John Whitehead's Commentary
John Ashcroft and the Debate Over God's Place in Public Life
John Ashcroft, since taking office as attorney general, has been hounded over the extent to which his Christian beliefs influence his decisions and actions as a public figure.
Despite the rumblings from critics who object to the overt displays of his religious faith, Ashcroft continues to both show and share his faith with those around him, even going so far as to hold daily prayer meetings in his office at the Justice Department.
Most recently, his speech to a gathering of religious broadcasters in Nashville, Tenn., seems to have raised the ire of such religion-bashing pundits as Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State--an organization dedicated to eliminating any reference to God or religion from American public life.
In speaking about the war on terrorism to a group comprised primarily of Christians, Ashcroft explained that the "call to defend civilization from terrorism resonates from a deeper source than our legal or political institutions."
In echoing the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Ashcroft went on to say that "civilized people--Muslims, Christians and Jews--all understand that the source of freedom and human dignity is the Creator. Civilized people of all religious faiths are called to the defense of His creation. We are a nation called to defend freedom--a freedom that is not the grant of any government or document, but is our endowment from God."
It was this remark, most of all, which elicited a war cry from strict church-state separationists. In an interview with CNN's Paula Zahn, Barry Lynn declared, "It was an entirely inappropriate place for the Attorney General to make this kind of a statement. You know, if he were to make that sermon--and that's really what it was; it contained more biblical references than a lot of priests and ministers use, indeed--in his church on Sunday, it would have been entirely appropriate."
Those such as Lynn who oppose any expression of religious faith by government individuals seem to think it almost impossible for a religious individual to hold public office without forcing his or her religious beliefs on others. History, for one, proves that this is a position with no merit.
While the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids the government from establishing religion, it also prevents government officials from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it state that one's religious beliefs cannot influence one's lifestyle or work, even if that person happens to be a government official. This means that government officials such as Ashcroft have the freedom of speech to express their religious beliefs--like any other American citizen.
Some of our nation's greatest leaders have been of strong faith and moral fiber. Yet, it was these same individuals who saw fit to include a provision within our Constitution preventing governmental restriction of religious belief and expression. It was not religion that these men feared. Rather, they understood the need to ensure that Americans would always have the choice--the freedom--to follow their beliefs, whether or not they serve in government office.
Perhaps Ashcroft, more so than many of his critics, understands the rich--and religious--history of this nation. In speaking to the Christian broadcasters, Ashcroft was quite clear about the relationship between religion and government: "Our Constitution does not call for the establishment of religion in the public square. Just as important, it does not call for the abolition of religion in the public square. It calls for the respect of religion in its indispensable role in forming a just and moral citizenry."
Lynn, for one, may contend that religious references from a public government figure would be more appropriate if made in church on Sunday, but history shows us a far different example.
Thomas Jefferson, for instance, writing in Notes on the State of Virginia, asked, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?"
In his Farewell Address, George Washington advised the young nation, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."
John Adams, in addressing the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, declared, "Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Despite what Lynn has to say about the matter, Ashcroft's remarks are no different than those of men of faith such as Jefferson, Washington and Adams--whose remarks were made in their capacity as public officials.
In the end, it all comes down to the basic freedoms afforded us as human beings--and protected by the U.S. Constitution. Although Ashcroft was speaking on terrorism when he made the following remark, it could as easily apply to the furor over the right of a religious individual to express his faith publicly. Ashcroft said, "This is not a conflict based in religion. It is a conflict between those who believe that God grants us choice and those who seek to impose their choices on us."
Perhaps what people such as Barry Lynn truly fear is that the American people will come to realize the truth in Ashcroft's remarks--and that we will find ourselves once again living in a land where true freedom reigns and where the mention of God is not taboo but is instead a simple and constitutional expression of one's faith.
Despite the rumblings from critics who object to the overt displays of his religious faith, Ashcroft continues to both show and share his faith with those around him, even going so far as to hold daily prayer meetings in his office at the Justice Department.
Most recently, his speech to a gathering of religious broadcasters in Nashville, Tenn., seems to have raised the ire of such religion-bashing pundits as Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State--an organization dedicated to eliminating any reference to God or religion from American public life.
In speaking about the war on terrorism to a group comprised primarily of Christians, Ashcroft explained that the "call to defend civilization from terrorism resonates from a deeper source than our legal or political institutions."
In echoing the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Ashcroft went on to say that "civilized people--Muslims, Christians and Jews--all understand that the source of freedom and human dignity is the Creator. Civilized people of all religious faiths are called to the defense of His creation. We are a nation called to defend freedom--a freedom that is not the grant of any government or document, but is our endowment from God."
It was this remark, most of all, which elicited a war cry from strict church-state separationists. In an interview with CNN's Paula Zahn, Barry Lynn declared, "It was an entirely inappropriate place for the Attorney General to make this kind of a statement. You know, if he were to make that sermon--and that's really what it was; it contained more biblical references than a lot of priests and ministers use, indeed--in his church on Sunday, it would have been entirely appropriate."
Those such as Lynn who oppose any expression of religious faith by government individuals seem to think it almost impossible for a religious individual to hold public office without forcing his or her religious beliefs on others. History, for one, proves that this is a position with no merit.
While the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids the government from establishing religion, it also prevents government officials from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it state that one's religious beliefs cannot influence one's lifestyle or work, even if that person happens to be a government official. This means that government officials such as Ashcroft have the freedom of speech to express their religious beliefs--like any other American citizen.
Some of our nation's greatest leaders have been of strong faith and moral fiber. Yet, it was these same individuals who saw fit to include a provision within our Constitution preventing governmental restriction of religious belief and expression. It was not religion that these men feared. Rather, they understood the need to ensure that Americans would always have the choice--the freedom--to follow their beliefs, whether or not they serve in government office.
Perhaps Ashcroft, more so than many of his critics, understands the rich--and religious--history of this nation. In speaking to the Christian broadcasters, Ashcroft was quite clear about the relationship between religion and government: "Our Constitution does not call for the establishment of religion in the public square. Just as important, it does not call for the abolition of religion in the public square. It calls for the respect of religion in its indispensable role in forming a just and moral citizenry."
Lynn, for one, may contend that religious references from a public government figure would be more appropriate if made in church on Sunday, but history shows us a far different example.
Thomas Jefferson, for instance, writing in Notes on the State of Virginia, asked, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?"
In his Farewell Address, George Washington advised the young nation, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."
John Adams, in addressing the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, declared, "Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Despite what Lynn has to say about the matter, Ashcroft's remarks are no different than those of men of faith such as Jefferson, Washington and Adams--whose remarks were made in their capacity as public officials.
In the end, it all comes down to the basic freedoms afforded us as human beings--and protected by the U.S. Constitution. Although Ashcroft was speaking on terrorism when he made the following remark, it could as easily apply to the furor over the right of a religious individual to express his faith publicly. Ashcroft said, "This is not a conflict based in religion. It is a conflict between those who believe that God grants us choice and those who seek to impose their choices on us."
Perhaps what people such as Barry Lynn truly fear is that the American people will come to realize the truth in Ashcroft's remarks--and that we will find ourselves once again living in a land where true freedom reigns and where the mention of God is not taboo but is instead a simple and constitutional expression of one's faith.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
