Copyright 2000 Des Moines Register

Reprinted with permission

May 1, 1999 Saturday
SECTION: METRO IOWA; Pg. 4M
HEADLINE: Facts clear on the separation of church, state
By STEPHEN BUTTRY
Register Columnist
In my younger days, I played Petruchio in my high school's production of "The
Taming of the Shrew." In one scene of that sexist Shakespeare classic, Petruchio
convinces the strong-willed Kate at midday that it is the moon, not the sun,
"that shines so bright."
I thought of the scene this week as some readers tried to inform me that the
constitutional separation of church and state was a myth.
I referred to this doctrine in a news story in Sunday's paper. Quickly came
the e-mail and voice mail response: That's the moon that's shining so brightly.
Pat (short for Petruchio?) Robertson has long contended that the U.S.
Constitution does not separate church from state, and many followers have taken
up the cry. Some repeat Robertson's absurd claim that the principle originated
with the Soviet Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution does not use the exact words "separation of church and
state." Neither does it say "executive privilege," but that's also a
constitutional principle.
The First Amendment says this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The founders were wise in their lack of elaboration. The specific application
of a constitutional provision can change from generation to generation as
society and technology change and new issues arise. But the meaning is clear and
unchanging: Government stays out of religion and religion gets no special
influence in government.
From the first, this was intended and regarded as a separation of church and
state. James Madison, revered as the "Father of the Constitution," used that
very phrase a century before the Soviet Union was formed.
This nation was settled and founded by Puritans, Quakers, Catholics and
others who had suffered at the hand of state-sponsored religion. The founders
wanted no such religious tyranny.
On the other hand, the founders also were greatly influenced by the many

different varieties of Christianity to which most of them belonged. They invoked

God's name in the Declaration of Independence, prayed to him publicly and
acknowledged Sunday as a day off in the Constitution.
In other words, the tension between the First Amendment's "establishment
clause" and the dominant Christian influence in our culture has been with us
since the beginning.
That's how it is with our Constitution. No guarantee is absolute. Freedom of
the press still allows for libel lawsuits. The right to peaceful assembly still
allows for parade permits. The free press can jeopardize a defendant's right to
a fair trial.
With different courts and changing political and cultural currents, the
separation between church and state has been constant. Only the degree of
flexibility and the specific challenges have varied.
Like it or not, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. It has settled
this question. You can disagree. You can work to change the court or change the
Constitution. You can argue over details of history. But the fact right now is
that the U.S. Constitution separates church and state.
We are not a Christian nation, nor should we be.
We need only look through history and around the world today to see the folly
of state religion. Christianity itself is so divided, what in heaven's name
would a Christian nation be anyway?
The moon-is-bright crowd contends that we used to be a Christian nation. It
says or implies that if we just returned to God in some official way, somehow
the nation would become more holy. It's an understandable exercise in wishful
thinking, especially when children are killing each other in our schools. But it
has no basis in fact.
When was it that this was such a godly Christian nation? When we enslaved
African Americans? When we ethnically cleansed the land of American Indians?
When we exploited child labor? When we imprisoned Japanese Americans?
Jesus did not align himself with the government. He did not command his
followers to take over the government. He commanded them to let their light
shine in the world.
You know, like the sun.
------

Reporter Stephen Buttry can be reached at (515) 699-7058 or buttrys

@news.dmreg.com
Copyright 2000 Des Moines Register
Reprinted with permission
April 17, 1999 Saturday
SECTION: METRO IOWA; Pg. 4M
HEADLINE: Religious Right tries to find place in politics
By STEPHEN BUTTRY
Register Columnist
Smarting from their wounds in the secular wars, some leaders of the Religious
Right are running up the white flag.
Conservative Christians should not place their hopes in politics, these
disheartened voices of the Moral Majority are saying. Instead, they should turn
their efforts to winning over the hearts and minds, and most importantly the
souls, of the American people, one by one.
Well, yes and no.
Without question any religious movement succeeds or fails on the individual
level, regardless of how active you are in politics.
The political arena is indeed a secular battlefield and it won't always yield
happy results for those who see themselves as battling for heavenly causes.
But our nation is better off because the religious crusaders who opposed
slavery and supported civil rights did not abandon the political fray. So it's
rather simplistic to conclude now after a few defeats that moral battles should
be waged outside the political arena.
The Christian Right did not fall short of its goals because religion has no
place in politics.
But your chances of succeeding in politics decline when you cast all
disagreements in moral terms. You succeed in politics by finding common ground,
and it's hard to find common ground with people you have demonized.
In addition, the Christian Right has spent enormous amounts of time, money
and energy on issues where politics can provide limited solutions at best.
Look at the most divisive issue of the past generation: abortion. Regardless
of who's right, the 26 years spent trying to reverse Roe vs. Wade have been a
tremendous waste of energy and rhetoric. That genie cannot be returned to the
bottle.

