Legal restriction on political endorsements by religious groups is a relatively recent development in the United States. Early American history is replete with examples of politically charged sermons with highly partisan content.

During Sunday morning worship on Sept. 28, the Rev. Dan Fisher told his congregation at Trinity Baptist Church how to vote on Nov. 4 – an act of civil disobedience that he knew would endanger the church’s tax-exempt status.

The next day, right on cue, Americans United for Separation of Church and State called on the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the Yukon, Okla., church for violating the federal ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship.

Pastor Fisher welcomes the challenge. He’s one of 31 Christian ministers from across the nation who participated in what organizers dubbed “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” a campaign initiated by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian legal group based in Arizona.

The goal is simple: Overturn through litigation the IRS regulation prohibiting partisan politics from the pulpit. ADF isn’t seeking to lift all IRS rules against electioneering by religious groups – just the restriction on what pastors can say from the pulpit.

Public opinion appears to support the pulpit rule. When asked if religious leaders should be allowed to openly endorse political candidates from the pulpit without endangering the tax-exempt status of their organization, 54 percent said no, according to the State of the First Amendment survey released last month by the First Amendment Center.

Legal restriction on political endorsements by religious groups is a relatively recent development in the United States. Early American history is replete with examples of politically charged sermons with highly partisan content.

The current ban on electioneering by tax-exempt groups dates to 1954, when then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson pushed an amendment to the tax code through Congress with little debate.

Proponents of the IRS rule argue that tax exemption is a privilege, not a right – a government benefit extended to charities, including religious groups, to serve the public good, not partisan politics.

If churches want freedom from IRS restrictions, they can forgo tax exemption. But if houses of worship take sides in elections, don’t ask taxpayers to subsidize the message.

Opponents counter that tax-code restrictions on what is said from the pulpit violate both freedom of speech and religion as protected by the First Amendment.

Moreover, empowering the IRS to parse what is and isn’t “partisan” in sermons undermines the very principle of church-state separation that advocates of the IRS rule say they are anxious to uphold.

Note that this debate isn’t about the freedom of religious leaders to preach from the pulpit about social and political issues. Both sides agree: Nothing in the tax code prohibits sermons that address public-policy questions of concern to people of faith.

The IRS draws the line only when clergy take sides in political campaigns by endorsing (or opposing) political parties or candidates when speaking from the pulpit.

Pastor Fisher and his fellow protesters seek to erase that line by defying the law. Past accusations of pulpit partisanship have usually involved ambiguous sermons that tell people how to vote without naming names.

But these 31 pastors proclaimed outright endorsement of one candidate (John McCain) and/or attacks on another (Barack Obama). Now the IRS has little choice but to investigate. That process will likely end in a test case challenging the pulpit restriction.

I confess I have no idea how Jesus would vote – and I wouldn’t attend a church where the pastor turned the pulpit into a partisan platform.

At the same time, however, the question of when a sermon becomes too political should be determined by worshipers in pews – not bureaucrats in Washington.

There’s nothing wrong with the broad IRS prohibition on electioneering by tax-exempt religious groups (and all other nonprofits). Churches are supposed to be places of worship and prophetic witness, not political-action committees.

But in the spirit of the First Amendment, maybe it’s time to consider a “pulpit exception” to that ban in the tax code: When preaching from the pulpit, pastors should be left to follow the dictates of conscience – not the regulations of government.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

Consider the bizarre Internet-driven charges that Barack Obama is the Antichrist, powerful venom aimed at influencing the millions of Americans who believe we live in the last days as described in the Book of Revelation.

What began in January with Mike Huckabee’s “Christian Leader” ads in Iowa and subterranean attacks on Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith has further degenerated into false rumors about Barack Obama’s faith and ugly stories about a “witch-hunting” pastor who once blessed Sarah Palin.

In the long history of religion in presidential campaigns, the 2008 race may well be remembered as the sleaziest and most disturbing example of misusing religion to win votes and demonize the opposition.

True, past campaigns featured smears against Thomas Jefferson as an “atheist and infidel,” attacks on William Howard Taft for being a Unitarian, and opposition to John Kennedy because of his Catholic faith (to cite a few examples).

But in Campaign 2008, the debate about who is and isn’t an authentic Christian has sunk to new lows. Consider the bizarre Internet-driven charges that Obama is the Antichrist, powerful venom aimed at influencing the millions of Americans who believe we live in the last days as described in the Book of Revelation.

Christian supporters of Obama charge that this calumny against their candidate is reinforced by a John McCain campaign ad featuring Obama as “the One,” using sound bites from Obama’s speeches and images familiar to readers of the Left Behind series, a popular fictionalized account of the end-time.

Although the McCain campaign claims the ad is only a joke, bloggers and commentators keep the story alive by continuing to debate every word and image.

In this theology-saturated climate, both Obama and McCain have felt compelled to emphasize their Christian bona fides in the race for the White House – as though the nation is electing a Christian in chief rather than a commander in chief.

McCain has sought to reassure evangelicals in the Republican base that he’s on their side. His selection of Sarah Palin is widely seen as having done just that. But now the blogosphere is ablaze with ridicule and disparagement of Palin as a “religious freak.”

Meanwhile, Obama’s campaign continues to be plagued by the lie that Obama is a Muslim. Apparently, the only time a religion other than Christianity gets mentioned in presidential politics is when it’s used as a slur.

According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, 12 percent of registered voters say Obama is a Muslim and another 25 percent of voters aren’t sure about his religion because they’ve heard “different things” about it. The lie about Obama’s faith has been so tenacious that Obama’s campaign has resorted to putting “committed Christian” on some of his literature.

Behind many of the rumors and innuendos is the subliminal message that only a “real Christian” is worthy to be president — a message that reinforces the “Christian nation” rhetoric of our culture wars.

Apparently, this false vision of America sells. According to the State of the First Amendment survey released by the First Amendment Center last week, an astounding 55 percent of the American people agree that the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation.

Of course, the text of the Constitution does no such thing: It nowhere mentions God or Christ; it bars any religious test for public office; and it prohibits any law “respecting an establishment of religion.”

Under the First Amendment, Christianity has a legitimate role to play in political life (as do all religions). Religious motivation in public life and the involvement of religious groups in public policy are inevitable and laudatory byproducts of the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

Moreover, voters have every right to know how the religious views of candidates might shape policy decisions should they be elected.

But there is a critical difference between faith as motivation and faith as manipulation. Unlike the civil rights movement – where faith was a key motivation for many in the struggle for social justice – the current God strategy by candidates and their surrogates often uses religion as a weapon to destroy opponents in the name of winning elections.

