Church State Separation

The recent court decision that a school voucher program violates church-state separation (Dec. 21) ignores the key point that the choice of a religious school is made by the individual parent, not the government. The voucher merely empowers that parent to make that choice. A parent using a voucher for religious school tuition is, in principle, no different than a college student using a federal loan to attend Notre Dame, a Medicare patient selecting a hospital with a religious affiliation, or any of us taking a tax deduction for a donation to a religious charity.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has agreed to revisit the issue of church-state separation and decide whether a town council can begin most of its monthly meetings with a prayer from a Christian pastor. Thirty years ago, the court upheld a state legislature's practice of beginning its session with a nondenominational prayer. The justices said that "to invoke divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making laws" did not violate the 1st Amendment's prohibition on an "establishment of religion.

I am the youth director of a church in Long Beach, and many of my kids are in the Long Beach public schools. It seems as though the issues and fears raised by Ed Eveland, who was my principal at Wilson High School years ago, and others stem from their interpretation of this valuable constitutional concept of church-state separation. Local officials and even individual principals, as I understand it, are given the ability and the right to determine what specifically constitutes a violation of church-state separation.

The Supreme Court extended the principle of church-state separation Wednesday to shield religious schools nationwide from discrimination suits from teachers and school employees who serve as “ministers” of the faith. In a unanimous ruling, the high court for the first time concluded the Constitution includes a “ministerial exception” that protects churches and their schools from undue interference from the government and its courts. However, lower courts have long recognized that churches are protected from lawsuits involving their internal workings.

Regarding Cal Thomas' column (Editorial Pages, May 21), "It's Time for TV Ministries to Render Unto Caesar." Thomas advocates an Internal Revenue Service investigation of all ministries that use television to raise large amounts of money and then continues: "To those who would cry that such an investigation is a violation of church-state separation, let them show the biblical precedent for a tax exemption." Thomas is confusing the issue, as well as revealing his own rather obscured view of history.

Barry Lynn likes Nativity scenes. "I like going by churches that have fancy Nativity scenes and live Nativity scenes," Lynn said. "It's a neat thing. I've been known to stop the car and say, 'Whoa, let's look at that Nativity scene.' But I don't want Nativity scenes on the courthouse lawn."

Re " 'Spiritual healthcare' comes to Congress," Nov. 3 Regarding "spiritual healthcare" as part of the healthcare reform bill, doesn't that violate the principle of church-state separation? I mean, if the Christian Science Church can receive my tax dollars for prayer healing, why can't the local diocese, synagogue, mosque or Baptist church? A. Dunn San Diego -- It's absolutely outrageous that Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) has inserted a provision into the healthcare bill that would allow federal reimbursement for spiritual treatment -- also known as prayer.

Church-state conflicts at the state and local levels continued to grow in the last year, with a new report showing 247 such incidents. The report, by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, was released Monday at the group's national conference in San Francisco. Copies of the report were made available in Washington. The fifth annual report covers September, 1992, to August, 1993.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has agreed to revisit the issue of church-state separation and decide whether a town council can begin most of its monthly meetings with a prayer from a Christian pastor. Thirty years ago, the court upheld a state legislature's practice of beginning its session with a nondenominational prayer. The justices said that "to invoke divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making laws" did not violate the 1st Amendment's prohibition on an "establishment of religion.

The Supreme Court extended the principle of church-state separation Wednesday to shield religious schools nationwide from discrimination suits from teachers and school employees who serve as “ministers” of the faith. In a unanimous ruling, the high court for the first time concluded the Constitution includes a “ministerial exception” that protects churches and their schools from undue interference from the government and its courts. However, lower courts have long recognized that churches are protected from lawsuits involving their internal workings.

Re " 'Spiritual healthcare' comes to Congress," Nov. 3 Regarding "spiritual healthcare" as part of the healthcare reform bill, doesn't that violate the principle of church-state separation? I mean, if the Christian Science Church can receive my tax dollars for prayer healing, why can't the local diocese, synagogue, mosque or Baptist church? A. Dunn San Diego -- It's absolutely outrageous that Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) has inserted a provision into the healthcare bill that would allow federal reimbursement for spiritual treatment -- also known as prayer.

Backed by some of the most powerful members of the Senate, a little-noticed provision in the healthcare overhaul bill would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments as medical expenses. The provision was inserted by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) with the support of Democratic Sens. John F. Kerry and the late Edward M. Kennedy -- both of Massachusetts, home to the headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist. The measure would put Christian Science prayer treatments -- which substitute or supplement medical treatments -- on the same footing as clinical medicine.

In a case that could reshape the doctrine of separation of church and state, the Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether a cross to honor fallen soldiers can stand in a national preserve in California. The case will give the Roberts court its first chance to rule directly on the 1st Amendment's ban on "an establishment of religion."

Like Thomas Jefferson, we believe that the 1st Amendment to the Constitution erects a "wall of separation" between church and state. Government punches through that wall when it requires official prayers in public schools or bestows tax dollars on churches -- or when it tries to prevent believers from practicing their faith.

Who asked, "Am I my brother's keeper?" (Was it Cain, Noah, Abel or King David?) What happened on the road to Damascus? (A: Jesus was crucified. B: Mary met an angel of the Lord. C: St. Paul was blinded by a vision from God. D: Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss.) Only a third of the American teenagers in a nationwide Gallup poll last year correctly answered the first question, attributing the quote from Genesis to Cain.

The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will decide this term whether taxpayer money can be used to pay for children to attend religious schools. The voucher case offers an early legal test of President Bush's faith-based initiative. The president wants public funds to flow to religious charities, but the Supreme Court in the past has said the Constitution forbids direct public funding of religious institutions. The outcome of the case also may shape the future of school reform.

A national group that advocates separation of church and state announced Thursday that it will sue Education Secretary William J. Bennett to force him to comply with a Supreme Court ruling that bans certain types of public aid to parochial schools. Robert Maddox, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, accused Bennett of creating an "educational crisis" by offering to help school districts avoid compliance with the court's ruling.

Thanks to President Bush and his advocacy of expanded "faith-based" welfare programs, the 200-year-old debate over the proper role of religion in American politics has never been hotter. For that reason alone, "Religion in American Public Life," by Azizah Y. al-Hibri, Jean Bethke Elshtain and Charles C. Haynes, seems to be hot-wired to the headlines.

President Bush on Monday created an office in the White House that would enable religious organizations to receive government funds to provide services to the poor and downtrodden. Bush--calling the proposal among the "most important initiatives" of his new administration--plans to send to Capitol Hill today a legislative proposal that would increase funding for such services.