John Whitehead's Commentary
Ashcroft's Devotion Embraces America's Tradition of Faith
One of the more misused terms in constitutional lore, the "separation of church and state," has again resurfaced. This time, the First Amendment epithet has been hurled at United States Attorney General John Ashcroft, who presides over a daily morning Bible study at Justice Department headquarters. Devotions begin at 8:00 a.m., before the workday, and are voluntary for any that want to attend. However, in a recent profile in the Washington Post, anonymous sources accused Ashcroft of alienating non-religious employees and violating the "spirit" of the First Amendment's bar against the establishment of religion.
One wonders what the critics who accuse Ashcroft of running the Justice Department "like a church" might have thought of the actions of the man who coined the phrase "separation of church and state."
Thomas Jefferson, who first wrote those infamous words in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, published The Philosophy of Jesus in 1804--in the middle of his eight year run as President--and began work on The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, published after he left office. It's hard to imagine a more open display of religious ideas--or one more likely to lead to the "implied coercion" that Ashcroft's critics have made so much of.
If employees of the Justice Department feel coerced to attend the devotional or suffer the career consequences, how did non-Christian citizens feel in 1804 when their elected leader published a work containing what he later called the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has fallen from the lips of man" (although it's worth noting that Jefferson didn't believe in the deity of the great moral teacher he so admired)?
And Jefferson isn't the only President to overtly signal his religious views while in office. Just think back a couple of years to the series of high profile White House visits from various pastors to counsel and pray with President Clinton during the impeachment hearings.
One might respond that these incidents can be distinguished--after all, White House employees likely were not invited to attend Clinton's prayer sessions and, thus, there was no threat of "implied coercion."
But this response highlights the trouble with criticizing Ashcroft's devotional meetings. Once we move from the use of government authority or money to require religious action -- the sort of classic coercion that everyone agrees violates the Establishment Clause -- and begin to accuse public officials of implied coercion because of their private actions, the line becomes impossible to draw.
Why was it less coercive for President Clinton to have meetings with Protestant ministers in the White House? Will White House staff feel any less pressure to conform to a particular belief system in order to curry favor with the President than employees at the Justice Department will? Is it less coercive for a sitting President to publish a book reflecting his views about the central figure of the Christian religion? The truth is that one simply cannot draw a principled line between acceptable and unacceptable private expression.
Further, the reality is that Ashcroft's devotions would not imply coercion to anyone but the most unreasonable observer. Only a half dozen or so employees of the Justice Department--out of thousands--regularly attend. Neither Ashcroft's chief of staff, nor his deputy chief of staff, nor his communications director has ever attended the meetings. In addition, an Orthodox Jew is a regular attendee, adding an element of toleration to the meetings that neither Clinton's nor Jefferson's expressions of religious viewpoint featured.
What if Colin Powell held voluntary meetings where he discussed the issues he faced as an African-American on his way to the Secretary of State's office? The same reasoning behind the criticism of Ashcroft should apply here. Racial discrimination, like religious discrimination, violates the Constitution and civil rights laws. Thus, anyone who feels that his or her career is threatened because of one's race could complain about "implied exclusion"--exclusion, of course, being the twin of coercion.
To most readers, this hypothetical concern sounds ludicrous, as well it should. But it illustrates the kind of myopia that sets in when private religious expression collides with close-minded conceptions of the separation of church and state. After all the recent political scandals, we should be applauding public officials who are attempting to abide by a moral code, rather than condemning them.
One wonders what the critics who accuse Ashcroft of running the Justice Department "like a church" might have thought of the actions of the man who coined the phrase "separation of church and state."
Thomas Jefferson, who first wrote those infamous words in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, published The Philosophy of Jesus in 1804--in the middle of his eight year run as President--and began work on The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, published after he left office. It's hard to imagine a more open display of religious ideas--or one more likely to lead to the "implied coercion" that Ashcroft's critics have made so much of.
If employees of the Justice Department feel coerced to attend the devotional or suffer the career consequences, how did non-Christian citizens feel in 1804 when their elected leader published a work containing what he later called the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has fallen from the lips of man" (although it's worth noting that Jefferson didn't believe in the deity of the great moral teacher he so admired)?
And Jefferson isn't the only President to overtly signal his religious views while in office. Just think back a couple of years to the series of high profile White House visits from various pastors to counsel and pray with President Clinton during the impeachment hearings.
One might respond that these incidents can be distinguished--after all, White House employees likely were not invited to attend Clinton's prayer sessions and, thus, there was no threat of "implied coercion."
But this response highlights the trouble with criticizing Ashcroft's devotional meetings. Once we move from the use of government authority or money to require religious action -- the sort of classic coercion that everyone agrees violates the Establishment Clause -- and begin to accuse public officials of implied coercion because of their private actions, the line becomes impossible to draw.
Why was it less coercive for President Clinton to have meetings with Protestant ministers in the White House? Will White House staff feel any less pressure to conform to a particular belief system in order to curry favor with the President than employees at the Justice Department will? Is it less coercive for a sitting President to publish a book reflecting his views about the central figure of the Christian religion? The truth is that one simply cannot draw a principled line between acceptable and unacceptable private expression.
Further, the reality is that Ashcroft's devotions would not imply coercion to anyone but the most unreasonable observer. Only a half dozen or so employees of the Justice Department--out of thousands--regularly attend. Neither Ashcroft's chief of staff, nor his deputy chief of staff, nor his communications director has ever attended the meetings. In addition, an Orthodox Jew is a regular attendee, adding an element of toleration to the meetings that neither Clinton's nor Jefferson's expressions of religious viewpoint featured.
What if Colin Powell held voluntary meetings where he discussed the issues he faced as an African-American on his way to the Secretary of State's office? The same reasoning behind the criticism of Ashcroft should apply here. Racial discrimination, like religious discrimination, violates the Constitution and civil rights laws. Thus, anyone who feels that his or her career is threatened because of one's race could complain about "implied exclusion"--exclusion, of course, being the twin of coercion.
To most readers, this hypothetical concern sounds ludicrous, as well it should. But it illustrates the kind of myopia that sets in when private religious expression collides with close-minded conceptions of the separation of church and state. After all the recent political scandals, we should be applauding public officials who are attempting to abide by a moral code, rather than condemning them.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
