The Limits of Secularism: Public Religious Expression in Moments of National Crisis and Tragedy

Abstract:     
In the days following September 11, Americans gathered at public events all over this Nation to share their grief and affirm their solidarity. Religion exercise played a prominent role at these events. Participants prayed together, sang hymns together, and expressed their collective belief that, despite the terrorist attack, God would continue to bless America.

At one level, the fact that these events featured state-supported religious exercise would appear to be constitutionally problematic. The prayers and supplications offered at these events were deeply moving and deeply felt. They were also often deeply sectarian. The events embodied true religious exercise, not the watered-down versions commonly associated with public events.

In most circumstances, this would be seen as a classic and egregious Establishment Clause violation. Certainly, it transgressed most anti-establishment policies. State-sponsored religion is thought of as demeaning to religion, as compromising religious integrity, and as threatening religious pluralism. Religion is believed to be beyond state competence. Yet the post-September 11 events had public officials designing religious programs, selecting religious participants, and determining how best to meet their citizens religious needs.

At the same time, any conclusion that the post-September events were unconstitutional is also problematic. The Nation's need for religious outlet was too strong and adherence to a secularism that would require such a result too rigid.

I suggest in this essay that the tension between the constitutional commitment to anti-establishment and the societal need to engage in collective religious exercise can be accommodated by a doctrine that allows for government support for religion in limited and exceptional circumstances. But there are larger lessons about the interrelation between religion and state that can be learned from the post-September 11 events. While maintaining our secular status, we remain a deeply religious and spiritual society. This is not a paradox. The constitutional commitment to secularism serves to protect, and not to displace, our collective religiosity. The constitutional value of secularism is in its instrumental role, not in its own orthodoxy. As such, the adherence to secularism need not be absolute. There may be moments of national crisis and grief when instrumental values pale and it becomes constitutionally permissible to pierce the secular veneer.

Keywords: Establishment clause, first amendment, religion, September 11

Accepted Paper Series