Abortion, once a hushed practice that existed only in a mysterious

underground, is now part of our consciousness.
For women of child-bearing age, abortion has been legal for all or nearly all
of the time since they entered puberty. Even those who regard abortion as wrong
have considered what they would do if they were raped, if a daughter wanted to
end a pregnancy.
After a generation where this option has been common and legal, a new
underground would be much safer and more approachable.
Abortion opponents often liken their crusade to the abolitionist movement. In
some ways, a more apt comparison would be Prohibition. They want to take away a
widely exercised choice about which Americans disagree morally.
It would be futile to outlaw abortion, if the point is to reduce the number
of abortions. If we couldn't control the flow of liquor during Prohibition, and
can't stem the use of methamphetamine now, what makes anyone think we could
control traffic in abortion-inducing drugs?
If you grieve for the millions of lives erased through abortion, you should
seek ways to prevent that loss. Politics has proven it's not an effective way to
stop abortions. After 26 years, and many electoral victories by the Religious
Right, the crusade to outlaw abortion has failed politically. And even if it
succeeds, it's doubtful many abortions would be stopped.
In this case, the disheartened voices of the Moral Majority are right. If
they want to reverse the tide on abortion, they must do it at the individual
level. They must do a better job of persuading women and girls, one by one, of
their moral point of view. They must do a better job of teaching abstinence,
sexual responsibility and birth control. They must do a better job of promoting
adoption.
Perhaps they should turn their energies from the legal and political arenas
to medicine. If technology could be developed to transplant a fetus into the
womb of an adoptive mother, this moral battle would wane if not disappear
altogether.
If you're a follower of the Religious Right, don't leave the political arena
just because some leaders of your movement are discouraged. We all should use
our votes and our voices consistently with our values and our good sense.
Good sense should tell you that politics is not the way to win this battle.
------

Reporter Stephen Buttry can be reached at (515) 699-7058 or buttrys

@news.dmreg.com
Copyright 2000 Des Moines Register
Reprinted with permission
August 28, 1999 Saturday
SECTION: METRO IOWA; Pg. 4M
HEADLINE: School prayer advocates mean well but miss mark
By Stephen Buttry
Register Columnist
As students return to school this fall, and as politicians pander for votes,
we're hearing an old plea with renewed vigor: Let's put God back in our schools.
It's easy to shrug this call off when it comes from the horde of wannabes
seeking presidential support in Iowa. The argument is more compelling coming
from the father of a murdered high school student.
As students returned to Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., earlier
this month, Darrell Scott, father of one of the students killed at the school
last spring, repeated his call for school prayer.
Scott is not someone pushing a hot button to pick up votes. He's a grieving
parent addressing a national tragedy that we all feel acutely. But his solution,
however sincere, is misguided.
The timing was ironic. Just the week before, the nation had been shocked by
an attack on a Jewish day-care center. That violence was motivated by religious
differences.
Public prayer in school, however carried out and however well-intentioned,
singles out those who pray differently.
The people who want to start every school day with prayer are sincerely
trying to address genuine problems: violence, moral decline, lack of respect.
It's understandable that they would remember fondly, if somewhat inaccurately,
the days when schoolchildren started their days by bowing their heads in prayer.
School prayer advocates would remember those days differently if they had
ever been the religious minority in a classroom.
I grew up in Utah before the Supreme Court ruling on school prayer. In many
ways, the public school I attended promoted the Mormon faith, and I was
awkwardly aware that I was the only "gentile" in the class. My wife experienced

much the same thing as the only Catholic in her class in a heavily Lutheran town
in Iowa.
This is a nation founded on pluralism and religious tolerance, and we've
grown more diverse over the years. It was wrong a generation ago to pretend we
were enough alike to pray together in public schools. Today, with dramatic
divisions among Christians and much larger populations of non-Christians such as
Muslims and Buddhists, public prayer in public schools would be an even greater
affront to our First Amendment.
Yes, our schools can and should do a better job of teaching values such as
respect, responsibility, compassion, duty, honesty, consideration and tolerance.
Those values transcend religious differences. But public schools cannot and
should not teach or practice religion, because we do not all share the same
faith.
It's easy and tempting to look at recent mass murders, especially those in
schools, and wonder whether we could prevent such violence by "putting God back
in our schools."
But let's remember that mass murderers such as Richard Speck, Charles
Starkweather, Clyde Barrow and the mysterious ax murderer of Villisca, Ia., grew
up before the Supreme Court stopped public prayer in schools.
Let's also remember that Littleton and Atlanta were not the only cities with
incidents of shocking violence this year. The nation also was disgusted by
shooting sprees in the Midwest and in Los Angeles that were motivated by hatred
of those who are different.
We've seen too much violence stemming from religious differences. We don't
need to start highlighting those differences in classrooms.
Understand also that the Supreme Court never outlawed prayer in school. Every
school day in every public school in this country, students pray. They pray for
help on math tests, for strength in controlling tempers, for ailing parents, for
abused friends, for desired toys and frivolous whims. They ask God's blessing on
school lunches. Some no doubt pray for safety from deranged intruders or their
own classmates.
Those silent prayers of the heart do more for this country than official,
spoken (and for many students and teachers, insincere) prayers ever did or ever
will.
God is not banished from our classrooms. No court and no Congress has the
power to do that. God is present and powerful in classes all over this country,
in the hearts of every student and teacher who silently calls on his name.

