No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 April 2015
We have entered into these conversations not to prove the correctness of our own traditions, but to enhance our understanding of the religious commitments of our partners in dialogue. To achieve this goal, our first task has been to listen carefully to the experiences and insights of our brothers and sisters in Abrahamic faith. We have noted frequently a commonality in our experiences, but we have not attempted to diminish the significance of real and often profound differences between us.
Through all our conversations we have grown in respect and love for one another. We acknowledge this fruit of productive dialogue as the gracious gift of God the Merciful. Having received this gift freely, we now offer to all persons of good will these reflections on religious freedom in America, with the hope that they may promote religious freedom and enhance ecumenical or interreligious dialogue.
In this statement we address the theme of religious freedom as we have experienced it in this country. We agree that it is more appropriate for us to reflect on our own experience of religious freedom in the context of the American constitutional order. This is not because we seek to avoid a difficult question for interfaith dialogue. On the contrary, we are fully aware that the topic we have chosen may be controversial. Our efforts to reach common accord on these matters reflect our dedication to the principle that we advance mutual under standing of one another by exploring difficult questions with frankness and openness, and by learning from our partners in dialogue.
This joint statement was prepared in 1989 after a series of discussions between Muslims and Roman Catholics in Los Angeles conducted under the auspices of the Office of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and the Islamic Center of Southern California. Reprinted with permission. For further information, contact the Office of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, 114 East 2nd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
1. This designation of God is characteristic of both the theology and the prayer life of Islam. See, e.g., Quran, 1:1: “In the name of God most compassionate, most merciful.” Roman Catholics are more accustomed to calling upon God as our Father, (Mt. 6:9; Lk. 11:2), but are also familiar with the designation of God as merciful (Ex. 34:6; Deut. 4:31; 2 Chron. 30:9; Neh. 9:17, 31; Psalm 86:15; 103:8; 111:4; 112:4; 116:5; 145:8; Jer. 3:12; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Lk. 6:36; James 5:11).
2. See, e.g., The Williamsburg Charter: A National Celebration and Reaffirmation of the First Amendment Religious Liberty Clauses (Williamsburg Charter Foundation, 1988), 8 aboveGoogle Scholar.
3. A statute is not invalid merely because citizens are motivated by religious concerns to urge its adoption, or because legislators are similarly motivated. Harris v McRae, 448 US 297 (1980). As the Supreme Court noted in Walz v Tax Comm'n, 397 US 664, 670 (1970): “Adherents of particular faiths and individual churches frequently take strong positions on public issues including … vigorous advocacy of legal or constitutional positions. Of course, churches as much as secular bodies and private citizens have that right.” See also First National Bank of Boston v Bellotti, 435 US 765, 776-778 (1978); and McDaniel v Paty, 435 US 618, 640 (1978) (Brennan concurring).
4. See, e.g., Reynolds v United States, 98 US 145 (1878); and Cantwell v Connecticut, 310 US 296 (1940).
5. We acknowledge, of course, that any society will place some limits on conduct, even when expressive of beliefs. “Society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on pretext of freedom of religion. … [Judicial] norms [that are imposed] not in arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship … arise out of the need for effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights. They flow from the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when persons live together in good order and true justice.” Vatican Council II, Declaration on Religious Freedom, # 7. We accept, for example, the limit imposed on all speech, whether religiously grounded or not, that advocates imminent violence and that is likely to have harmful results. Brandenburg v Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969).
6. See, e.g., Austin, Allan, African Muslims in Antebellum America (Garland, 1984)Google Scholar.
7. Story, Joseph, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Hilliard, Gray & Co., 1833), vol. 3, § 1871Google Scholar.
8. Although the early Maryland experiment provided for the free exercise of religion for Christians, it imposed the severest penalties, including confiscation of goods and capital punishment, on those who exceeded the limits of Christian orthodoxy. See Curry, Thomas J., The First Freedoms: Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment 39 (Oxford, 1986)Google Scholar.
9. For example, Catholics were widely supposed to be plotting with the French and the Indians to suppress the Protestant population. Id at 45-47.
10. Id at 48-51.
11. “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” US Const, Art VI.
12. See, e.g., Stokes, Anson Phelps, 1 Church and State in the United States 622 ff, 859 (Harper, 1950)Google Scholar; Antieau, Chester James, Carroll, Philip Mark, and Burke, Thomas Carroll, Religion Under the State Constitutions 100-104, 115–116 (Central Book, 1965)Google Scholar. The last remaining vestige of such inhibitions on public service relating to the religious convictions of a potential office holder, banning clergy from serving in the State legislature, was invalidated in McDaniel v Paty, 435 US 618 (1978).
