|
Senator Joe Lieberman today gave his first major speech on religion and politics since last year's Presidential campaign at the launch of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. The Pew Forum is a new organization that seeks to promote a deeper understanding of how religion shapes the ideas and institutions of American society. What follows is the full text of Senator Lieberman's remarks as delivered. I want to thank the Pew Forum for inviting me to participate in the launch of this very important project. The Pew Charitable Trusts seem to turn up in so many constructive and controversial places, where we need the fresh and independent insight that you provide, and I think this is clearly one of them. You've chosen here to tackle a question as old and as big as the Republic itself, which is how we reconcile our national devotion to God with our national diversity of thought and prayer. And I do think it's appropriate to approach these large questions with humility. Humility is certainly justified here when we consider questions as large as the relationship between religion and public life in our country, between church and state; indeed between God and government. I do think it's important to remember, as the framers and founders of our country did, that God was here first. And if you'll allow me a wonderful story to share with you, the story about a man who has the extraordinary opportunity to communicate directly with God, and struck and in awe of the total lack of limits on the eternal, the man says to the Almighty, "Lord, may I ask you in all humility, what is a second like to you?" And God says, "My son, a second to me is like a thousand years." The man thinks about that for a moment and then says, "Lord, forgive me for asking another question of this kind, but what is a penny like to you?" And God says, "A penny to me is like a million dollars to you." The man pauses for a moment or two and says, "Lord, with all humility, would you give me a penny?" And God answers, "In a second." So it is in that spirit of humility and also praise that I say that this Pew Forum has come along at just the right second in America's public experience. The tension between faith and freedom is built into the First Amendment, propped up by the theoretical wall of separation that Jefferson constructed to protect individual liberty, although as historians and others always remind us, he wasn't there when the First Amendment was actually written. And it continues to ripple through our politics today as we see from the continuing controversies over the place of prayer in public places and the growing debate now over President Bush's plan to promote faith-based initiatives. I surely don't come here this morning with solutions. Far better minds than mine have spent their careers trying to deconstruct or perhaps reconstruct the church/state wall -- figuratively and literally -- without reaching consensus on what the right balance should be. And E.J. Dionne and Jean Bethke Elshtain and the Pew Trusts would not have been moved to launch this forum if there were a quick and easy way to resolve the public's conflicting impulses on this matter and the questions involved. But after a lifetime of practicing my faith, three decades working in public life, and three months last year of running a national campaign that was the locus of much discussion about religion and politics, I hope I can offer a few worthwhile insights on this subject. In particular, I want to raise some of the hard questions we must work through if we hope to find a larger proper space for faith in our public life. Let me start at what might be called the American beginning. If we need any proof of just how charged the intersection of religion and politics has been throughout our history, consider the following story about Jefferson himself. During the campaign, his presidential campaign of 1800, it seems that people of faith actually feared putting Jefferson, the great advocate of religious freedom but also in his way a skeptic, in power. In fact, one die-hard Federalist who lived in a small town in Connecticut was so afraid of what would happen to her family bible if Jefferson became president that she took it to the only Jeffersonian she knew and asked him to keep it for her. The Jeffersonian tried to convince his Federalist neighbor that her fears about Jefferson were groundless, but she remained unpersuaded. "My good woman," he finally said, "if all the bibles are to be destroyed, what is the use of bringing yours to me? That will not save it when it is found." And the Federalist woman responded, "It will be perfectly safe with you. They'll never think of looking for a bible in the house of a Democrat." Well, flash forward 200 years to the campaign of 2000 and it seems in some respects that not much has changed, but in others a lot really has changed. When Al Gore broke a barrier by asking me to be his running mate, the fact of my faith seemed, certainly happily for me, to be a cause of respect, even celebration. But once I opened my mouth and actually professed my faith, to give glory and thanks to God for the extraordinary opportunity I had been given, some of those Hosannas turned to "How dare he's." Some caricatured me as "Holy Joe," which my mother actually appreciated, but I did not. And when I expressed the truly outrageous view that religion can be a source of better values, and that faith-based groups can help government solve pressing social problems, my friends at the Anti-Defamation League nearly had a constitutional coronary. But in the end, my experience convinced me that our attitudes about religion and public life have, in fact, changed considerably, and I would say progressively, not just over the last two centuries but even in the past two decades or a shorter period of time. Most Americans, unlike some of those who were concerned about either my observance or my public professions of faith, seemed totally accepting of my faith, not just the fact that I was Jewish, but my observance of Judaism. And by the end of the campaign, in which I say joyously I experienced not one whit of anti-Semitism, barely anyone was even mentioning my religion, which was exactly what we had hoped