Panelists Consider Controversy Over Religion, Public Life

From recent Supreme Court rulings on school prayer to a presidential campaign where God is the third running mate, the division between church and state is becoming increasingly murkier.

With Science Center C packed with students and community members last night, a panel discussion between religious and political scholars attempted to address the increasingly intertwined nature of religion in public life.

Led by Moderator Nur Yalman and panelists Professors of Camparative Religion and Indian Studies Diana L. Eck, Professor of the Practice in Religion and Society J. Bryan Hehir, John Roberts and Professor of Government Michael J. Sandel, panel members addressed the First Amendment, parochial school funding, school prayer and religion's political impact.

"The subject of religion in public life stirs up some of the most heated, passionate controversies there are these days in politics," Sandel said at the beginning of his remarks.

And in a presidential campaign which has featured Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) as the first Jewish vice presidential candidate and where Texas Gov. George W. Bush proclaimed Jesus Christ as his "hero," politics and religion seem intrinsically intertwined.

For Sandel, this relationship is not necessarily a bad thing. Sandel said the attempts of President John F. Kennedy '40 to deny that his Catholicism would have any affect on his performance in the Oval Office were off the mark.

Sandel said the evolution from Kennedy to Lieberman was healthy for civic democracy.

"The danger is that if you try to keep religious arguments out of the public square in the name of pluralism, in the name of tolerance, then the public square will be left empty," he said.

But some of the panelists were concerned that citizens were not coerced to enter the public square.

"Government should not get deeply involved with deciding religious truths," Hehir said. "The right of religious liberty is also the right of the non-believer to be free of religious belief."

A majority of the panelists recognized the need for governmental policy aiming at absolute religious equality.

"The government can in no way favor any one religion over another. It must be completely neutral in the way it faces religious institutions," Roberts said.

While the other panelists agreed with Roberts, Sandel critiqued Robert's statement and questioned what constitutes "completely neutral."

Sandel specifically discussed the role of governmental funding in parochial schools, and how judicial rulings have resulted in "an incoherent mishmosh of decisions."

He referred to a case where parochial schools can receive funding for maps, but not for textbooks. He humorously cited a source that asked, 'What about atlases?'

Roberts also supported the necessity to vigilantly protect the freedoms of the First Amendment.

"[The first] 16 words [of the First Amendment] encompass the foundation of religious liberty in the United States," said Roberts, who has been executive director of the Mass. Chapter of the ACLU for the past 30 years.

Diversity and Distinction sponsored the panel along with other groups involved with the interfaith effort on campus.

"The main appeal [of the panel] is the fact that this was a student- organized and initiated panel on one of the most important questions of the day," Sandel said in an interview after the panel.

"It's heartening and encouraging to see so many students concerned about the very difficult question of religion in public life," he said.