Enough is enough.

It’s time for the candidates to set an example by dialing back the God talk. Speak out instead for what the Constitution actually requires: A president committed to upholding the First Amendment by keeping government out of religion while simultaneously ensuring that people of all faiths and none are treated with fairness and respect.

The Constitution, after all, starts off “We the People” – not “We the Christians.”

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

For Americans debating how to balance freedom and security in a post-9/11 world, Sderot - indeed all of Israel - offers a case study in how to combat terrorism while simultaneously maintaining a commitment to freedom of expression in Israeli society.

For a glimpse of life under constant threat of terrorist attack, travel to Sderot – the now-famous Israeli town that has endured thousands of rocket attacks from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip a few miles away.

During my brief visit there last month, Sderot was enjoying a rare period of relative calm thanks to a truce declared in late June.

Nevertheless, the inhabitants stay on edge, wondering where the next indiscriminate projectile will land and whom it will kill or maim. Despite the ceasefire, a rocket exploded in the town a few days before my arrival.

What is remarkable, however, is the aura of normalcy in Sderot – a hard-fought mayoral contest, schools in session, shops open for business. Still, evidence of vigilance abounds.

Bomb shelters dot the landscape at every bus stop and in every park. Kindergarten children don’t go outside for recess because the 15-second warning of incoming rockets wouldn’t give teachers enough time to get them back inside the fortified buildings.

When I asked Achlama Peretz, a college administrator and candidate for mayor, how the citizens of Sderot coped with the daily stress, she replied: “We have no choice but to keep living our lives as best we can. We must do so because Sderot has become a symbol of resilience and freedom for all Israelis.”

For Americans debating how to balance freedom and security in a post-9/11 world, Sderot – indeed all of Israel – offers a case study in how to combat terrorism while simultaneously maintaining a commitment to freedom of expression in Israeli society.

Full disclosure: I was in Israel as a guest of Project Interchange, an institute of the American Jewish Committee. Traveling with me were representatives from seven other Washington-based organizations ranging from the National Association of Evangelicals to the American Civil Liberties Union.

This was no propaganda tour. Our hosts made sure that we met with Jews and Arabs representing a broad spectrum of opinion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – and the many other challenges facing the State of Israel.

In fact, despite knowing the old joke about “two Jews and three opinions,” I was taken aback by the wide diversity of views among Jewish Israelis about the Palestinian question, the actions of the Israeli government, the settlements, religion-state relations, and many other hot-button issues.

Add to the mix the Palestinian and Israeli Arab voices we heard, and the result was exposure to a robust, intense discussion about the future of the Israeli experiment in democracy.

I can honestly say that I have never spoken to citizens of any nation (including my own) as self-critical as the Israelis we met. As one Israeli human rights leader told us, there is more criticism of Israel in Israel than in America.

Dissent and debate in Israel appear to be part of what it means to be patriotic – and Israelis are intensely patriotic – not an affront to flag and country. Free speech is not something to be feared or managed, but rather the lifeblood of Israeli democracy.

What most impressed me, however, weren’t the words we heard but the actions we saw: Many thousands of Israeli Jews in hundreds of human rights groups working to improve civil rights for Israeli Arabs, Ethiopian immigrants, Bedouin women, and Palestinians in the occupied territories.

This is the Israel we don’t know. With all of the images of war and conflict, and the legitimate debate about Israeli policies, the news media tell us far too little about Israelis standing up for the rights of others and working to build a democratic society in a hostile, dangerous neighborhood.

If Israelis can uphold free speech, value dissent and work for human rights in a nation where every day is a potential 9/11, then so can we.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

Archbishop Demetrios delivers the benediction Wednesday before the third session of the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Like red, white and blue bunting, pastors and prayers were prominently displayed in Denver at the Democratic National Convention – as they will be in St. Paul for the GOP.

Much of the appeal to God from political podiums is no doubt sincere. After all, most Americans are religious people who expect political gatherings to have invocations, benedictions and a fair amount of God-talk in between.

But beyond the benign rituals of civil religion, the mixture of God and politics in America can be a volatile brew, often poisoning the body politic with charges and countercharges about which party is religion-friendly – and which candidate is a true Christian.

From Mitt Romney’s church to Barack Obama’s pastor, this year’s presidential race has been marked by some of the ugliest debates about religion in living memory. And all of the leading candidates have scrambled to reassure the so-called “values voters” that they are on God’s side.

It’s no accident that the first joint appearance of Obama and John McCain was held in a megachurch and moderated by an evangelical pastor asking questions about what it means to be a Christian.

Many churches have become political hot spots, organizing for causes from peace on the left to abortion on the right – all while trying (sometimes unsuccessfully) to avoid violating the IRS rules against electioneering by tax-exempt nonprofits.

Until now, at least, most Americans have voiced support for mixing God and politics. According to polls taken over the past 10 years by the Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans have favored the idea of churches’ speaking out on social and political issues.

Now the pendulum is moving the other way.

In a recent survey released by Pew, a majority (52 percent) now want churches to keep out of politics.

Here’s the surprising part: The greatest shift in opinion has occurred among conservatives. Four years ago, a mere 30 percent of conservatives said churches should stay out of politics. Today, half of conservatives feel that way.

It’s not just conservatives generally, but social conservatives in particular who are re-thinking the role of churches in the political arena.

In 2004, for example, only 25 percent of people who rated gay marriage as a top voting issue said churches should stay out of politics. Today, that percentage has risen to 50 percent.

Even the faithful are growing weary of faith-based politics.

While the causes of this discontent may be hard to pin down, I suspect that much of the shift in opinion is rooted in disillusionment with the political process. The strategy of some evangelical leaders to ally churches with the Republican Party hasn’t paid off. The same might be said of African-American churches aligned with the Democratic Party.

As in the folktale of the boy who rode the tiger and ended up inside, religious groups seeking to influence a political party are swallowed up as just one more interest group to be appeased.

That’s one reason why many emerging evangelical leaders are trying to divorce the Gospel from political ideology – and simultaneously attempting to expand the religious agenda beyond abortion and sexual orientation to include such issues as poverty and the environment.

For some Americans, of course, any involvement of churches in politics is too much. On a billboard near the Denver convention, the Freedom From Religion Foundation proclaims: “Keep Religion Out of Politics.”