for. All of which I think is powerful evidence that I have experienced of just how tolerant and inclusive a nation we have become. But I want to say that it was more than just tolerance at work there. I have long believed, and perhaps some of you have been burdened to hear me say over and over again, that religion is actually a source of unity in our society, not a source of division, certainly much more a source of unity than it is occasionally a source of division. And last year I found that those who are not Jewish across the country warmly not just welcomed my professions of faith, but found in their perspective or their acceptance of the fact that I was a person of faith a bond of commonality. There were wonderful moments walking along the proverbial campaign rope line in a small town along the Mississippi early in the campaign, where an elderly woman asked me if I'd lean forward, and I did, and she said, "Senator, we Catholics are for you." So I wanted to ask her, E.J., "Is that a statement authorized officially by the Church?" I didn't think so. The lady standing next to her, not to be outdone, said, "And, Senator, we Southern Baptists are for you, too." For these folks my religiosity, regardless of its denomination, was a tie that bound us together. And my appeal to reinvigorate the role of religion in public life resonated I think in a different and deeper way than I anticipated, including speeches I gave at the fellowship chapel in Detroit early in the campaign and at Notre Dame University, in which I talked about harnessing the best forces of faith to help renew our moral health and renew our local communities. That reaction was yet another indication of something very important, dare I use the word "historic," that I believe is happening in America today that is directly related to the subject that you are considering here today. I think America is experiencing today yet another spiritual awakening. I think this one began in the hearts of millions of Americans who felt threatened by the vulgarity and violence in our society, and by the degradation, the loss of many traditional societal limits and standards, and they turned to religion as the best way to rebuild a wall of principle and purpose around themselves and their families. This new awakening manifests itself in spiritual and communal acts, in the upsurge of men and women of faith who are doing good works to repair some of the worst tears in our social and moral fabric, and it obviously also manifests itself in attendance, regular attendance at houses of worship across our country. It also interestingly, in a way that we can count, expresses itself in commercial acts. Christian rock and gospel music now apparently outsells classical and jazz music combined; while the Christian-themed "Left Behind" novels have sold nearly 20 million copies collectively as of late last year. And I do think that it is this spiritual awakening that is not only expressing itself in the lives of individual Americans, but is leading to the rising pressure to bring religion more actively into America's public life. What makes this revival to me so different from some of the previous awakenings we have had in our country is its pluralistic contours. And I think this is not just an expression of tolerance but of real respect for the multiplicity of faiths at work in America today and the common origins and purposes that we share. And in one sense, of course, it's a reflection of the fact that we've become a more tolerant society, but those millions of Americans who want religion to play a bigger part in our society are I think particularly mindful of the repercussions or some of the possible effects of that larger role. That was shown quite explicitly in the recent public agenda survey that Pew supported. It shows that these fellow citizens who want religion to play a larger role in our public life embrace an increasingly inclusive vision of faith in the public square. They want religion to play a larger societal role, but interestingly they seem to care little or none about what denomination it is. Or to put it another way, they believe it is inappropriate and inconsiderate for believers to force their faith on others in the workplace or in other public settings. This comes not out of my perceptions, although I have seen it, but it comes specifically out of the results of that public opinion survey. For instance, even though nearly three-quarters of those asked believe that school prayer is beneficial, and six out of ten believe it is constitutional, the clear majority say they favor a moment of silence as a broadly acceptable middle ground. This remarkable degree of sensitivity I think should be encouraging to believers, but also particularly to non-believers. It shows that we as Americans are, in fact, more and more, if you will, singing from the same ecumenical hymnbook, at least in public, and as such have less and less to fear from one another when religion is discussed and works its way into public life. It suggests that pushing out the boundaries between church and state to pull in the best forces of faith need not become a pitched Promethean struggle. Yet as my experience in the campaign demonstrated, the heighten sensitivities do extend both ways. So I would suggest that the challenge ahead of us now, if we hope to respond to the yearning of so many Americans for a better balance between faith and freedom, is as much political or communal as it is legal, although in our country the law and the Constitution will ultimately have the last word. Those of us who are seeking a larger suitable space for faith must engage those who feel threatened in a broad and open conversation about what it is we are seeking and why. That is I think what makes the launch of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life so important and so promising. This is a conversation that is begging for facilitation, for, if you will, an honest broker, big thinkers, and the Pew Forum is perfectly positioned to fill that role. As we go forward with this conversation, I believe that the burden first falls on those of us, if you will, who are believers and who are advocating a larger role for faith in our public life. We must