supporting civil rights and opposing the Vietnam War did in their time. Little states that anti-Vietnam War religious leaders cited the just war theory, not doctrine. And, he adds, "Martin Luther King made explicit and repeated appeals to the natural-law tradition, the American Constitution and the American heritage, which were combined with rather general references to the Christian tradition and to figures like Jesus and Gandhi. He did not advocate particular 'Bible-based legislation' or threaten to defeat candidates who did not conform to an explicitly religious position."

A contemporary religious leader, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, makes the same crucial distinction. In urging a "consistent ethic of life" that would link opposition to abortion to opposition to the use of nuclear weapons, capital punishment, social program budget cuts and the reliance on force in Central America, Bernardin said Catholics "face the challenge of stating our case, which is shaped in terms of our faith and our religious convictions, in non-religious terms which others of different faith convictions might find morally persuasive."

II. IT IS LEGITIMATE TO DISCUSS THE MORAL DIMENSION

OF PUBLIC ISSUES.

This should be obvious, but some critics of the Christian Right overreact and try to push discussions of morality out of the public debate altogether; they are joined by many so-called "realists" who want to

dismiss morality as irrelevant in foreign affairs. But American political debate would be unrecognizable without moral argument, just as it would be without organized religious involvement. Columnist George Will asserts that "American politics is currently afflicted by kinds of grim, moralizing groups that are coarse in their conceptions, vulgar in analysis and intemperate in advocacy. But the desirable alternative to such groups is not less preoccupation with this sort of question, but better preoccupation....Absent good moral argument, bad moral argument will have the field to itself."

The distinction between morality and doctrine makes it easy to see that while it may be arrogant to talk about forming a "Moral Majority," it

is at least within the boundaries of pluralism, while talk of forming a "Christian Nation" is not. There are other examples:

Federal Judge William Overton correctly held that "Scientific Creationism" should not be taught in the Arkansas public schools because it required a belief in a specific religious doctrine, a fundamentalist interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

It's unacceptable to base a Middle East policy on a particular interpretation of the Bible. The fact that "Judea and Samaria" were part of Israel in the Old Testament is not a justification for Israel to annex the West Bank today. Similarly, it's unacceptable to base unconditional support of Israel on a doctrinal belief about the necessity of a converted Israel to set the stage for the Second Coming of Christ.

⭑⭑ While there is sufficient religious basis for the obligation to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, a Bible verse alone is no more an

acceptable justification for supporting a government program or a specific

funding level than it is for opposing the Equal Rights Amendment.

食食 Belief in the biblical concept of "an eye for an eye" is not an

acceptable basis for supporting capital punishment; belief that capital

punishment is wrong because it precludes the opportunity for the convicted person's conversion is not an acceptable basis for opposing it.

It's acceptable to use moral arguments for or against a bilateral U.S.- Soviet nuclear freeze, but unacceptable to equate the freeze with godlessness or to condemn it on the basis that the Soviet Union is a "Satanic" power.

II. DISCUSSION OF MORALITY IS BEST APPLIED TO THE

COMMON GOOD, NOT PRIVATE ACTION.

This is a time-worn principle that has come under recent attack, but

it makes good sense for several reasons. First, there is far less consensus on the morality of private action than on public issues; this is particularly true in the area of sexual morality. Second, government cannot successfully enforce private morality that doesn't have a public manifestation; efforts to do so generally end up weakening respect for law.

On the other hand, government can enforce civil rights law because private

bias has a public side

public discrimination against minorities.

Overemphasis on private morality can obscure the responsibility of

religion and morality in protecting the common good. New York Gov. Mario Cuomo expressed this well in a speech at the Cathedral of St. John the

Divine in New York City:

To secure religious peace, the Constitution demanded tolerance. It
said no group, not even a majority, has the right to force its
religious views on any part of the community. It said that where
matters of private morality are involved -belief or actions that
don't impinge on other people or deprive them of their rights - the
state has no right to intervene.... Yet, our Constitution isn't simply
an invitation to selfishness, for in it is also embodied a central
truth of the Judeo-Christian tradition; that is, a sense of the common
good. It says, as the Gospel says, that freedom isn't license; that
liberty creates responsibility. That if we have been given freedom,
it is to encourage us to pursue that common good.