But for most Christians and for many others, faith by definition requires political involvement of some kind. Contrary to the freedom-from-religion crowd, the First Amendment doesn’t bar religion from politics. It protects the right of houses of worship to speak out on the public-policy issues of the day.

Pollsters may be asking the wrong question. It isn’t “Should churches keep out of politics?” but rather, “How should churches engage in politics?”

The “how” question is best answered when churches keep an arm’s length from political parties and partisan rhetoric – and instead focus on proclaiming a prophetic vision of the kind of society they believe God requires.

As Martin Luther King put it: “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, never its tool.”

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail him at chaynes@freedom forum.org.

Nevertheless, boycotting the Games is the least I can do for Gao Zhisheng, the human rights lawyer currently imprisoned by the Chinese government - and for the countless other prisoners of conscience in detention centers and forced labor camps throughout China.

The International Olympic Committee and the megabucks corporate sponsors of the games breathed a sigh of relief when the Beijing Olympics got under way last week with no major boycotts or disruptions.

Last spring, faced with widespread outrage over China’s brutal suppression of Tibetan protesters and stubborn support for murderous regimes in Sudan, Burma and Zimbabwe, IOC chairman Jacques Rogge nervously insisted “a boycott doesn’t solve anything.”

Rogge may be right. But that hasn’t stopped people of conscience around the world from banging freedom’s drum to counter the noisy celebrations of “peace and harmony” emanating from Beijing.

One small but telling protest caught my eye: Masahisa Tsujitani, a Japanese maker of the iron balls used by most shot-put medalists in the last four Olympics, refused to provide his product for the China Games.

“I feel badly for the athletes who won’t get to use my shots, but after Tibet I know I’m right,” Tsujitani told the Los Angeles Times in April. “Enough is enough.”

Apparently, enough is not enough for President Bush (the first American president to attend an Olympics outside of the U.S.) or for the other 100 world leaders whose presence at the opening ceremonies spoke volumes about China’s growing great-power clout.

For me, at least, the hypocrisy quotient is too high to stomach. That’s why I’m not watching the Games. Of course, my private boycott won’t affect the Nielsen ratings one whit. Nor will my vow to avoid products sold by the 12 major corporate sponsors of the Olympics cause Coca-Cola executives to lose any sleep.

Nevertheless, it’s the least I can do for Gao Zhisheng, the human rights lawyer currently imprisoned by the Chinese government – and for the countless other prisoners of conscience in detention centers and forced labor camps throughout China.

Gao “disappeared” a year ago. But news of his torture has leaked out. According to an informant quoted by Sound of Hope Radio, Chinese authorities stripped Gao naked, “threw him to the ground and attacked him with electric batons.”

The treatment of Gao is typical of the torture routinely meted out to members of Falun Gong, a spiritual movement in China that has been viciously repressed by the government for years. Gao’s crime was that he dared to speak out against the brutal treatment of Falun Gong practitioners.

For all of the hype about how giving China the Olympics would lead to more openness and concern for human rights by Beijing, the opposite has taken place.

No one is fooled by the few cosmetic attempts to placate dissent – such as the absurd “protest pens” inside three city parks. Chinese authorities are doing everything possible to stamp out any sign of protest – and are working overtime to keep the lid on freedom of speech, press and religion.

As documented by Freedom House, a widely respected human rights organization, China harasses and restricts Christians, Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists and members of other religions, imprisons more journalists than any other country in the world, and heavily censors the Internet (with the cooperation of foreign companies). Half of the world’s population living in countries designated “not free” by Freedom House live in China.

Much of the lofty rhetoric about the “non-political” nature of these (or any) Olympics is pure nonsense.

The 2008 Olympic Games are a political and economic bonanza for China, much as the 1936 games were a propaganda victory for Hitler’s Germany (despite the embarrassment to the Nazis caused by the star performance of Jesse Owens, the great black track-and-field star).

So why do so many world leaders and corporate CEOs hold their noses while China holds the Games? Follow the gold.

The real winners in Beijing aren’t on the medal stands – they’re the Olympic sponsors and other corporations who are salivating at the prospect of tapping into the world’s largest untapped consumer market. Play by Chinese rules and the payoff could be worth billions.

Wearing face masks may ameliorate the dirty air of Beijing – but there’s no face-saving mask big enough to cover up the moral pollution of the Beijing Olympics.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

<strong>Charles C. Haynes</strong>

After 12 years of censorship and regimentation, many high school students will return to class this fall with little or no idea about what it means to be a free, active and engaged citizen in a democracy.

Let’s hope someone slips them a copy of the First Amendment – with instructions on how to use it.

Far too many public school officials are afraid of freedom and avoid anything that looks like democracy. Under the heading of “safety and discipline,” administrators censor student religious and political speech, shut down student newspapers and limit student government to discussions about decorations at the prom.

Fortunately, a growing number of brave students defy the odds and take seriously what they hear about free speech in civics class.

In May, Heather Gillman won her fight when a federal judge ruled that her Florida high school violated the First Amendment by prohibiting students from displaying any symbol of support for gay rights, including rainbow stickers.

And a month earlier, Alexander Nuxoll won the right to express the opposite viewpoint when the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that his suburban Chicago school must allow him to wear a “Be Happy, Not Gay” T-shirt while his civil rights case proceeds.

Of course, students don’t always win in court – in fact, they often lose. Also in May, Kimberly Jacobs lost her battle to wear a religious message on her shirt when a 9th Circuit panel upheld a Nevada school district’s dress code prohibiting messages (including political or religious expression) on student uniforms.

But win or lose, students shouldn’t need to call a lawyer in the first place. Public schools are supposed to be places that teach and model what it means to be a citizen in a democracy, especially what it means to use the basic freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Instead, many school officials are convinced that keeping order means ordering students to leave their religious and political convictions at the schoolhouse door.

Yes, schools have an important interest in maintaining safety and discipline. Schools can and should prohibit speech that is obscene or defamatory or promotes illegal activity.

And schools may draw the line at student speech that can be clearly shown to cause a substantial disruption in the school.

But the widespread practice of censoring the political and religious views of students simply because their speech might offend someone or might be controversial contradicts everything schools are supposed to teach about freedom of expression.

Students have become canaries in the free-speech coal mine: We can predict the future health of freedom of speech in America by looking at how public schools live up to – or fail to live up to – the First Amendment.

Right now, there are a lot of sick canaries out there. It’s no mystery why so many young people tune out public-policy debates, stay home from the polls and become cynical about their government.