make the case not dictate the terms. For starters, we must remind those of our fellow citizens who are skeptical or fearful about the irrefutable and irreplaceable role that Rebecca referred to that religion played in our national founding and in our efforts to realize as more perfect union. This is more than a mere memory lapse, because the fact is that the wall of separation has grown so beyond its original conception to mythical proportions that some Americans believe it is not just inappropriate but unconstitutional for a public official or even a clergyman or woman to praise the Lord in public. They need to know that the First Amendment freedom that they are standing up for was originally recognized and put there as a blessing from God. In fact, the framers held these rights sacrosanct precisely because they were endowed to us by our creators, it says right at the outset of the Declaration of Independence. We also need to make the point that religion in America, beyond being a unifying force throughout our history, has also informed and strengthened our sense of purpose and changed our country for the better. In other words, we are not in our time discovering the idea of faith-based organizations playing a larger societal role. In the 18th Century, what was called the first Great Awakening helped put America on the road to independence and freedom and equality. In the 19th Century the second Great Awakening gave birth to the abolitionist movement and made more real the promise of equal opportunity. In the early 20th Century a third religious awakening inspired great acts of justice and charity toward the poor and the exploited, which led to the first great wave of social welfare legislation in our nation. And, of course, in the 1960s religious leaders and religious values energized the modern civil rights movement. We also need to make the case that faith, while not surely the only source of values in America, has long been a powerful and principled standard setter. Among other things, faith helps strengthen society by strengthening individuals, raising us up as we struggle with our own imperfections and strive to live moral lives. And faith is clearly the fount of countless simple acts of kindness and humanity by individuals and organizations -- from giving a homeless man a blanket to wrapping a child in a warm embrace to caring for the ill -- all of which cumulatively elevate this nation, make it a better place. The impact of faith is great and broad, but its defense must be more specific. When we make our case, our language must be precise and the laws and programs we develop to harness the best forces of faith must be tight. That won't always be easy because of the complexity of the issues, and frankly the lack of clarity in the constitutional landscape that we occupy in this particular area. Too often people assume that faith-based initiatives must mean entanglement, establishment and at the worst ultimately theocracy. Of course, that need not be the case and should not be the case. We're not calling for government funding for religion and certainly not for government endorsement of any one religion, or even government favoritism for religious groups over non-religious groups. In fact, in some sense we are calling for an end to favoritism of non-religious groups over religious groups. We are really talking about lessening the legal and social hostility toward voluntary religious expression in public. We are talking about improving understanding about what the Constitution does and does not permit, along the lines of the Clinton administration's successful program to educate educators about how to walk the church/state line constructively in our public schools. And of course right now we are talking about expanding our partnerships with faith-based social service providers to capitalize on their ability to help us feed the hungry, house the homeless, cure the addicted and more broadly give hope to the hopeless. President Bush's plan to promote faith-based initiatives has, I think, precipitated exactly the kind of national conversation we need to engage in. The President, I believe, has made a convincing case for the constructive contributions that faith-based groups can make in meeting real social needs. He has, he has said, seen firsthand the extraordinarily good works these non-profits do, as have I. I also believe the president has been wise to characterize potential faith-based partners as a supplement to what government does to solve social problems and not as a substitute. No matter how effective faith-based and other grassroots programs may be, they're not equipped to meet all the nation's needs for housing, healthcare, hunger, drug treatment, job training or childcare, among other things, nor are they equipped really to meet most of the nation's needs. I want to suggest this morning that where the president has fallen short thus far, perhaps intentionally so, is on the working details of his plan. He's been very effective in explaining the why but not in yet describing the what -- what exactly can faith-based groups spend federal funding on, what criteria would be used for evaluating applicants, what safeguards would protect the rights of service recipients and employees, as well as taxpayers. This is one case, where if you'll allow me to put it this way, the devil really is in the details. Not surprisingly, the critics have rushed to fill this vacuum, turning the Bush plan into a kind of political Rorschach test, with people projecting their worst fears into it. These fears concern ans center around the hard questions the president has thus far left unanswered in his plan. And believe me, these are hard questions. For example, how do we choose among religious groups that may apply for governmental support? Perhaps you saw the New York Times article recently that indicated that programs run by several non-mainstream religious groups -- a Hare Krishna halfway house in Philadelphia, Church of Scientology drug rehab and literacy projects, or a Unification Church abstinence effort -- may seek funding under President Bush's plan. Will Americans be comfortable having federal funds flow to these faiths? Here I think of the many tough questions