Where We Stand: Our Principles On Strengthening the Role of Religion and Religious Institutions

The American Founders identified religious freedom as the “first freedom” in the nation’s constitutional system. The two religion clauses in the First Amendment—the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses—function as a single provision with a basic, overriding objective: to protect freedom of conscience.Any assault on religious liberty amounts to an attack on all the other civil liberties protected under the Constitution.

America’s civil society remains perhaps the most compassionate and philanthropic of any among industrialized nations. The single most important reason is religion: There is not a social problem in America, from gang violence to the spread of AIDS, that is not being confronted by religious organizations.

At the root of many of the nation’s social ills are problems of the heart. Although social conditions surely contribute to these problems, numerous issues—including drug use, teen pregnancy, youth violence, and domestic abuse— have more to do with individual character than with the state of the economy. Religious approaches to these problems treat people holistically: body, mind, and spirit. They are attentive to the problems of the heart that tend to trap people in addiction and crime. Government approaches treat the material but not the spiritual dimension of human life, and thus remain limited in their ability to offer the most effective and humane kind of assistance.

America continues to strive toward its highest ideals of freedom and opportunity, and it has produced and maintains the most powerful social reform movements in the West.Every important social debate in America—including slavery, child labor, the rights of women, the civil rights movement, and the status of the unborn child—has been led by people of deep religious conviction.Many of the nation’s most effective political leaders consciously relied on the Judeo–Christian moral tradition as they confronted the social problems of their day.

To raise public understanding of the role of religion in public life, the President, his Cabinet, and Members of Congress should deliver a series of speeches recalling America’s historic alliance of faith and democratic freedom. How is it that the United States—a country of profound ethnic and religious diversity—has attained such a high level of freedom and social stability? How is it that America has a secular Constitution yet remains the West’s most religious nation? Government leaders, especially those responsible for public diplomacy, must articulate the answers to those questions in speeches and events on a regular basis.

To bolster understanding of the practical success of faith-based organizations in tackling problems, the federal government must promote research to evaluate the effectiveness of secular and religious programs. Based on existing social science data about the positive effects of religious belief, there is every reason to expect that faith-based programs can overcome a host of social problems. Specifically, Congress should:

• Earmark HHS research funds for program evaluations and longitudinal tracking to evaluate the relative effectiveness of faith-based and standard government social programs.
• Obtain better information about the social welfare significance of individual religious practice from existing surveys. For instance, the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS), March Supplement, and the American Community Survey should be changed to include a measure of the level of religious attendance by respondents. This would permit an analysis of the effect of religious worship on the marketplace, income, and tax revenues.

The government should accommodate religious belief appropriately in the public square. Recent decisions by the Supreme Court, such as in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, have upheld the policy of neutrality toward religion when public resources are made generally available. Future judges should uphold the principle of neutrality. In nominating and confirming judicial appointments, neither the President nor the Senate should introduce a religious test for service on the federal bench by disqualifying nominees on the basis of their religious beliefs. Nevertheless, judges who treat the Establishment Clause as a weapon to restrict—rather than protect— religious expression have no place on the bench.

America’s religious heritage must be respected, whether it takes the form of the public display of religious symbols or the voluntary expressions of religious belief in public settings. The Justice Department should help to oppose or block attempts to purge public buildings of religious symbols.

Economic growth, not preferences in the tax code, is the most important variable driving charitable contributions. Despite large changes in federal tax rates over the past three decades, donations as a percentage of personal income have remained relatively constant at slightly less than 2 percent of personal income. This demonstrates that the “tax value” of charitable giving does not drive contributions. The surest way to increase charitable donations is to increase personal income. Therefore, general tax reduction and reform— especially a flat tax—would be a powerful boost to charitable organizations.

As long as participation is voluntary and no public money is spent on religious activities, faith-based charities should be allowed to express religious values in their socialservice programs without government interference.However, government rules that have the effect of marginalizing faith-based approaches to social problems remain in effect. President George W. Bush issued an executive order to apply the principles of the 1996 Charitable Choice law to most social-service programs, but its implementation has been spotty. The order should be extended and vigorously applied wherever possible. The Bush Administration has amended or eliminated numerous federal agency rules that prohibit government support to religious organizations helping the poor, and that process should be continued and further codified. In addition, the federal government should convert many grant programs into voucher programs that could be used with faith-based providers. Under the Charitable Choice law, faith-based organizations can accept government vouchers with few strings attached, allowing them to preserve their distinct religious identity. Among the top priorities are homes to care for unwed mothers, drug rehabilitation programs, and after-school programs.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act exempts faith-based groups from laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion, and this exemption has been upheld by Congress and the Supreme Court. Government cannot abrogate the right of free association, essential to religious liberty, simply because a religious group accepts government support to further a legitimate government objective—for example, helping the poor. Any legislation that encompasses private or religious service providers should articulate protections that preserve these groups’ missions and practices. The 1996 Charitable Choice law, which upholds the hiring rights of religious organizations partnering with government, should be extended by explicitly protecting staffing and other decisions germane to a faith-based organization’s mission and character.

The Justice Department should defend the employment practices of faith-based groups that come under attack in court and should promote such organizations’ freedom through departmental rulemaking.

Federal agencies should continue to make public facilities available to religious groups helping the needy, such as the Boy Scouts. Federal officials should publicly praise the work of these organizations with site visits and awards ceremonies. This is important not only to extend the compassionate reach of these civic organizations, but also to stigmatize extremists who would destroy these organizations’ independence and influence in civil society.