Church & State

At what level might government be involved with religion?

The government might be involved with religion in order to protect the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The courts are frequently called upon to ensure the neutrality of state institutions regarding religion -- or the lack thereof. As with Wildmar v. Vincent, the government may also need to be involved in cases that protect the right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment as well (p. 44). This means that religious groups or social organizations may be permitted to convene, so long as the organization (a) makes no attempt to endorse the group but only to allow it public forum; (b) allows true equal opportunity for alternate groups to convene as well.

The government may therefore step in to curb unlawful endorsements of religion by state-sponsored institutions. By the same token, the government may also ensure that citizens do have access to a public forum in which religious issues can be raised. Neutrality is the key issue in government involvement. In Wildmar v. Vincent, the Supreme Court found that public school campuses could be used for religious expression as long as those campuses also allowed for public space dedicated for nonreligious functions (p. 44). Moreover, religious expressions that take place in public forums on campus should not discriminate against or favor any religion. Governments can be involved with religion if a religious organization violates constitutional rights.

2.What is the distinction between public and private institutions?

Public institutions are bound by the law to refrain from endorsing "religion over nonreligion" or to support "one religion over another" (p. 43). Private institutions are not, insofar as those institutions are willing to deny federal funding. Similarly, private institutions are not fully bound to uphold all federal laws: "public institutions and their officers are fully subject to the constraints of the federal Constitution, whereas private institutions and their officers are not," (p. 32). Public institutions are by definition disallowed to endorse a religious doctrine. Private institutions have a large degree of leeway in their organizational activities and in many cases are permitted to practice acts of discrimination (p. 33).