Law forum tackles church-state separation

by Adrain O'Connorby Adrain O'ConnorThe Daily Pennsylvanian But on Friday, several hundred lawyers, religious figures, academics and legislators gave it yet another shot. The Law School, along with the Anti-Defamation League, sponsored a national conference on "The First Amendment and Government Support for Religion and Religious Institutions." Recent national politics have brought this issue to the forefront, with presidential candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore coming out in support of government funding for private service organizations, including those that are religiously affiliated. The piece of legislation debated Friday known as "Charitable Choice," passed in 1996, is a bill which has sparked controversy over where the separation of church and state actually lies. The conference wasted no time in getting to the crux of the debate, with a panel discussion on the nature of faith-based service organizations and on the social paradox they often represent. "It's often the liberal black churches you see out working in these programs, and yet it is the conservative politicians pushing the government towards them," commented Floyd Flake, a minister from Jamaica, N.Y. On the panel with Flake were Mark Scott of the Ella Baker House in Boston and David Saperstein, a rabbi from the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. The three panelists came to an agreement of sorts that, in Saperstein's words, "there shouldn't be the impression that the government is supporting or funding proselytizing, and I don't see that here." After a short break, the format changed from panel discussion to heated debate. Arguing in favor of Critical Choice were Nathan Diament, a representative of the Orthodox Union, and Douglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Texas Law School. The were opposed by Barry Lynn, an ordained minister, lawyer and the chairperson of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and Erwin Chemerinsky, a professor from the University of Southern California Law School. Despite obvious ideological differences and arguments about the logistics of implementation, the debate seemed to focus mostly on the technical definition of the separation of church and state and the debaters' varying interpretations of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. After about 90 minutes, the four debaters were unable to reach quite the same level of accord as the early-morning panel. But as Laycock explained, it's a difficult issue to resolve, and even the highest court in the land remains split "four to four to Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor -- and nobody knows what she thinks." Later in the day, a diverse group of panelists discussed the issue of school vouchers, which figures to play prominently in next week's mayoral election. Then, former Law School Dean Colin Diver moderated a panel called "Have Recent Court Holdings Enhanced or Eroded Religious Freedom for All Americans?"