal that will soon be voted and-we can pray-killed on the Housefloor.

Liberty Magazine | Iambs & Pentameters http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=539

2 of 2 8/20/2012 12:20 PM

M AY / J U N E 1 9 9 8

BY: M. VICTOR W ESTBERG

Liberty (January/February 1998) ran "When Faith Kills," by Steven Gey, which explored the thorny issue of religious freedom andalternative methods of healing when children are involved. The title itself suggested negative conclusions about the efficacious nature ofthis practice. This article attempts to present a more balanced perspective.

Though adults have the right to choose any method of healing, health care for children is different. The state has a responsibility toensure the proper care of children. In this context, then, the crucial question is On what basis can the state ensure that when religioushealing practices are involved, the children in question are being cared for responsibly?

If Christian Science is taken as one standard against which the question of responsible spiritual healing practice is judged, its recordshould contribute to an appropriate conclusion. Spiritual treatment, as practiced by this denomination, has a documented history ofeffective healings that has been published in Christian Science periodicals for more than 100 years. Each one is verified, and a portionof these are healings of medically diagnosed disorders, some even deemed by conventional medicine as incurable. A partial list ofdiagnosed conditions healed by Christian Science treatment include cancer, pneumonia, tuberculosis, kidney disorders, broken bones,meningitis, appendicitis, rheumatic fever, glaucoma, epilepsy, and birth defects. A significant percentage of these have involved children.

In view of the literally tens of thousands of verified healings accomplished via this treatment method, it is understandable that up to four,and now five, generations of stable, well-cared-for families have relied exclusively on Christian Science for their health-care needs.

However, in the larger context of a society unused to viewing health care outside conventional medical practice, it is not surprising thatsome have challenged spiritual healings, characterizing them as "anecdotal" (such as Gey's article in Liberty). To those who will acceptonly clinical case studies, healings outside a medical orientation defy explanation. Yet there are more than 300 studies cited by Dr. DaleMatthews of Georgetown University School of Medicine that examine the effects of faith, spirituality, or religion on healing. In fact, thosewith a "hard science" perspective are also exploring the juncture of prayer and health. There's even a trend in medicine to examine therelationship of spirituality to healing. Medical schools and universities are conducting regular conferences and seminars on this subject.Harvard Medical School, for example, has an entire institute devoted to examining the relationship of spirituality and healing in anongoing way. The following remarks by David Sinacore-Guinn of the Park Ridge Center for the Study of Health, Faith, and Ethics,suggest that a true understanding of spiritual healing practices necessitates embracing it as an ontological, as well as a legal, question.

"In order to afford spiritually based medicine true religious freedom, Congress and the Court may need to recognize that spiritual health(and mental health) may, as in the cases of Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists, violate standards drawn strictly from anunderstanding of the body as a biological machine that is to be 'fixed' by conventional medicine when it malfunctions."

Sinacore-Guinn speaks directly to the heart of this issue. Though "prayer" in general parlance has a variety of meanings, at base it isfounded upon an understanding of "man" as having some meaningful relationship to spirituality, and to the God who made him. Thoughthe definition of this relationship varies from denomination to denomination, there is a common bond in the understanding of man as thechild of God, a view at odds with the concept of man as solely material.

Among those Christian denominations that do practice some form of "prayer-as-healing," difference exist. Some claim that God healsonly, or mainly, through medicine and doctors; others that prayer is ineffective in meeting physical problems, but helpful in meetingmental distress (and a "calmative" in suffering). And some, like Christian Scientists, view prayer as the most effective of all healingmethods. Though the various understandings, types, and applications of prayer differ, they are all based on a sincere understanding ofthe reality and presence of God.

Are Christian healers and medical doctors on opposite sides of the issue of child protection and care? In actuality, they share the samegoal-a common commitment to the health and well-being of children. They also share a common enemy-disease and suffering. Ingeneral, those who practice Christian healing are not opposed to or fearful of doctors, nor are most forbidden to go to a doctor by theirchurch. Christian Scientists have a long tradition of respect for all those sincere practitioners of medical science. In fact, rather thaneschewing medicine, Christian Scientists share an affinity with all those who are dedicated to helping and healing humanity, eventhough the approaches found in the medical and Christian Science traditions are distinctly different.

