may not advance religion, but neither
may it inhibit.
Mr. Justice Brennan, concurring in
Murray v. Curlett, supra, tried to show
that certain practices are to be con-
sidered constitutional: among them,
churches and chaplains at military
bases; "In God We Trust" on currency;
tax exemptions for churches; draft ex-
emptions for seminary students; and
"one nation, under God" in the pledge
of allegiance.163 (However, again,
other members of the Court have voiced
opposing statements.)164 That nothing
more than a firmly bipartisan relation-
ship of state to church was intended by
the Founding Fathers, when viewed in
the light of history, seems a well-
grounded conclusion. As one commen-
tator has pointed out :
"The separation of government
from religion represents a definite
departure from the intent of the
Founding Fathers, who never in-
tended to purge public life in
America entirely of religion. They
never intended to establish irre-
ligion, nor was that the purpose of
the First Amendment. Those who
founded our nation did not hesi-
tate to declare their dependence
upon God, to mention Him in pub-
lic utterance, to open Congress with
prayer, to set up chaplaincies, and
to ask the President to call a day of
prayer and thanksgiving to God.
They did not feel that this was
inconsistent with the principle of
'a free Church in a free State.' As
a matter of fact, they knew that
the very concept of religious and
civil liberty was founded upon
163374 U.S. 203, 295-304 (1963). See
also Kauper, supra note 145 at 115.
164 See Note, 17 S.C.L. rev. 778 at 780
(1965).
38
|
Christian principles and teach-
ings."166
On the other hand, the argument that
the Framers intended that an inviolable
wall of separation be erected between
church and state, is not without
merit.166 Of course, since the Consti-
tution is a living instrument and must
be interpreted in the light of contem-
porary standards and policies it may be
(and has been) validly argued that the
intent of the Framers is not necessarily
relevant. Under this view advocates of
strict separation voice strong arguments
and convincing logic.167
The only real conclusion reached here
is that, as of now, the questions have not
been conclusively decided; and the only
real argument offered here is that, when
the time comes for decision, govern-
ment's nondiscriminatory participation
in matters of religion is an entirely
defensible policy.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The church-state problem is a diffi-
cult one, and there are no easy solutions
to the continuing questions, for example,
whether the federal government can
165 J. kik, church & state 130 (1963).
"... a regard for the separation principle
should not obscure the fundamental considera-
tion that there is a necessary interdependence
of religion and government, that religion and
the churches have a role to play with respect
to the public order and the common life, that
government has a role to perform in the pro-
tection and advancement of religious liberty,
and that government and the churches share
some overlapping concerns and functions."
P. kauper, religion and the constitution
118 (1964). See also W. katz, religion
and american constitutions 30 (1963).
166 See note 164 and accompanying text.
167 See, e.g., W. douglas, the bible
and the schools (1966), and antieau,
downey & roberts, supra note 152 at 132-
42.
|