Not all school officials make the false choice between security and freedom. In a small number of schools across the nation – Federal Hocking High School in Ohio and Fairview Elementary School in California are two stellar examples – students are given a real voice in the life of the school.

When schools uphold the First Amendment, they become learning environments that are not only free, but also far safer than schools where students are alienated by censorship and repression.

The challenge is for schools to promote freedom through lessons in civic responsibility. This includes, among other things, involving students in decision-making, teaching peer mediation of conflicts, encouraging a free student press, offering instruction in the ethical use of the Internet and integrating lessons in civic character across the curriculum.

Here’s a concept: Freedom works. Freedom and democracy, not censorship and repression, create safer schools for students – and ensure a more secure society for us all.

Freedom also takes work. Many school officials complain that in this era of high-stakes testing they don’t have time for such “extras” as supporting meaningful student government, promoting student journalism or creating opportunities for student engagement in public policy and service.

But if we can send young people to fight and die in the name of freedom and democracy abroad, surely we can take time to practice freedom and democracy at home.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org

<strong>Charles C. Haynes </strong>

Hashmel Turner of Fredericksburg, Va., wears two hats: city council member and part-time pastor of the First Baptist Church of Love.

Not surprisingly, the Rev. Turner wants to pray in the name of Jesus Christ – including when it’s his turn to offer the opening prayer at council sessions.

But on July 23, Turner lost the latest round in his battle to invoke Jesus when the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Fredericksburg City Council’s policy requiring that prayers at meetings be nondenominational.

In an opinion written by retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (asked to take part in the case as a visiting judge), the court ruled that the prayers at issue are “government speech” and therefore the prayer policy does not violate Turner’s free speech or free exercise of religion.

Welcome to the confusing, contradictory and downright silly world of government prayers.

Like many other communities, Fredericksburg is divided about the practice of invocations at council meetings. The current dispute began in 2005 when the council changed its policy of allowing sectarian prayers to avoid a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The new policy, in turn, provoked a lawsuit from Councilman Turner. When it comes to state prayers, government officials are often sued if they do and sued if they don’t.

The Fredericksburg prayer dilemma traces back to Marsh v. Chambers, a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of legislative prayers – so long as such prayers don’t advance a particular religion.

In Marsh, the high court wants to have it both ways: Keep the longstanding tradition of opening legislative sessions with prayer (dating to the nation’s founding) but at the same time prohibit government prayers that proselytize or endorse one faith over another.

But here’s the rub: To-whom-it-may-concern prayers strike many people as a very bad idea. For the Rev. Turner and some other religious Americans, generic prayers aren’t real prayers.

And for other believers and nonbelievers, any state prayer violates religious freedom. As religious-liberty attorney Oliver Thomas puts it, “Nonsectarian prayers are like Grape Nuts – they’re neither.”

I’m in the camp that sees state prayers – and state religion in general – as antithetical to authentic faith.

Consider the infamous “plastic reindeer test” crafted by the Supreme Court in cases involving holiday displays. Governments, it seems, may include a creche in the official display, as long as it is surrounded by enough reindeer, Santa, Frosty and other seasonal paraphernalia to render the baby Jesus a secular symbol.

Or consider the use of “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and on our currency. Various Supreme Court justices have opined over the years that such references to deity don’t violate the First Amendment because the expressions have been drained of their religious meaning and have become what Justice William Brennan called “ceremonial deism.”

State religion, in other words, is constitutional as long as it doesn’t mean anything religious. Why anyone of faith supports this arrangement is beyond me. Perhaps they believe that empty symbolism is better than none at all.

A better solution is to liberate religion to be authentic by taking the government out of the picture. A good example is how most public schools have moved from school-sponsored to community-sponsored baccalaureate services during graduation weekend.

Not only are such events constitutional, but they also free the community to have real sermons and real prayers rather than the lowest-common-denominator religious services of the past.

City council meetings, of course, present a different challenge. The current practice of opening with generic prayers – although constitutional under the Supreme Court’s rulings – continues to offend many believers and nonbelievers alike.

If we must have an invocation at government functions, then let’s do it in silence. That way the Rev. Turners in the room can pray freely in the name of Jesus – and everyone else can pray (or not) according to the dictates of conscience.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

Charles C. Haynes

Suddenly this summer, the reality of same-sex couples lining up to get married in California has led some religious leaders to rethink their government role.

In a letter last month, Bishop Marc Handley Andrus of the Episcopal Diocese of California directed his clergy to “encourage all couples, regardless of orientation, to follow the pattern of first being married in a secular service and then being blessed in The Episcopal Church.”

The bishop’s missive illustrates what a tangled web we have woven when clergy intone “by the power invested in me by the state.”

Because the Episcopal Church doesn’t sanction same-sex marriage – but gives the option of blessing the union – the bishop appears to be seeking a way to bless all couples while distancing the church from legal arrangements sanctioned by the state.

“There are a lot of benefits in getting out of the legal marriage business,” the Very Rev. Brian Baker told The Sacramento (Calif.) Bee in reaction to the bishop’s letter. “This way the clergy and the couple can focus on the spiritual blessings the church has to offer and not the political stuff.”

On the theological flip side, many conservative clergy worry that as agents of the state they will be pressured to perform same-sex marriages – or, in some other way, coerced into recognizing same-sex relationships in contradiction of church doctrine.

Maybe the bishop is on the right track: Separate secular from sacred by drawing a bright line between civil arrangements and the sacrament of marriage.

Each state would limit itself to defining marriage as civil benefits for committed couples (as mandated by state law) – and each religious group would be free to define marriage according to the tenets of its faith.

The practice of dubbing clergy agents of the state is a vestige of history in Europe and some American Colonies when the established church determined who could be married.

Disestablishment in America ended church monopoly over marriage – but left in place the dual role of clergy as religious leaders and state actors in the marriage arena.

Ending this church-state entanglement wouldn’t end the gay-marriage debate. But it might serve to reframe the issue by focusing on civic arguments for and against extending government benefits to same-sex couples.

In my view, it isn’t the business of government to preserve the “sanctity of marriage.” Nor is it the business of government to dictate the meaning of marriage to any religious community.

At the same time, no religious group should be allowed to impose a religious definition of marriage on the rest of society. Various faiths in the United States define the sacrament of marriage in various ways.

The establishment clause of the First Amendment should bar government officials from making public policy solely on the basis of a theological conviction about what constitutes “marriage.”

Of course, even if Americans agreed to separate civil and religious marriage, the patchwork of state solutions to the marriage conundrum would persist for some time.