Both Christian healers and medical professionals would like nothing better than a 100 percent record of success in healing children.Unfortunately at present, this is not the case for either. And both would acknowledge that when even a single child is lost, whether

Liberty Magazine | When Faith Heals http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=540

1 of 2 8/20/2012 12:20 PM

under medical or nonmedical care, it is a tragedy for all. But such losses should not blur the vision when spiritual healing is underconsideration any more than when conventional medicine is considered. No one would advocate children being treated irresponsibly ineither system of health care. And both medicine and spiritual healing practitioners endorse the state's legitimate role in protectingchildren. Proponents of both methods would agree that the courts can, and should, intervene when irresponsible practice of any sortputs a child at risk.

In the meantime, however, spiritual healing and prayer are bringing enormous benefits, both spiritually and physically, to peopleeverywhere. In our so-called age of enlightenment, let's be sure not to cut off what best promotes our well-being as children of a lovingGod.

M. Victor Westberg is the manager of Committees on Publication for the First Church of Christ, Scientist, headquartered in Boston,Massachusetts.

Liberty Magazine | When Faith Heals http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=540

2 of 2 8/20/2012 12:20 PM

M AY / J U N E 1 9 9 8

"Almighty God hath created the mind free. . . ."-Thomas Jefferson

"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him."-JamesMadison

"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." -William O. Douglas

"Political decisions must be independent of any conception of the good life or what gives value to life."-Ronald Dworkin

However different the motives-from Thales' proclamation that "all things are water," to William of Ockham's denial of universals, toHarvard professor Richard Lewontin's acknowledgment of science's "a priori commitment . . . to materialism"-men have attempted tocompartmentalize faith, to separate it into a realm apart from other disciplines, especially politics (in Hobbes' political vision, for instance,religion was reduced to "the kingdom of the fairies"). In the American experiment, this division is manifested in secular notions of"separation of church and state"-a phrase that in and of itself not only expresses this partition but explains the secularist fervency for thewall that makes it a reality.

A grand irony permeates the secular enthusiasm for the separationist ideal, however-and that's because the ideal is, essentially,theological. Despite the peripheral miasma of the philosophes, there were no Rousseaus, Marats, or any Jacobins among those whotransformed this particular thought into extension. Church-state separation was forged in a Judeo-Christian weltanschauung on theaxiom that mankind was created by a God who respected human autonomy, and from that theological construct the entire church-stateseparation labyrinth arose. Secularist rationale was no more involved than was superstring theory.

Whatever degree they nourished the final product, the precursors to separationism were all theologically motivated. Roger Williams-thefirst in the New World to incorporate separationist principles into positive law-was a dogmatic religionist who, based on his theology,consigned heretics to hell, but who, based on that same theology, wasn't going to allow the state to interfere with a heretic's choice to gothere. Quaker William Penn's most comprehensive defense of religious liberty was titled The Great Case of Liberty of Conscience OnceMore Briefly Debated and Defended by the Authority of Reason, Scripture, and Antiquity. John Locke's A Letter Concerning Tolerationspouted the theological position that a coerced faith could never save a soul, and thus the state shouldn't coerce faith. Section 16 ofVirginia's pivotal Bill of Rights talked about the "duty which we owe to our Creator." The Memorial of the Presbytery of Hanover to theGeneral Assembly of Virginia argued that "when our blessed Saviour declares his kingdom not of this world he renounces alldependence upon state power." Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance (written against tax money going to churches) said that before"any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of all the universe."Jefferson's Act for Establishing Religious Freedom warned that civil attempts to burden a person's faith were "a departure from the planof the holy author of our religion."

These concepts culminated into the U.S. Constitution, which-in contrast-is devoid of even a generic "Governor of the universe" (muchless a "blessed Saviour"). Yet secular separationists shouldn't make too much out of this "godless Constitution," because it wastheology-dead white European male Protestant theology-that prompted the framers to exclude religion from the document, the ideabeing that because God created us as free and autonomous beings, the surest way to protect that God-given freedom was to keep thegovernment (at least the federal one) as far away from religion as possible. Thus when antireligious secularists beat the separationistdrum, they're promoting a concept rooted in archetypical premises antithetical to their own. It's like going to the polls to vote againstdemocracy.

Writing for the Notre Dame Law School, Jonathan Mills argued that "strict separationism," far from being indicative of a creepingsecularization of American polity, rather represents "a widely unnoticed reassertion of the original theological rationales against theestablishment of religion," and that "the wall of separation between church and state is fundamentally a 'religious institution.'"

