Separating Church and State or Guaranteeing Religious Expression?

• Author: Richard D. White,Jeffrey D. Jeter
• Date: 01 December 2002
• DOI: 10.1177/073437102237812
• Published date: 01 December 2002
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/073437102237812

REVIEWOFPUBLICPERSONNELADMINISTRATION / Winter 2002

White,Jeter/RELIGIOUSCONFLICT IN THE WORKPLACE

Separating Church and State

or Guaranteeing Religious

Expression?

Resolving Religious Conflict

in the Public Workplace

RICHARD D. WHITE JR.

Louisiana State University

JEFFREY D. JETER

Louisiana Office of the Attorney General

How is religious controversyresolved? Although no definitive and agreed-on rule

exists for determining constitutionally appropriate standards for sectarian

behavior in the public workplace, an assessment of current research provides a

framework to understand the diverse intereststhat this controversial issue engen-

ders. This article traces the historical and legal evolution of the separation of

church and state, provides a framework that more clearly defines salient issues,

and poses recommendations for the public employer who faces the controversies

created by the clash of secular and sectarian interests. Inso doing, the article aims

to provide both the public employerand employee with a deeper understanding of

the complex issues concerning religious expression in the workplace.

Religious conflict in the public workplace can ignite a firestorm of contro-

versy. When is religious activity at work allowed and condoned as a free

expression of religious beliefs? When is religious activity at work prohibited as

an illegal conflict between church and state? At the heart of religious contro-

versies are substantial legal and constitutional rights of government employ-

ees to speak, act, and associate in conformity with their faith. Such freedoms

are by no means absolute and lie at the nexus of two significant, albeit con-

flicting, constitutional protections afforded by the First Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment providesthat “Congress shall make

no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

257

ARTICLES

Review of Public Personnel Administration,Vol. 22, No. 4 Winter 2002 257-275

DOI: 10.1177/073437102237812

© 2002 Sage Publications

at SAGE Publications on December 8, 2012rop.sagepub.comDownloaded from

thereof.” In general, the SupremeCourt interprets the establishment clause as

prohibiting state or federal government from setting up a church or passing

laws that aid one, or all, religions, or giving preference to one religion, or forc-

ing belief or disbelief in any particular religion. By contrast, the Court inter-

prets the free exercise clause to protect individuals against control or interven-

tion by civil authorities over religious belief or religious activity.

The conflict between the establishment and free exercise clauses creates

an enduring tension when determining the boundary between church and

state. Inflaming real passions, religious controversyhas become increasingly

imbedded in politics and policy making and generates intense public inter-

est. Pressures have mounted to have religious observances and prayers in

public schools, to support sectarian education through tax revenues and

vouchers, and to provide government funding to faith-based public welfare

programs. In the public sector,religious protections exert massive pressures

on the governmental employer. Both state and federal constitutions pro-

hibit government’s infringement on the free exercise of an individual’sreli-

gion. However, at some point the freedom afforded to an individual by a

public employer becomes a de facto establishment of religion. When does

proper accommodation of religion become improper aid to, and thus estab-

lishment of, religion? When does accommodation of the majority religion

become discriminatory toward religious minorities?

Unfortunately, resolving religious conflict is hampered by confusing and

contradictory court decisions, statutes, and executive orders. Further com-

plicating religious workplace expression is the increasingly diverse and plu-

ralistic nature of modern society whereby the religious freedomsguaranteed

to one individual can run afoul of the religious freedoms guaranteed to

another. The past two decades have witnessed a sharp increase in genuine

religious diversity within the American populace. For example, the number

of Buddhists and Hindus have grown into significant minorities, whereas

the Muslim population has quadrupled. Meanwhile, the number of nonre-

ligious has risen from 2% in 1952 to today’s 10% (Thiemann, 1996, p. 3).

As a result of the increasing size and influence of religious minorities, the

once firm grip of traditional Christian hegemony has diminished

significantly.

How is religious controversyresolved? This article examines the freedom

of religious expression historically afforded to public employees and the

various rights and obligations of both the government employer and

employee. Although no definitive and agreed-on rule exists for determining

constitutionally appropriate standards for sectarian speech in the public

workplace, an assessment of current research provides a framework to

258 REVIEW OF PUBLIC PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION / Winter2002

at SAGE Publications on December 8, 2012rop.sagepub.comDownloaded from