Reporter Stephen Buttry can be reached at (515) 699-7058 or

buttrys@news.dmreg.com
Copyright 2000 Des Moines Register
Reprinted with permission
September 25, 1999 Saturday
SECTION: METRO IOWA; Pg. 6M
HEADLINE: Idea of Commandments in schools panders to simplistic wishes
By STEPHEN BUTTRY
Register Columnist
In a nation weary from stories of an adulterous president and a seemingly
endless string of mass murders, the suggestion has an undeniable appeal: Display
the Ten Commandments in our schools.
Students will read every day that they should honor their parents and should
not steal, lie, swear or commit adultery. They then will respect their parents.
They will grow up to be adults who don't steal, lie, swear or cheat on their
spouses.
Most important, these students would be told every school day not to kill.
Maybe that would stop the bloodshed in our schools.
Presidential candidate Steve Forbes showed a willingness to pander to
simplistic wishes when he told Iowa students Monday that he supports posting the
Ten Commandments in schools. He did not, however, show an understanding of our
nation's heritage or constitution. Or even of the Ten Commandments.
Our nation was founded in religious pluralism. In order to unite the
Puritans, Catholics, Quakers and Anglicans who founded the various colonies into
one nation, we needed to avoid religious tyranny. Our founders wrote a Bill of
Rights that forbids government establishment of any religion.
Forbes and other politicians who have supported this notion would have us
believe the Ten Commandments transcend religious divisions. But they don't.
They are the commandments handed down by God in the Scriptures of Christians
and Jews. Promoting them in public schools forces a particular faith on
non-believers and people of other faiths.
More than One Version
Furthermore, even Christians and Jews don't use a single version of the Ten
Commandments. The Scriptures don't actually identify and number the

commandments. They are simply presented in the text of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy
5. Protestants, Catholics and Jews use at least three different sets of
commandments from the same text. Each combines some points that the others break
into individual commands.
So which 10 would Forbes have us post? Which faith will we establish as our
official religion, in violation of the Bill of Rights?
Foundation of Civilization?
Forbes called the Ten Commandments "the foundation of our civilization."
Certainly some essential rules for civilization are reflected in them. The
commands not to kill, steal or lie are fundamental morals that transcend
religious differences. Respect for parents and fidelity in marriage are
essential to uphold the family, an important part of the civilization that's
been under considerable stress.
Other commandments clearly are not part of the foundation of American
civilization.
Surely Forbes understands that much of the advertising in his magazine (and
this newspaper, for that matter) is designed specifically to make readers covet
certain goods. If we suddenly stopped coveting, this nation's economy would fall
into a severe tailspin.
And what about the Sabbath? Do we mean the Jewish Sabbath, which runs from
sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. Or the Christian holy day of Sunday?
Forbes, an Episcopalian, campaigns on both days. To be fair, that doesn't
make him much different from the rest of us. This time of year, most of us keep
our weekends holy by watching the violence of football.
Surely Forbes has not made it this far in business and politics without
hearing the Lord's name taken in vain. However binding this command is for
believers, it's hardly a part of the foundation of this civilization.
We strike out on idolatry, too. We've made our flag so sacred we're trying to
override the Bill of Rights to make it a crime to burn the flag.
Not Secular
There is nothing secular about the Ten Commandments. They are the laws of a
self-described "jealous God," expressing his intolerance for non-believers. By
all means, churches, synagogues, parents and religious schools should do a
better job of teaching the commandments.

For public schools, perhaps we should settle for posting the Bill of Rights.
A personal note: My deepest thanks to the many readers whose kind notes,
messages and prayers helped in my swift recovery from surgery. I appreciated
your thoughtfulness more than I can say.
-----Reporter Stephen Buttry can be reached at (515) 699-7058 or buttrys
@news.dmreg.com