How ironic and self-defeating, then, when liberal theorists use church-state separation to justify the exclusion of religious views from thepublic square. Church-state separation, the foundation structures on which they have built their secular edifices, is rooted-not inHumean naturalism or Nietzschean perspectivalism-but in the premise that we exist only because a sovereign God created us, and thatthis "Governor of the universe" has endowed us with certain unalienable rights. And because these rights are derived, not in fleeting,subjective, and artificial constructs, but in the eternal God Himself, for a society to infringe upon these rights is, in the words of the onewho wrote the First Amendment, "an offense against God, not against man" (hardly the language of People for the American Way orACLU amici).

Liberty Magazine | Obiter http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=541

1 of 2 8/20/2012 12:20 PM

How separationist discourse has degenerated from the rhetoric and rationale of Roger Williams to that of Madalyn Murray O'Hair is avalid question; but the fact remains that the secular hijacking of church-state separation has left secularists in a fundamentalconundrum: whatever naturalistic, pragmatic, or valuational rationale for their positions, what they advocate is essentially a religiouslybased public policy that excludes religion from public policy. When the application of the principle contradicts the principle itself, that'squite a paradox.

Paradoxes, of course, are part of phenomenal reality. Berry's, for instance, refers to "the least integer not nameable in fewer than 19syllables" (yet does so in just 18!). Thus, if secular separationists can live with their paradoxes, then antisecular antiseparationistsshould be able to live with theirs as well--dead white European male Protestant theology--that prompted the framers to exclude religionfrom the document, the idea being that because God created us as free and autonomous beings, the surest way to protect thatGod-given freedom was to keep the government (at least the federal one) as far away from religion as possible. Thus when antireligioussecularists beat the separationist drum, they're promoting a concept rooted in archetypical premises antithetical to their own. It's likegoing to the polls to vote against democracy.

Writing for the Notre Dame Law School, Jonathan Mills argued that "strict separationism," far from being indicative of a creepingsecularization of American polity, rather represents "a widely unnoticed reassertion of the original theological rationales against theestablishment of religion," and that "the wall of separation between church and state is fundamentally a 'religious institution.'"

How ironic and self-defeating, then, when liberal theorists use church-state separation to justify the exclusion of religious views from thepublic square. Church-state separation, the foundation structures on which they have built their secular edifices, is rooted-not inHumean naturalism or Nietzschean perspectivalism-but in the premise that we exist only because a sovereign God created us, and thatthis "Governor of the universe" has endowed us with certain unalienable rights. And because these rights are derived, not in fleeting,subjective, and artificial constructs, but in the eternal God Himself, for a society to infringe upon these rights is, in the words of the onewho wrote the First Amendment, "an offense against God, not against man" (hardly the language of People for the American Way orACLU amici).

How separationist discourse has degenerated from the rhetoric and rationale of Roger Williams to that of Madalyn Murray O'Hair is avalid question; but the fact remains that the secular hijacking of church-state separation has left secularists in a fundamentalconundrum: whatever naturalistic, pragmatic, or valuational rationale for their positions, what they advocate is essentially a religiouslybased public policy that excludes religion from public policy. When the application of the principle contradicts the principle itself, that'squite a paradox.

Paradoxes, of course, are part of phenomenal reality. Berry's, for instance, refers to "the least integer not nameable in fewer than 19syllables" (yet does so in just 18!). Thus, if secular separationists can live with their paradoxes, then antisecular antiseparationistsshould be able to live with theirs as well.

Liberty Magazine | Obiter http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=541

2 of 2 8/20/2012 12:20 PM

M AY / J U N E 1 9 9 8

BY: ALBERT DITTE

In case they didn't know it already, Tennessee public school students have the right to pray in a public school, vocally or silently, aloneor with other students; the right to express religious viewpoints in a public school; the right to speak to and attempt to persuade otherstudents in a public school about religious viewpoints the same as they can about other topics; the right to distribute religious literaturein a public school, subject to the same reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on those distributing secular material; the right tohave a reasonable number of excused absences from a public school to observe religious holidays and participate in other religiouspractices required by the religion of the student; and the right to be excused from a public school for instruction or devotional exercisesoff school grounds in accordance with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Zorach v. Clauson.

Where did these rights come from? Most would say that they are found current U.S. Supreme Court religion clause jurisprudence madeapplicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. However, that protection wasn't enough for some Tennessee legislators,who got the Student Religious Liberty Act passed through the 1997 Tennessee General Assembly.

