Religion & Law

Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee held his inauguration day recently without a prayer service in order to honor the principle of church-state separation. Good for Governor Chafee in my view. But Bishop Thomas J. Tobin went ballistic. He purported not to care whether there was prayer in the Inauguration. That he claimed was up to the governor. But he did strongly object to the reference to the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. He maintains that the principle is not in the Constitution (certainly the words are not in it), that the concept developed later, that the concept interferes with the use of religious arguments in public life, and that the concept promotes an atheistic world view. 

The Bishop does not recognize that Governor Chafee's use of church-state separation need not be hostile to religion particularly in Rhode Island. First, the constitutional principle of church-state separation has a lot to say about what government may not do; it has nothing to say about what ordinary citizens including the Bishop can or not say in public life. It may be that some tell Bishop Tobin that he should not intervene in politics, but nothing in the constitutional principle of church-state separation speaks to the issue. Second, the principle of church-state separation is not a post-constitutional principle. SImple Rhode Island history confirms the point in that Rhode Island founder Roger Williams argued for church-state separation. He inspired the Baptists and the Constitution would not have been passed without Baptist support. The principle is also found in the writings of Jefferson and to some extent in Madison. Wholly apart from the proper interpretation of the Establishment Clause, it falsifies history to say that it is a post-constitutional principle. Finally, the principle is championed by some who are hostile to religion, but it's better and historic defense is that religion is best protected when the state does not meddle with religion. Indeed the prominent sociologist Jose Casanova has cogently argued that the failure of the Catholic Church to recognize this by securing privileges from and cooperating with corrupt kings and dictators has been a significant cause of its demise in Europe. Bishop Tobin need not speak out against the constitutional principle of church-state separation to enter the public sphere and, in my view, he is short-sighted to do so when he does.

Regrettably, given the current composition of the Supreme Court, the principle of church-state separation is imperilled. What the Justices do not realize is that in allowing governments to "help" religion, they will license actions that compromise religion and foster increased resentment against it.