Unlike France, religion-friendly secular state exists in U.S.

By J. Brent Walker

Reflections
January 2004

In the aftermath of the utterly inane response to France's refusing to support the war in Iraq — you know, "freedom fries," instead of "french fries," etc. — we now have cause to complain about how the French government is planning to deal with an issue of religious expression.

A government-appointed committee recently proposed a measure that would ban public school students from wearing conspicuous religious garb and symbols such as head scarves, yarmulkes, crosses and turbans. A law is currently being drafted to implement the recommendation.

President Jacques Chirac has endorsed the proposal, claiming it is needed to preserve the secular French state and required to "fight against Xenophobia, racism and anti-Semitism." Another governmental official was quoted as saying the law banning religious attire in the public schools is necessary "to protect French democracy."

Leaving aside the almost laughable disconnect between these laudable ends and dubious means, the French proposal would obviously stifle religious freedom. In the name of promoting state secularity and its independence from the institutions of religion, the French law would exhibit outrageous hostility toward public expressions of religion, and, in the words of syndicated columnist E.J. Dionne Jr., "push religion to the margins of public life."

A comparison of the French proposal with the way religious garb issues are typically addressed in the United States illustrates an important point. The American concept of a secular state and the separation of church and state means that government should not dominate, control or become entangled with religion, but should accommodate or at least not obstruct religious choices of its citizens, including public school students. In short, the American idea of secularity does not mean hostility, it means neutrality; church-state separation does not mandate a naked public square, it means often a rowdy, raucous, even religious, one.

This specific debate in the United States typically centers on whether teachers should be permitted to wear religious garb or exhibit symbols of faith. This is where the debate should occur. Teachers are state actors and while acting in that capacity their right to endorse religion is quite properly limited. But, students are usually free to express religious sentiments and sport religious attire with precious few restrictions. Supreme Court cases and federal Department of Education guidelines make clear that public schools are not religion-free zones. One of the federal guidelines issued by the Clinton administration provides:

Schools may not single out religious attire in general, or attire of a particular religion, for prohibition or regulation. Students may display religious messages on items of clothing to the same extent that they are permitted to display other comparable messages. Religious messages may not be singled out for suppression, but rather are subject to the same rules as generally apply to comparable messages.

Voluntary student religious expression is permitted so long as it is not disruptive or done in a manner that indicates state sponsorship.

It is dicey to presume to tell another country how to deal with perceived challenges presented by burgeoning religious pluralism. And, I'll be the first to admit we in the United States sometimes fall short of the mark. For example, there is no federal constitutional right to a religiously based exemption from neutral, generally applicable dress codes. Nevertheless, this comparison illustrates that the American tradition of church-state separation is intended to create a secular, but religion-friendly, state that accommodates the claims of conscience and protects the free exercise rights of all citizens.

When right-wing radicals bash the wall of separation between church and state and lament the supposedly naked public square, they speak more of the religion-hostile French understanding of these concepts than the more religion-friendly version that exists under the First Amendment in the United States. Don't let them get away with it!

And the only reason not to eat french fries is if you have high cholesterol.