IV. GOVERNMENT HAS A RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS

COMPLY WITH REASONABLE REGULATION AND SOCIAL POLICY.

The Constitution provides that while government must be neutral toward religion, it must also accomodate it; and accomodation is a two-way street. The same principle that requires government to make a reasonable accomodation to religion as a part of society requires religion to make a reasonable accomodation of government. Many fundamentalist talk of the "sovereign church" and view government as evil; they hold that because they believe in the Bible, they are virtually exempt from civil laws, a self-serving position with no constitutional basis. While the Christian Right likes to compare itself to the civil rights leaders of the 1960s, its approach has more in common with the anarchy of the Yippies than with the civil disobedience of Martin Luther King.

A number of fundamentalist and evangelical church leaders are seeking exemption from some of the most basic American legal requirements; not only at the Faith Christian School in Louisville, Nebraska, but in other instances as well:

Fundamentalist groups, claiming "Spare the rod and spoil the child" have tried to weaken state and federal spouse and child abuse laws.

⭑⭑ Fundamentalists (as well as some mainline groups like the National Council of Churches) have supported Bob Jones University and other institutions which want to keep their tax-exempt status despite the fact that they discriminate on the basis of race. They argue that their racial policies are part of their religious belief.

⭑⭑ A number of fundamentalists and evangelicals support legislation proposed by Sen. Roger Jepsen (R-Iowa) and Rep. Mickey Edwards (R-Okla.) which would gut the Internal Revenue Service of its power to audit churches. The I.R.S. audits churches to insure that they are in fact churches and are paying the required tax on unrelated business income.

Many Christian Right groups take the hard line position that Social Security payments are an unconstitutional tax. They are trying to win exemption from the new law making participation in the system mandatory for all nonprofit institutions.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the government may place some restrictions on religious freedom if it has a "compelling interest." Recent rulings have upheld this approach on both tax and Social Security matters. The Court ruled in the Bob Jones case that the IRS may deny tax-exempt status to schools which discriminate on the basis of race, even when that discrimination is based in religious belief. Chief Justice Warren Burger said "Denial of tax benefits will inevitably have a significant impact on the operation of private religious schools, but will not prevent those schools from observing their religious tenets. The government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education....That government interest substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners' exercise of their religious beliefs."

On Social Security, mainline religious groups overwhelmingly support mandatory coverage for nonprofit institutions; 85 percent of all nonprofits were already covered before the new law took effect. The mainline churches

also view the issue as one that involves the churches' responsibility -to their employees and to the public at large.

Last year, the Supreme Court reviewed a case in which an Amish farmer sought an exemption from paying the employer share of Social Security because of his religion's belief that church members had a responsibility to care for their own people. The Court acknowledged the sincerity of the farmer's belief, but said it was overridden by the government's "compelling interest" in keeping the Social Security system intact. If the court won't exempt the Amish, with a venerable tradition of caring for their own people, there's no reason to expect it to exempt other churches.

V.

RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS MAY COOPERATE WITH GOVERNMENT IN

PROGRAMS SUPPORTING THE COMMON GOOD.

The absolutist approach to church-state separation would bar this approach. For example, lawsuits have been filed seeking to ban as unconstitutional the use of federal funds for remedial reading and math programs for disadvantaged students in church-run schools. But as long as these services are provided regardless of the recipient's religion, there is no reason for churches not to participate. In one successful instance, a coalition of religious and secular voluntary agencies administered $90 million in emergency federal aid for the hungry and homeless in 1983.

Religious institutions, along with families, neighborhoods and other forms of voluntary associations are examples of mediating structures which help the individual cope with the larger institutions of society, such as big government and big business. These structures serve a variety of public purposes and may even be effective vehicles for delivering government-funded social services.

VI. GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS MUST SHOW NEITHER OFFICIAL APPROVAL

NOR DISAPPROVAL OF RELIGION.

This is a restatement of the principle of government neutrality toward religion, applied to government corporate action. Justice Sandra Day