involved, the constitutional context suggests, may I say with humility, a likely though not certain answer. These groups, like any others that apply for federal funding or recognition, should be judged based on what they do. If a non-religious group seeking federal aid meets the program criteria, produces proven results and does not violate civil rights or other laws, it doesn't matter that they may have unconventional views on unrelated subjects. So we must ask: Shouldn't the same standard apply to programs run by religious groups as well? My own sense is that it would be problematic under existing jurisprudence of the First Amendment to discriminate against faith-based groups for their particular beliefs, although this question becomes more complicated when it becomes broader, as I will explain in the question after the next one. I'm going in ascending order of difficulty and thorniness. This is a question of what if the group itself discriminates. Under current law, religious groups have an exemption from Title VII of the civil rights laws that allows them to make hiring decisions based on an individual's religious beliefs; that is, existing religious groups, a church, a synagogue, a temple, et cetera. Some charitable choice proposals have suggested that groups receiving federal social service money not only should keep that exemption, but also get a larger one, a provision allowing them to require their employees to adhere to the group's teachings and tenets. And that raises a number of very serious questions. Should religious groups continue to enjoy a Title VII exemption if they receive federal funding, which would potentially hold them to a lower standard than other federal aid recipients, and put the federal imprimatur on what some have called "faith-based bias"? Even more difficult is the question raised by the Teachings and Tenets provision, which unlike the Title VII provision, merely exempting these groups from one type of federal lawsuit could potentially give these groups a license to override federal state and local civil rights protections -- at least that's a concern that is already being expressed in this debate. Regardless of whether one thinks religious groups should have such vast discretion when using their own money, it is troubling to many that this provision would effectively give federally funded workplaces greater leeway to discriminate than their privately funded social service counterparts. In a recent article statement in the New Republic, George Washington University Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen described this problem, and I quote, as "an irreconcilable conflict between the Democratic logic of anti-discrimination law, and the hierarchical values that make faith-based organizations what they are." Well, I'm not prepared to say it's irreconcilable, but it is difficult, and certainly could benefit from some fresh thinking by the big thinkers at the Pew Forum. You notice I'm following the inclination of my own faith tradition, which is to ask questions in response to questions. The last question I want to raise is, I think, the most difficult and in some senses the most crucial one to resolve, for it goes to the heart of the purpose of charitable choice. Traditionally, faith-based charities that receive federal funds to provide social services have had to set up separate non-profits that were free of any religious involvement. That's happened for a long time, and it allows groups like Catholic Charities and others, Jewish federations, et cetera, to accept public money and do extraordinary good works that they do. The original Charitable Choice provision in the 1996 Welfare Reform Law changed that in a limited way, and it enabled faith-based providers to offer their support without separating from the religious entity that was at the heart of their religious mission -- so long as the federal dollars are not used to subsidized proselytizing and the provider does not discriminate against beneficiaries based on their individual faith. Now that the president's plan to expand charitable choice is up for discussion, people are again asking tough questions about whether this crosses the First Amendment's church/state line and amounts to governmental support and promotion of religion. Here too we truly need your clearheaded counsel in answering the tough questions here. And let me just raise a few. And I raise them to be provocative. If the proper protections are in place and the money cannot be used for proselytizing, and there are secular alternatives for beneficiaries to opt into, which I presume is one way of making sure that those who are receiving the services are not coerced into a proselytizing situation, what's the harm? Does society have more to fear from a -- I offer this as a hopefully provocative example -- does society have more to fear from a rehabilitated drug addict, who has broken his habit through an explicitly religion-based treatment program than society has to fear from an untreated, un-rehabilitated drug addict? Those are very difficult questions, and I must say that I myself ask them because I have not resolved them, and it is particularly why we need your support at this time. We have begun to make demonstrable progress in dealing with some aspects of these questions, and reaching a better church/state balance, thanks in large part I think to the growing inclusivity, tolerance and mutual acceptance of the American people. For his part, President Bush and my good friend John DiIulio, who is heading this program, have decided to move slowly here forward, and that's not so bad, because the questions are complicated and I think have not brought forth answers about which we can feel comfortable, on which there's a societal consensus of any kind. But I'm an optimist and I believe that if we continue talking and working with one another, as will occur here in the Pew Forum, we can all have faith that we will sort through these theoretical thickets and find a true and lasting common ground in which religion can play a larger and still lawful role in our public life. And when we come to that moment, I hope that we will all feel comfortable in saying publicly and loudly, "Amen!" Thank you.
|