13. See, e.g., Myers, Gustavus, History of Bigotry in the United States (Capricorn Books, 1960)Google Scholar; and Higham, John, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925 (Atheneum, 1963)Google Scholar.
14. See, e.g., Ahlstrom, Sidney E., A Religious History of the American People (Yale, 1972)Google Scholar; Stokes, Anson Phelps, Church and State in the United States, 3 vols. (Harper, 1950)Google Scholar.
15. See, e.g., Friedel, Frank, ed, Harvard Guide to American History, 2 vols (Harvard, 2d ed 1974)Google Scholar.
16. See, e.g., Shaheen, Jack, The TV Arab (Bowling Green State Univ Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Said, Edward, Covering Islam (Pantheon, 1981)Google Scholar.
17. See, e.g., Testimony of Audrey Shabbas on behalf of American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, California State Board of Education, 10 June 1987.
18. In a national opinion survey conducted in December of 1987 by the Williamsburg Charter Foundation, 13% of the respondents stated that “there is no place in America for the Moslem religion.” See also Violence Against Muslims: The New Trend (Islamic Center of Southern California, 1988)Google Scholar.
19. See, e.g., Wisconsin v Yoder, 406 US 205, 215 (1972) (state interest in universal compulsory education not sufficiently important to outweigh parental interest in religious upbringing of children); but see United States v Lee, 455 US 252, 260 (1982) (broad public interest in maintaining a sound tax system is of such a high order that it outweighs religious belief in conflict with payment of Social Security tax).
20. See, e.g., Cruz v Beto, 405 US 319 (1972) (requiring that Buddhist prisoner be afforded “a reasonable opportunity of pursuing his faith comparable to the opportunity afforded fellow prisoners who adhere to conventional religious precepts”); Kahane v Carlson, 527 F 2d 492 (2d Cir 1975) (requiring federal prison to provide Orthodox Jewish prisoner with a diet that would keep the prisoner in good health without violating kosher laws); Barnett v Rodgers, 410 F 2d 995 (DC Cir 1969) (requiring prison to accommodate dietary requirements of Muslim prisoners).
21. See, e.g., O'Lone v Estate of Shabazz, 107 S Ct 2400 (1987), on remand, 829 F 2d 32 (3d Cir 1987) (upholding prison regulation regarding work by prisoners outside the prison that precluded Muslim prisoners from attending religious services on Friday afternoons).
22. See, e.g., Larson v Valente, 456 US 228 (1982).
23. In the opinion poll referred to in note 18, above, 8% stated that they would not vote for a Catholic to serve as President even if that person were a member of the respondent's political party and the respondent liked his ideas. This response compares favorably with the indication in a 1959 Gallup poll that 25% of Americans would exclude a Catholic from the presidency soly on the ground of the candidate's religion.
24. See, e.g., Religious Discrimination: A Neglected Issue (United States Civil Rights Commission, 1979)Google Scholar.
25. Lemon v Kurtzman 403 US 602, 636 (1971) (Douglas concurring).
26. At the beginning of this decade a slightly higher percentage of children attending Catholic schools in California were members of minority groups than were children attending the government's schools. Nonetheless, parochial schools are frequently and erroneously described as “elitist bastions of white supremacy.” For an empirical description of Catholic schools in several major cities, see Inner-City Private Elementary School: A Study (Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, 1982)Google Scholar; and see Greeley, Andrew M., Catholic High Schools and Minority Students, in Gaffney, Edward McGlynn Jr., ed, 6–16Private Schools and the Public Good (Notre Dame, 1981)Google Scholar.
27. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc v Regan, 544 F Supp 471 (SDNY 1982); Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc v Regan, 552 F Supp 364 (SDNY 1982); Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc v Regan, 603 F Supp 970 (SDNY 1985); Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc v Baker, 110 FRD 337 (SDNY 1986); In re United States Catholic Conference, 824 F 2d 156 (2d Cir 1987), rev'd, United States Catholic Conference v Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc, 108 S Ct 2268 (1988) (remanding for determination of standing of plaintiffs).
28. United States Catholic Conference v Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc, 108 S Ct 2268 (1988).
29. See, e.g., Neuhaus, Richard John, The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America (Eerdmans, 1984)Google Scholar; Mooney, Christopher F., Public Virtue: Law and the Social Character of Religion (Notre Dame, 1986)Google Scholar.