Where civil same-sex marriage is prohibited, sacred ceremonies by religious groups that support gay marriage would still receive no legal recognition.

And where same-sex marriage or civil unions are legal, those civil arrangements would still not be recognized by religious groups opposed to gay marriage.

But at least decisions about civil arrangements in marriage would be determined without church dictating to state – and without state interfering with the religious freedom of churches, synagogues, mosques or temples.

When I first floated this idea four years ago (on the cusp of the Massachusetts decision legalizing gay marriage), I thought the cleanest break would be to call state arrangements “civil unions” and religious ceremonies “marriage.” Now I’m not so sure that’s workable.

Removing the much-contested term “marriage” from the same-sex marriage debate would have obvious political advantages.

But it might not go down well with the millions of religiously unaffiliated or nonreligious Americans who are likely to prefer being “married” to “civil unioned.”

It’s probably best to stay with “marriage,” but separate the civil from the religious by ending the role of clergy as agents of government.

After all, for people of faith, marriage in a house of worship should be by the power invested by God – not by the state.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

Establishing a charter requires shedding overt religious identity because "religious charter school" is a First Amendment oxymoron.

On June 16, seven Roman Catholic schools in Washington, D.C., were transformed into seven public charter schools by a unanimous vote of the D.C. Public Charter School Board. It’s a conversion of sorts – only in reverse.

Other religious communities around the nation are already on the charter bandwagon, opening Arabic charters without Islam and Hebrew charters without Judaism. Not to be left behind, a Protestant minister in Harlem is pressing to start what he claims will be a religion-free charter in his church building.

Strange as it may sound, this is a hot new trend in education: creating faith-based schools without the faith.

Establishing a charter requires shedding overt religious identity because “religious charter school” is a First Amendment oxymoron. Although free from some regulations that apply to traditional public schools, charters are still public schools. That means they must be nonsectarian – neither promoting nor denigrating religion.

So why do people of faith leap to schools of no faith? In the case of the Washington Catholic schools, it’s all about the bottom line. As Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl told The Washington Post, “We simply don’t have the resources to keep all those schools open.”

With voucher proposals stalled in many state legislatures – or running up against state constitutional barriers – some Catholic dioceses and other religious groups are eyeing charter schools as a funding alternative.

But take the Catholic out of Catholic schools and what’s left? According to the archbishop, “They will have the same teachers, the same kids, the same environment. There will still be a level of value formation.”

What that will look like remains to be seen. At this point, it’s hard to see how the schools can sustain the “same environment” given that charters must be nonsectarian in hiring, admission and curriculum.

But at least these Catholic schools are populated mostly by non-Catholic students. When charter schools are designed to attract students of one religion, being faith-based without the faith is a much greater challenge.

Consider last year’s controversy surrounding the opening of Ben Gamla Charter School in Florida, the nation’s first Hebrew charter school. It took several tries before the school board approved the Hebrew curriculum because of concerns about religious bias in the materials.

Ben Gamla’s start-up problems, however, haven’t dissuaded Jewish community leaders in other states from undertaking similar efforts. An application was filed this month to open a Hebrew-language charter school in New York City.

Excluding faith from Hebrew charter schools doesn’t seem to bother proponents. Philanthropist Michael Steinhardt, a backer of the New York school, was quoted last fall in the New Jersey Jewish News as envisioning “a nationwide system of Jewish charter schools focusing on Jewish elements, not on religious studies- which appeals only to a minority of Jews anyway – but on elements of Jewish culture that make us strong.”

What is complicated line-drawing for Jews is even more complex for Muslims. The current uproar over Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy in Minnesota underscores the pitfalls and challenges of attempting to separate Arabic culture and Islamic faith.

After news reports of possible mosque-state violations, the Minnesota Department of Education found TIZA generally in compliance with state law, ordering a few modest changes in school practice. But it won’t be easy for school officials to remain neutral toward religion as required by the First Amendment in a school serving mostly Muslims who want and expect an environment that reflects Islamic values.

Even if all of these schools manage to satisfy the letter of the First Amendment (a big if), the trend toward faith-based schools without the faith is problematic for at least two reasons.

First, public schools were founded to educate youngsters of all races and creeds. Of course, parents have the right to send their children to religious or other private schools. Public schools, however, receive public support because they serve the common good – not the interests of one group.

It’s important to ask whether Hebrew and Arabic charter schools – filled with mostly Jewish and Muslim students, respectively – undermine the purpose of public schools by creating a balkanized system of public education.

Second, a faith-based school without the faith does religion no favors. Devout Christians, Jews, Muslims and others may be tempted to take the money and start the school. But substituting “culture” for “religion” is no way to advance the mission of faith.

Religious leaders, beware. This Faustian bargain isn’t worth the spiritual cost.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center a(www.freedomforum.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org

2008 is the Year of the Political Pastor, with the IRS trying to distinguish between the personal and the institutional.

Pastor Wiley Drake got the all-clear from the Internal Revenue Service last month – and that means his congregation at the First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif., will keep its tax-exempt status.

The pastor’s IRS problem began last summer when he used the church’s letterhead and his Internet radio show to announce his support for then-Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State demanded an IRS investigation – and the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, rushed to Drake’s defense.

In a May 12 letter, the IRS ruled that Drake acted as an individual and not as a representative of the church when he endorsed Huckabee.

Drake’s run-in with the IRS is just the latest round in the long-running fight over tax-code regulations prohibiting nonprofits, including houses of worship, from endorsing candidates or political parties.

In the 2004 election cycle, some 60 religious groups were investigated – and that number is expected to be higher this time around.

Cut through the gobbledygook of IRS regulations and the bottom line is this: Preachers are free to use the pulpit to speak out on public-policy issues – but are required to stop short of endorsing particular candidates or parties in church publications or at official functions.

As individuals, however, religious leaders may get involved in campaigns and endorse candidates. According to the IRS, Drake’s endorsement of Huckabee was personal, not institutional.

In this year of the Political Pastor, IRS line-drawing on this question is a confused attempt to make a distinction without a difference.

Wiley Drake, Jeremiah Wright, John Hagee, Ron Parsley, Michael Pfleger and many other pastors have made it perfectly clear this election season how they want the faithful to vote – even as they claim to speak as “individuals” and not for their churches.

Let’s call it the wink-wink rule: “In my sermon this morning, I’m not going to tell you how to vote – but, wink-wink, his initials are (candidate name here).”

The Alliance Defense Fund argues that the IRS rules should be modified to lift restrictions on what can be said from the pulpit.

