Chipping away at the church-state wall: What next, Mr. President?

Ever since he took office, President George W. Bush has been promoting an agenda that chips away at the constitutional wall between church and state. He seems to be succeeding now that the U.S. Supreme Court has permitted the use of government money to support private schools, most of them religious.

What a legacy for our republic after two centuries of keeping separate, for the most part, two pillars of our society -- government and religion. I believe that by drawing a line between the two, our society has maintained individual freedom.

The court's ruling in June allowing parents to use taxpayerfunded vouchers to send their children to religious schools is a historic setback.

Bush has also proposed the use of government funds to support faith-based charities. A bill to accomplish that goal has been somewhat watered down from what he originally wanted. But the House has passed it and a similar version has been approved by the Senate Finance Committee.

The House measure would permit religious groups to compete with other private organizations for federal contracts to perform certain social services so long as recipients don't have to take part in religious activities. My question is why do we need religious institutions to do these things?

Bush, in his determination to inject religion into our secular lives, has also established, for the first time in history, a religious office in the White House. What next, Mr. President?

Of course, he is happy that the Supreme Court, in its 5-to-4 decision, agrees with him. But in his jubilation, he got carried away and compared that ruling with the high court's famous -- and unanimous - school desegregation decision in the case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

As a letter to the editor of The New York Times said this week, that "is like comparing Plessy v. Ferguson (which in 1896 upheld separate-but-equal laws) to the passage of the 14th Amendment," which after the Civil War gave former slaves citizenship rights.

The letter writer, Yale history professor Glenda Gilmore, said the court's voucher decision "eviscerates Brown by channeling public money to private schools, just as Plessy eviscerated the 14th Amendment by legalizing segregation."

The Brown decision marked one of the great defining moments in our society. It transformed us and rejected the notion that we are two nations, white and black. It opened doors for African Americans who had long been deprived of their basic human rights because of their race.

It lifted our image in the eyes of the world and inspired an enormous new spirit of tolerance in the country. And it strengthened the integrity and the inclusiveness of the public school system.

Does anyone in this administration respect the First Amendment? I'm beginning to wonder.

As Justice Stephen Breyer explained in his dissent in the voucher case, the establishment clause embodies "an understanding, reached in the 17th century after decades of religious war, that liberty and social stability demand a tolerance that respects the religious views of all citizens. ..."

Justice David Souter, in another dissent, noted that the court in 1962 forbade official prayer in public elementary and secondary schools, recognizing the "anguish, hardship and bitter strife that could come when zealous religious groups struggle with one another to obtain the government's stamp of approval."

But an elated Bush said that vouchers are "a constructive approach to improving public education."

It would be much more constructive to provide public schools with better facilities, smaller classes and higher-paid teachers. That way the schools would improve vastly, and the students would profit from more teacher attention.

In his efforts to spread religion in public institutions, Bush exhibits a missionary zeal. Even the most religious of our past presidents did not go that far. They kept their own spiritual views out of the public arena, showing that they understood their secular role.

It's clear that Bush, in wrapping religious cloaks around the presidency, has a goal that is alien to what the Founders of our nation had in mind. Has he missed the fact that the former Taliban rulers and the al-Qaida terrorists have used fundamentalist religion as the fuel for their brutal political ends?

Lest anyone forget, millions of people fled to America, long before it became a nation, to escape religious oppression. Given Bush's track record, it is reasonable to assume that he

will try to tinker with other long-standing traditions upholding the separation of church and state. He reads the Bible every day for divine guidance. I wish he would also find time to read the U.S. Constitution once in a while.

Helen Thomas is a veteran Washington journalist who has reported on eight presidential administrations. The author of two books on covering the White House, she is a columnist for The Hearst Newspapers. 2002. Reprinted with permission.

Copyright Americans United for Separation of Church and State Sep 2002
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved