1

Constitution, Society, and Leadership

Week 10 Unit 6The Constitution in the Future:Protecting Religious Diversity

Christopher Dreisbach, Ph.D.Johns Hopkins University

Unit topic: Religion and the Constitution in 2020 Focus on the First Amendment’s▪ No Establishment Clause▪ Freedom Clause

Two selections N. Feldman, The framers’ church-state

problem—and ours W. Marshall, Progressives, the religion

clauses, and the limits of secularism

2

Point: need to resolve the “deep divide over the role belief should play in politics and government” Driving principle: No coercion and no

money Constitution=first time in history

no official religion at all Framers’ main principle: “protect

liberty of conscience of religious dissenters”

Framers’ main political reason: religious dicversity among Americans

3

Framers’ position in sum: No coercion, no money

Courts are ambivalent about State sponsored religious symbols Government funding of relgion

Need to return to No coercion, no money But we can’t be neutral We need to worry more about religious

symbolism than framers did So “need to reexamine original principle in

contemporary terms”4

Point: Progressives need to reframe the debate about church and state to get rid of concepts of Pro-religious conservatives Anti-religion secularists

Progressives are the true protectors of religious liberty—by Protecting religious liberty of all Keeping religion and government

separate

5

The U. S. is a religious country But secularism has instrumental value

Secularism=“government should not promote, advance, or endorse religion”

Values of secularism Avoid harms to religion generally▪ Religions can maintain their purity and integrity▪ If government got involved it would probably get

it wrong

6

Avoid harm to other religions▪ By not showing any preferences▪ By not giving one religion permission to harm

another Avoid harm to government▪ No diversion of resources▪ No lethal mix of governement and religion

7

Overly rigid secularism can harm in 3 ways Internal contradictions: anti-religion is a

theological position Non-neutrality Clash with public culture

Need for balance of secularism and its limitations Identify a progressive approach to funding

issues▪ Base decisions on potential harm to religion

8

Progressives should draw the line in three respects “Oppose efforts to exempt religious

organizations from regulatory requirements connected to funding programs.”

“Insist on true neutrality.” Object to funding purely religious activity.

Be careful about attacking long-standing public religious displays To avoid divisiveness and hostility

9

But object to attempts to add new religious displays and references Suggests the state is “captured by

sectarian interests” “Provides impetus for religions to seek

additional government favor” “Excites human behavior”

Therefore, balanced, rather than rigid secularism

10

Week 10Unit 6The Constitution in the Future:Protecting Religious Diversity

11