Sept. 28 – just weeks before the presidential election – ADF is promoting “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” to encourage pastors to “openly discuss the positions of political candidates.”

Advocates on both sides invoke the First Amendment to make the case for and against the IRS rule prohibiting political endorsements from the pulpit.

Some proponents of strict church-state separation warn that partisan preaching from the pulpit undermines the establishment clause. On the other side, many Christian conservatives argue that restricting pulpit sermons is a denial of freedom of speech and religion.

It isn’t clear to me, however, why banning partisan politics from the pulpit is required by the First Amendment.

The establishment clause, after all, limits government – not religious groups. In fact, it could be argued that government monitoring of what is preached in houses of worship is a greater threat to religious freedom, including the separation of church and state, than pastors endorsing politicians or parties.

Whether church (or mosque or synagogue) involvement in partisan politics is good for religion or society is an important issue – one for congregations themselves to debate – but it isn’t an establishment-clause question. The First Amendment fully protects the right of religious organizations to participate in politics.

But it’s also debatable to what degree this is about “free speech.”

Tax exemption is a government benefit with strings attached. All charitable groups recognized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code are subject to a ban on electioneering. If churches don’t want restrictions, they can forgo exemptions.

It’s good public policy to require that charities, including religious groups, refrain from partisan politics in exchange for a tax benefit designed to serve the common good.

But it may be time to jettison the wink-wink rule and let pastors say what they want from the pulpit, as long as they speak for themselves.

Given the choice, I’ll take partisan politics from the pulpit over speech police in the pews.

E-mail Charles C. Haynes of the First Amendment Center (firstamendmentcenter.org) at chaynes@freedomforum.org.

WILEY DRAKE:
Pastor of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif., probed by IRS after endorsing Mike Huckabee for president.

RON PARSLEY:

Vehemently anti-Islam pastor of the Pentacostal World Harvest Church of Columbus, Ohio, has endorsed John McCain.

MICHAEL PFLEGER:

Pastor of St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church in Chicago (foreground, with Jesse Jackson) lampooned Hillary Clinton in a sermon at Barack Obama's old church.

Allegations of school-sponsored prayer don't ordinarily provoke threats of violence. But Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy in Inver Grove Heights, Minn., is no ordinary public school.

At a charter school in Minnesota, what should have been a “call the lawyers” dispute over religion in the classroom has escalated into a “call the FBI” imbroglio involving death threats against school officials.

Allegations of school-sponsored prayer don’t ordinarily provoke threats of violence. But Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy in Inver Grove Heights, Minn., is no ordinary public school.

TIZA is a public charter school named for an eighth-century Muslim leader, housed in space leased from the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, with a curriculum that includes Arabic as a second language and a student body that appears to be largely Muslim – a magnet for controversy in post-9/11 America.

Right on cue, controversy arrived last month after Katherine Kersten, a columnist for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, suggested that TIZA might be an “Islamic school” funded by taxpayers.

She offered as Exhibit A the eyewitness account of a substitute teacher who claimed, among other things, that during her one day at the school the Friday assembly was actually a required prayer service attended by all students.

Word of a madrassah in Minnesota spread through the Internet like wildfire. A longtime critic of Islam, Robert Spencer, suggested that TIZA might be part of a “grand jihad” bent on undermining Western civilization.

Not surprisingly, TIZA now receives what the school’s director describes as “numerous death threats, harassing e-mails, harassing phone calls.”

The hysteria over TIZA is just the latest example of a growing number of attacks on Muslims and Muslim institutions in the United States.

The school’s staff is well aware that Islamophobia sometimes goes beyond words and turns violent. As recently as March, a federal grand jury in Nashville handed down an indictment charging three men in connection with an arson fire at the Islamic Center in Columbia, Tenn.

Fortunately, some of the news coverage of the school – especially an investigative report by KARE 11 News in Minneapolis – has provided a more accurate and balanced look at what is actually going on in the school. From these accounts, it would appear that TIZA administrators are sincere in their aim to run a nonsectarian school.

According to the school’s lead teacher, Wendy Swanson-Choi, who has observed every classroom for the past three years, there is no religious instruction during the school day or any pressure by teachers for students to participate in any religious activity.

It’s true that many students do attend Islamic-studies classes taught by community members after school. But this is no different from the Christian Good News Clubs offered after school at many elementary public schools throughout the nation (and upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court).

At the same time, however, TIZA’s efforts to accommodate the religious practices of the mostly Muslim student body may have gone too far. In various news accounts, the school acknowledges that class is interrupted so that students can fulfill prayer obligations and that Friday assemblies are indeed prayer services – although the school says that all prayers are voluntary and Friday prayers are led by parent volunteers.

Even if the school doesn’t encourage participation (and this is one of the allegations that needs more investigation), the First Amendment has been violated if class is halted for prayer and/or kids go to organized religious services within a public school. Students may pray all they like during their free time. But prayer times can’t be organized or endorsed by the school.

Far from being an Islamic plot to take over America, TIZA would appear to be a charter school with somewhat fuzzy ideas about what is and isn’t permitted under the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Separation of church and state is also separation of mosque and state – and the “public” in public charter school requires TIZA officials to avoid all school sponsorship or endorsement of religion, even while attempting to accommodate the religious needs of students.

TIZA may have crossed a First Amendment line – that’s for the Minnesota Department of Education to determine and, if necessary, to correct. But it should go without saying that in a nation committed to the rule of law, even the most egregious First Amendment violation doesn’t justify hate mail and death threats.

When we need the FBI to protect a school from hate and violence, something has gone terribly wrong in America.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org

———

READ MORE
Minnesota taxpayers paying for Muslim school?

Is the group guilty of child abuse, or is it a victim of persecution?

Mothers and children of the sect: Religious freedom ends when child abuse begins, but defining abuse may create a slippery slope that results in oppression of unpopular groups.

Texas officials are trying hard to keep the focus on child abuse – and away from religion – in the custody battle involving 437 children seized from a polygamist religious sect this month.

If only it were so simple.

Like it or not, this conflict is about far more than the issue of older men having sex with underage girls in violation of Texas law. It’s also about religion – specifically the religious culture of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Defenders of the church argue that the raid was an overreaction to one telephone call (that may have been a hoax) and was motivated by longstanding hostility toward the FLDS community. The state counters that dramatic measures are justified when evidence points to children trapped in a religious culture that promotes child abuse.

The only way to sort out the truth, and determine the fate of the children, will be to put the FLDS way of life on trial.

Polygamists get little public sympathy, despite the positive spin on HBO’s “Big Love.” But polygamy and underage marriage are only part of a larger public concern about the psychological and physical harm children may suffer from being raised in what appears to be an insular, authoritarian environment.

Ordinarily, I bristle when someone labels a religious group a “cult” – a term that, in popular parlance, is often used to describe “a religion I don’t like.” Adherents of faiths considered mainstream today – Catholics and Mormons, among others – were derided as “cult members” in the 19th century.

FLDS, however, has all of the marks of a more academic definition of cult: isolated from the world, secretive and beholden to a charismatic leader who exercises absolute power and authority.

Under the First Amendment, of course, cults, sects and a wide range of religious movements, new and old, are protected in the practice of their faith, no matter how unpopular or isolated from society. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld some limits on religious practice (starting with polygamy in 1878), such cases are rare.

But religious freedom ends when child abuse begins. Adults, for example, may have a right to refuse lifesaving health care, including blood transfusions, for themselves, but not for their children.

Defining “abuse,” however, is itself subject to abuse, sometimes creating a slippery legal slope that gives people license to persecute unpopular religious groups.

In the early 1800s, the presence of children in Shaker communities led some states to pass laws restricting the rights of Shaker parents, including giving the state power to “rescue” children by awarding custody to a non-Shaker parent.

More recently, in the 1960s, law enforcement sometimes looked the other way when “deprogrammers” snatched young people from new religious movements at the instigation of fearful parents.

Today, Texas officials are employing a sweeping definition of “child abuse” by removing 437 children from their FLDS families. Now the state must justify its actions by arguing that all of the children were harmed or potentially harmed by life in the church culture. As Tom Vick of the Texas Bar Association (who is rounding up lawyers for the children) puts it: “If it’s a dangerous situation for one child, it’s a dangerous situation for all.”

This is a high bar, far more difficult than a limited investigation into specific allegations of underage marriage. A victory for the state could mean that none of the children can be safely returned to the church. That could well spell the end of the FLDS community, at least above ground.

That’s why Texas should proceed with caution from here on. The outcome of this case could create new grounds for intervention when the government decides an unpopular religious group is inherently detrimental to child welfare.

Temporarily removing the children may have been justified in this case – that’s what the courts will need to determine. But the ultimate decision about the children’s fate should be based on whether there is clear evidence of systematic sexual abuse rather than on general condemnation of the beliefs of FLDS followers or prejudice against their way of life.

Barring such abuse, these children belong with their parents. Being raised in an unconventional religious system may appall or offend outsiders, but it is not by definition abusive. As much as Texas officials may not want to deal with it, this case is not only about child welfare – it’s also about religious freedom.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.freedomforum.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center a(www.freedomforum.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org

———

THE CHILDREN OF THE YEARNING FOR ZION RANCH
• Texas officials have taken all 463 children at the ranch, which is controlled by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

• Of the 53 girls ages 14 to 17 in custody, 31 – 60 percent – have either given birth or are expecting, Texas officials say.

• Under Texas law, children under age 17 generally cannot consent to sex with an adult.

• Church officials say at least 17 of the girls may actually be adults whom Texas officials have mistaken labeled as minors.

The religious marketplace of America is not only dynamic - it's also crowded. The United States is now home to all major world religions, many minor ones, and some entirely homegrown.

Thanks to the First Amendment, Americans are free to choose in matters of faith. As it turns out, that’s exactly what we do.

A recent report by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that almost half of us “have either switched religious affiliation, moved from being unaffiliated with any religion to being affiliated with a particular faith, or dropped any connection to a specific religious tradition altogether.”

The religious marketplace of America is not only dynamic – it’s also crowded. The United States is now home to all major world religions, many minor ones, and some entirely homegrown.

Although the Pew report tells us that 78.4 pecent of Americans identify themselves as “Christian,” that is a very big tent covering scores, if not hundreds, of religious groups with widely divergent views about what it means to be Christian.

One of the study’s most surprising findings is that just 51 percent of American adults are now affiliated with Protestant denominations.

Only 20 years ago, two-thirds of the population was Protestant. Soon the United States – almost entirely Protestant at the founding – will be a minority Protestant nation. (The full report is available at religions.pewforum.org.)

This dramatic demographic shift may help explain the growing anxiety expressed by many traditionalist Protestants as our society moves beyond the Protestant ethos that dominated America for much of our early history.

Culture-war conflicts over state-sponsored religion are less about 60-second prayers in schools or Ten Commandments monuments in courthouses and more about struggles to define who we are as a nation – and who we will be.

For better or worse (depending on your point of view), the Pew study describes a newly diverse America in the 21st century, a place where a cacophony of religious and nonreligious voices compete to be heard.

Although still relatively small in numbers, Buddhists (.07 percent), Muslims (.06 percent), Hindus (.04 percent) and adherents of other world religions are increasingly visible and vocal in America’s public square.

Even some familiar American groups are beginning to have an unfamiliar look. The report tells us, for example, that a third of adult Catholics in the U.S. are now Latino, including nearly half of all Catholics ages 18-29.

Thanks to immigration (and conversion), the number of Catholics has held steady at about a fourth of the population for several decades – despite the fact that a third of people raised as Catholics no longer identify with the faith.

Equally significant for understanding the new religious landscape in America is the rapid growth of what pollsters sometimes dub the “religious nones” – people who say they are not affiliated with any faith.

In the 1980s, surveys put that number at between 5 percent and 8 percent. Today the number is 16.1 percent of adult Americans, according to the Pew study.

Unaffiliated, however, doesn’t necessarily mean nonreligious. People in this group describe themselves variously as atheist (1.6 percent of the overall adult population), agnostic (2.4 percent of the adult population) and “nothing in particular” (12.1 percent of the adult population).

According to the report, half of the latter group identifies as secular, while the other half sees religion as somewhat important or very important in their lives.

The Pew findings are likely to intensify the already heated debate about whether expanding religious diversity is a source of strength for the nation or a point of weakness.

I vote for strength, mostly for two reasons: Religious diversity is good for society – and essential for religious freedom.

Competition, after all, is the American way. As long as we level the playing field (which means keeping government from taking sides), all religious and nonreligious beliefs are free to compete for the minds and hearts of the people. Thomas Jefferson was right: “Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself.”

And James Madison was also right. Religious freedom “arises from that multiplicity of sects, which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.”

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center a(www.freedomforum.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org

Under current law, as the U.S. Department of Education guidelines explain, "Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions."

What’s wrong with this (religious) picture?

Assigned to draw a landscape, a senior at Tomah High School in Madison, Wis., drew a path surrounded by mountains and clouds leading to a cross. At the top of the picture, he put the words “John 3:16 A sign of love.”

Most public school art teachers I know would accept the drawing, evaluate the technique, and put it on the wall with other student artwork.

Instead, the teacher at Tomah High told the student (identified as A.P. in court documents) to remove the religious reference, claiming that it infringed upon the rights of other students.

When A.P. refused, the teacher showed him a school policy that prohibits art projects depicting “violence, blood, sexual connotations or religious beliefs.”

A.P. calmly tore the policy in half and was promptly thrown out of class. For ripping up the policy, the student got detention. For his drawing, he got a zero.

A second art teacher subsequently refused to allow A.P. to make a metal cross to fulfill an extra-credit assignment permitting students to make a metal object of their choosing.

Earlier this month, A.P. filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the school’s “art project” policy. It should be an easy case.

Beyond the outrageous and offensive lumping of religious beliefs with violence, blood and sex as forbidden topics, the Tomah High policy completely ignores the First Amendment.

Under current law, as the U.S. Department of Education guidelines explain, “Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions.”

A.P. may flunk art, but he should get high marks in civics – he knows an unconstitutional policy when he sees one. School officials in his district, however, need a refresher course in religious liberty and free speech.

Public school advocates (and I am one) may be tempted to write this off as an isolated incident, one school’s misreading of the First Amendment. That would be a big mistake.

It’s true that policies like the one at Tomah High are rare – few public schools are overtly antagonistic toward religion. It’s also true that a growing number of school districts are becoming proactive on religious-liberty issues, developing constitutional policies and practices.

Richardson, Texas, to cite one of many good examples, has a Religious Practices Advisory Committee of parents, community leaders and educators working together to uphold the First Amendment in their schools.

But many other districts – perhaps the majority – have few sound policies on religion (or, if they have policies, no one knows about them). When a question arises about student religious expression, these schools sometimes overreact by censoring the speech.

You may recall the Colorado student who got into trouble last year for mentioning Jesus in her graduation speech.

Or the New York fourth-grader who was prohibited from giving religious messages to her classmates.

Or the student in Texas who was barred from distributing Valentine’s Day cards with a religious message. The courts have already handed victories to the latter two – and the first will likely win her case as well.

Wasteful, divisive and unnecessary lawsuits like these can be avoided, but only if administrators and school boards start paying attention to the First Amendment.

As I see it (in my frequent visits to public schools), the problem isn’t public school hostility to religion.

The problem is ignorance of the law combined with a fundamental confusion about the “critical difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect” – to quote the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Westside Community Board of Education v. Mergens.

A.P., in other words, is not the government. As long as he otherwise fulfills the school assignment, he’s free to express his views about his faith.

This story, like every “bad story” about school violations of the First Amendment, will help fuel efforts by opponents of public education to characterize all public schools as hostile to religion.

Such sweeping generalizations are unfair. But if school officials are tired of being under fire, they should stop providing the ammunition.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center a(www.freedomforum.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org

John McCain has come under fire for his association with the Rev. Rod Parsley, an influential megachurch pastor who calls for a Christian war to destroy the "false religion" of Islam.

Like it or not, religion matters in presidential politics. But rarely in our history has it mattered so much as it does in the 2008 campaign.

Officially, of course, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” – as set forth in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

Unofficially, however, voters are free to administer their own religious tests – and that’s exactly what many are doing in this election.

Mitt Romney tried to avoid “the speech,” but he was finally compelled to address the Mormon question earlier this year.

Although generally well-received by many conservatives, Romney’s speech didn’t appear to budge the significant portion of the electorate who tell pollsters they won’t vote for a Mormon. How much this hurt him in the primaries is debatable, but it clearly didn’t help.

Recently it was Barack Obama’s turn in the religion hot seat after sound bites from sermons of his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, began circulating in the media.

It remains to be seen whether Obama succeeds in confronting the volatile topics of race and religion in our society while at the same time distancing himself from Wright’s inflammatory rhetoric about the failures of the American system.

Of course, Romney and Obama aren’t the only candidates to face a religion test. Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor, benefited from the evangelical vote in some states but clearly suffered from being pigeonholed as the “evangelical candidate” in others.

And John McCain has had to distance himself from the anti-Catholic views of Texas televangelist John Hagee after initially embracing Hagee’s endorsement.

McCain also has come under fire for his association with the Rev. Rod Parsley, an influential megachurch pastor who calls for a Christian war to destroy the “false religion” of Islam.

None of these religious controversies, however, are as bizarre or disturbing as the Internet-fueled lie that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim.

It’s appalling enough that so many people apparently consider it a disqualifying slur to call a candidate a Muslim.

But add to the mix the vicious charge that Obama is a Manchurian Muslim candidate – even the Antichrist – and what emerges is a very ugly picture of what religious bigotry looks like when it spins out of control.

Personally, I don’t like religious tests – official or otherwise – because religious affiliation should not determine a person’s qualifications for public office.

But having said that, I do think the public has every right to inquire about the religious or philosophical views of candidates in a presidential race. After all, voters want to know the sources of values and convictions that would shape a president’s decisions.

The challenge – especially for the news media – is to get beyond stereotypes about Mormons, evangelicals, Muslims or African-American preachers and provide the context for a fair, informed understanding of the role of faith in a candidate’s life.

Consider the current flap over Wright. Will the debate get stuck in the loop of those incendiary sound bites played endlessly on YouTube?

Or will the media and the voters have the patience to put Wright’s sermons – and his church – in context by learning some of the history and experience behind the words? (NPR gets high marks for attempting to do this as soon as the story broke.)

Without some knowledge of the role of the black church in the political and social history of African-Americans, without some exposure to black liberation theology, and without some understanding of how African-Americans often view racism in America, it is difficult, if not impossible, to sort out the meaning of the controversy swirling around Obama’s relationship to Wright.

Understanding doesn’t necessarily translate into support. However well informed, voters may still reject Obama – or any other candidate – and religious affiliation may well be one factor. But at least the “religious test” should be an essay question and not a fill-in-the-blank exercise.

Unofficial religious tests are unlikely to disappear from the political arena. But let’s hope that such tests don’t determine the outcome of the presidential race. The real test should not be religious affiliation, but rather the character and judgment necessary to lead at this difficult time in our history.

Abraham Lincoln, after all, belonged to no church. But his moral compass served the nation well.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.