Why protect rights already protected? According to state senator Roy Herron and state representative Craig Fitzhugh, two democratswho sponsored the bill, it was to help people understand just what religious freedoms children do have in public schools.

"In the past decade we personally have heard literally hundreds of people say 'They've taken God out of the public schools,' and 'TheSupreme Court has prohibited prayer in school,'" the state senators said in a letter explaining the bill. "These are myths, notconstitutional law, but they are widely held and deeply believed."

It was to clear up these misconceptions that they sponsored the bill. Unfortunately, in its original form the Student Religious Liberty Actraised some constitutional concerns.

"The bill lacks a secular purpose, endorses or advances religion by creating a preferred status under Tennessee law for certainreligious activities, and could create excessive government entanglement with religion," warned state attorney general John KnowWalkup.

The attorney general also said the bill, as first proposed, raised difficult questions concerning what affirmative steps the governmentmay take in requiring public institutions to accommodate religious values without violating the Establishment Clause.

"The bill does more than merely protect against unjustified infringement," the attorney general said. "It transforms the listed activities intostatutory 'rights' enforceable by special remedy. At some point, the effort to accommodate religion may become under the EstablishmentClause an unconstitutional endorsement of religion."

For example, at what point does the school's determination of the appropriateness of the religious literature being passed out or thelegitimacy of religious activities or holidays or practices violate the "excessive entanglement" prong of the Lemon test?

In consultation with the attorney general, Herron and Fitzhugh amended the bill, adding that a student could exercise his or her religiousrights "to the same extent and under the same circumstances" as a student is permitted to vocally or silently reflect, meditate, or speakon nonreligious matters, express viewpoints on nonreligious topics, share nonreligious viewpoints, possess or distribute literature onnonreligious topics or subjects, and be absent from a public school for nonreligious purposes.

The revisions also included, "Nothing in this act shall be construed to support, encourage or permit a teacher, administrator or otheremployee of the public schools to lead, direct or encourage any religious or antireligious activity in violation of that portion of the FirstAmendment of the United States Constitution prohibiting laws respecting an establishment of religion."

The attorney general affirmed this revision.

"The amendment alters the basic thrust of the bill," Walkup said. "The original bill arguably confers a preferred status upon studentreligious expression and activity not enjoyed by nonreligious student speech and activity. By contrast, the amendment provides thatstudents are to be permitted to engage in religious expression and activities to the same extent and under the same circumstances asthey are permitted to engage in similar expression and activities of a nonreligious nature."

Liberty Magazine | Protecting the Protected http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=542

1 of 2 8/20/2012 12:20 PM

The bill cleared up the no-secular-purpose problem by establishing no rights regarding religion, but merely states that the religiousexpression and activities of students are not to be discriminated against, a position consistent with well established constitutionalprinciples. The revision also eliminated the entanglement with-religion problem by allowing students to be absent for religiousobservances on the same basis that they are allowed other excused absences.

"The bill," Walkup said, "as amended will no longer force school administrators to judge whether an absence to attend a particular eventor observance is 'required' by the student's religion." This helps solve the excessive entanglement problem.

Yet not everybody is happy, even with the revisions.

"This bill will cause innumerable problems," says Hedy Weinberg, president of the Tennessee chapter of the American Civil LibertiesUnion. "Enacting a law and burying it in the codebook is not the right mechanism to explain the meaning of the First Amendment."

According to Weinberg, instead of a bill, the state commissioner of education could have simply issued guidelines on what religiousactivity was and wasn't permitted in public schools. The problem with religion in school isn't the law; more often than not it's simply aschool's ignorance of the law. Despite hype to the contrary, prayer and speaking about religion have always been allowed in publicschools, provided these activities did not infringe upon the rights of other students. Guidelines could have made that very clear.

"But," Weinberg said, "guidelines would not receive the same type of media attention as the bill."

At this point no threat of lawsuits challenging the bill are looming, though some legislators, like state representative Mike McDonald,don't see the necessity of a bill protecting what's already protected.

"Everything there," he said, "is already allowed.'

Albert Dittes is a freelance writer from Portland, Tennessee.

Liberty Magazine | Protecting the Protected http://www.libertymagazine.org/~libertym/index.php?id=542

2 of 2 8/20/2012 12:20 PM