BYU Law Review Volume 2004 Issue 4 Article 3 11-1-2004 The Autonomy of Church and State Brett G. Scharffs Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law and Politics Commons, Religion Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Brett G. Scharffs, ������ ���������������� ���� ������������ ������ ����������, 2004 BYU L. Rᴇᴠ. 1217. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Brigham Young University Law Review at BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in BYU Law Review by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 3SCH-FIN 12/1/2004 7:07 PM The Autonomy of Church and State ∗ Brett G. Scharffs. I. Introduction................................................................... 1219 A. The Autonomy of Church and State......................... 1219 B. The United States and Europe: Why Compare?........ 1223 C. Caveats.................................................................... 1225 II. Religious Liberty as a Constitutional Guarantee and Human Right........................................................... 1227 A. The Grandparent and Neglected Stepchild of Human Rights ...................................................................... 1227 B. Historical Background and Jurisprudential Framework............................................................... 1230 1. The United States ............................................... 1230 2. Europe................................................................ 1237 III. Three Conceptions of Autonomy.................................... 1246 A. Independence .......................................................... 1248 B. Interdependence ...................................................... 1251 C. Inter-Independence.................................................. 1253 IV. Institutional Autonomy .................................................. 1258 A. The Autonomy of the Church .................................. 1259 1. State church........................................................ 1259 2. Direct state aid to churches ................................. 1261 ∗ Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University; B.S.B.A., M.A. Georgetown University; B.Phil Oxford University; J.D. Yale Law School. I have benefited greatly from the suggestions and criticism of numerous people, including Cole Durham, Fred Gedicks, Frank Ravitch, and Cheryl Preston. I greatly appreciate the critical feedback from Marci Hamilton, Ron Garet, Mark Tushnet, and other participants at the BYU J. Reuben Clark Law School conference on church autonomy. I also benefited from the feedback on earlier versions of portions of this paper from the participants at the Oxford Roundtable at Lincoln College, Oxford, the Virginia Education Law Conference in Williamsburg, Virginia, and a work in progress seminar at BYU Law School. Mistakes and shortcomings that remain are exclusively mine. A special debt of gratitude is owed to my research assistants, Katherine Davidson, Marjorie Fonnesbeck, Nathan Jennings, Aaron Miller, and Scott Smith. I wish also to thank the editors of the BYU Law Review, in particular Alec McGinn and Ryan Morris. This Article is dedicated to my father, Gilbert W. Scharffs, who spent much of his professional life studying, and seeking sympathetic understanding of, a wide array of world religions. Correspondence and feedback is welcome at [email protected]. 1217 3SCH-FIN 12/1/2004 7:07 PM BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [2004 3. Tax exemptions................................................... 1263 4. State aid to religious schools ............................... 1267 5. Church property, officials, doctrine ..................... 1272 6. Church standing................................................. 1276 7. Church right to have organization and legal personality .................................................. 1278 8. Exemptions from general laws for churches......... 1279 9. Summary of church autonomy issues................... 1284 B. Autonomy of the State ............................................. 1286 1. Religious expression in public schools ................. 1286 a. Release time from public schools.................... 1288 b. Requiring Bible reading, prohibiting teaching evolution, and posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools.................. 1292 c. Use of public school facilities for religious clubs.............................................................. 1295 2. Religious expression outside of schools ............... 1297 3. Church conduct of state functions....................... 1299 4. State laws and policies that converge with religious beliefs ................................................... 1300 5. Summary of state autonomy issues ...................... 1301 V. Individual Autonomy...................................................... 1303 A. Oaths and Religious Requirements for Office ........... 1304 B. Conscientious Objection .......................................... 1306 C. Sabbath Work .......................................................... 1309 D. The Right to Religious Education ............................ 1313 E. The Right to Proselyte ............................................. 1315 F. Exceptions to Generally Applicable Laws.................. 1319 G. Summary of Individual Autonomy Issues.................. 1326 VI. Implications of these Conceptions in Areas of Dispute .... 1328 A. Prayer in Public Schools ........................................... 1329 B. Vouchers and Other Forms of Indirect Aid to Churches.................................................................. 1331 C. Charitable Choice .................................................... 1334 D. Public Displays of the Ten Commandments ............. 1334 E. The Pledge of Allegiance.......................................... 1337 1. The Newdow bombshell ...................................... 1338 2. The Ninth Circuit’s analysis ................................ 1340 a. The Lemon test .............................................. 1341 b. Endorsement ................................................. 1342 1218 3SCH-FIN 12/1/2004 7:07 PM 1217] The Autonomy of Church and State c. Coercion ....................................................... 1343 3. Evaluating the Ninth Circuit’s analysis ................ 1344 4. Autonomy.......................................................... 1346 VII. Conclusion ..................................................................... 1347 I. INTRODUCTION A. The Autonomy of Church and State Since the end of World War II, two visions of the proper relationship between church and state have vied for preeminence in U.S. law: one emphasizing the separation of church and state,1 and the other finding greater space for the accommodation of religion in public life.2 A third approach has prevailed in much of Europe, allowing for a much thicker interrelationship, engagement, and 3 cooperation between church and state. 1. For a representative sample of defenses of separationism, see THOMAS CURRY, THE FIRST FREEDOMS: CHURCH AND STATE IN AMERICA TO THE PASSAGE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT (1986); DEREK DAVIS, ORIGINAL INTENT: CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST AND THE COURSE OF AMERICAN CHURCH/STATE RELATIONS (1991); LEONARD LEVY, THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE: RELIGION AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT (1986); LEO PFEFFER, CHURCH, STATE AND FREEDOM (1967); Mark V. Tushnet, The Emerging Principle of Accommodation of Religion (Dubitante), 76 GEO. L.J. 1691 (1988); Mark V. Tushnet, The Constitution of Religion, 18 CONN. L. REV. 701 (1986). For a recent comprehensive critique of separation, see PHILIP HAMBURGER, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE (2002). 2. For a representative sample of defenses of accommodationism, see CHESTER JAMES ANTIEAU ET AL., FREEDOM FROM FEDERAL ESTABLISHMENT FORMATION AND EARLY HISTORY OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT RELIGION CLAUSES (1964); GERARD V. BARDLEY, CHURCH-STATE RELATIONSHIPS IN AMERICA (1987); WALTER BERNS, THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY (1976); ROBERT L. CORD, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE: HISTORICAL FACT AND CURRENT FICTION (1982); MICHAEL J. MALBIN, RELIGION AND POLITICS: THE INTENTIONS OF THE AUTHORS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT (1978); Michael W. McConnell, Accommodation of Religion, 1985 SUP. CT. REV. 1; Michael W. McConnell, Accommodation of Religion: An Update and a Response to Critics, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 685 (1992); Michael W. McConnell, The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion, 103 HARV. L. REV. 1410 (1990). 3. See generally CAROLYN EVANS, FREEDOM OF RELIGION UNDER THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (2001) [hereinafter EVANS, FREEDOM OF RELIGION]. As will be readily apparent, I have benefited from and relied extensively upon Carolyn Evans’s excellent book about the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights concerning freedom of religion or belief. I highly recommend her book for anyone interested in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on this topic. See also MALCOLM D. EVANS, RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW IN EUROPE 6–171 (1997); BAHIYYIH 1219 3SCH-FIN 12/1/2004 7:07 PM BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [2004 In this Article, I will argue that each of these approaches has more in common with the other two than might appear on the surface. I will suggest that a single concept, autonomy, underlies each of these viewpoints, but that each of these visions