Newspaper Page Text
January 11, 1985/The Maroon Tiger/Page 11
FEATURES
Which Way-
Rv I awrpnrp F. Carfpr ^
By Lawrence E. Carter
The continual controversy
over religion and politics
revolves around several points of
confusion which could be
clarified by reference to history.
1. Religion, Morality and Law.
One of the purposes of law is to
define and punish unacceptable
behavior. Determining what
behavior is unacceptable is the
province of morality, which is
essential to all civilized societies.
Religion is one important source
of moral insights, but it is not the
only one. The legal tradition
going back to the Codes of
Hammurabi and Justinian is
another source, as is the
philosophical tradition going
back to Socrates, Plato and
Aristotle, and the medical tradi
tion going back to Hippocrates
and Galen. Every voice urging
greater recognition and im
plementation of morality in this
nation is entitled to respect and
consideration, religion no less
than any other. Not all voices will
agree on the definition of
moriality, however, and not all
forms of immorality need be, or
can be, made punishable by law,
so it is equally important that all
voices urging the embodiment
of morality in law be subject to
debate and criticism, religion no
less than any other. That is part of
the essential public dialogue of a
democracy.
2. “Separation of Church and
State.” It is not a violation of the
separation of church and state
for religious groups or their
leaders to proclaim what they
believe to be the right course for
the nation, to try to persuade
others to their point of view, to
try to get laws passed which will
advance what they believe is
right, and to support candidates
who will enact and enforce such
laws. That is the right and duty of
every citizen, and none are to be
disqualified because of their
religious commitments or con
victions, but neither are they to
be immune from criticism or
opposition because of their
religious commitments or con
victions.
Preachers in their pulpits are
entitled to exhort their followers
and anyone else who will listen
to work for the kind of public
policy that will advance what
they believe to be the right and
moral course of the nation. That
is what preachers are supposed
to do, and so doing is not
“imposing” their religious views
on anyone because people can
disregard their counsel - and
often do - even if they declare
that they are proclaiming the will
of God or that those who dis
agree are sinful, pagan or bound
for perdition. Preachers have
done so throughout the history
of the nation, and such activity is
not only well within the bounds
of freedom of speech and the
free exercise of religion but is an
important contribution to the
shaping of the nation's public
policy.
Preachers may even run for
public office and serve if elected.
The last state law banning clergy
from civil office was struck down
by a unanimous Supreme Court
in 1978. Justice Brennan, in his
concurring opinion, wrote:
That public debate of religious
ideas, like any other, may arouse
emotion, may incite, may foment
religious divisiveness and strife
does not rob it of constitutional
protection.... (G)overnment may
not as a goal promote “safe-
thinking" with respect to
religion and fence out from
political participation those,
such as ministers, whom it
regards as overinvolved in
religion. Religionists no less than
members of any other group
enjoy the full measure of protec
tion afforeded speech, associa
tion and political activity
generally. (McDaniel v. Paty
U.S. 618 (1978)
And in a footnote he quoted
from Laurence Tribe's American
Constitutional Law:
American courts have not
thought the separation of church
and state to require that religion
be totally oblivious to govern
ment or politics; church and
religious groups in the United
States have long exerted power
ful political pressures on state
and national legislatures, on
subjects as diverse as slavery,
war, gambling. drinking,
prostitution, marriage, and
education. To view such
religious activity as suspect, or to
regard its political results as
automatically tainted, might be
inconsistent with first amend
ment freedoms of religious and
political expression.... (Tribe, L.,
American Constitutional Law,
1978, pp. 866-67)
If clergy cannot be “fenced
out” from candidacy for public
office, how much less can they
be “fenced out" from preaching
on public issues or their
followers be “fenced out" from
acting on them politically.
However, a church which
chooses to support or oppose
specific candidates for public
office runs the risk of losing its
tax exemption, since Section
501(c)(3) or the Internal Revenue
Code prohibits non-profit
charitable organizations - in
cluding churches - from in
tervening in “any political cam-
| paign on behalf of any candidate
T for public office.” That does not
£ mean that it is illegal or un-
j constitutional to do so, but that
there may be adverse tax conse-
| quences of so doing, which a
“■ church may in exceptional cir
cumstances be willing to risk
when it believes that its duty to
God and humankind requires.
3. Religion and the Candidate
and Office Holder. The Constitu
tion forbids any religious test for
public office. Therefore, a can
didate’s religious affiliation can
not disqualify him or her for
election or appointment to
public office in the U nited States.
By the same token, a candidate’s
religion should not be show
cased as though it were a
qualification or credential for
public office.
How the candidate, if elected,
will use the powers of public
office with respect to issues of
concern to his or her religious
group is often a troubling ques
tion. It is not adequately dealt
with by saying that the of
ficeholder’s religion is a personal
matter and has no bearing on her
or his public acts, since that tends
to privatize and trivialize
religion. A candidate and office
holder is entitled to express
religious views when ap
propriate to the situation and
when not imputed to the office
or the government nor clothed
with official force or authority.
But the office-holder’s personal
views on religion (or anything
else) should not be the basis for
official decisions or actions un
less justified on their merits by
the requirements of the com
mon good and the respon
sibilities of the office. Abraham
(Continued on Page 15)
I KERNER
llj V COMMISSION
“ REPORT
The National Advisory Com
mission on Civil Disorders
(Kerner Commission) made its
report to President Lyndon B.
Johnson and the nation on
March 1, 1968. Since that time
there have been volumes of
responses from nearly every
segment of the media industry.
On the community side, many
media conferences have been
held, as well as countless essays,
position papers and constructive
criticisms have been produced
attacking the wrongful practices
fraught with institutional racism.
Most of us are fully aware how
powerful a force the fourth
estate is. The print medium
chronicles events, preserves
cultural values and shapes public
opinion. And when there is
abuse of information in the
media, it creates a concern that is
top priority for third world
people. Be it print or broadcast,
all media reflect our dual society
in continuing to cater
overwhelmingly to the con
trolling majority.
Since the Kerner Commission
Report, a sizeable number of
blacks and other minorities have
come aboard on major
newspapers, magazines, radio,
television, cable and other
telecommunications businesses.
But, using this 16 year measure
ment to determine where we are
today shows how little we ret y
understand the business
operations of the industry. And
as in all successful business
operations, the media business is
ALWAYS about earning
PROFITS, ALWAYS COM
MITTED TO GATHERING GREEN
BUCKS from anyone, rich or
poor, black, brown, yellow, red
or white.
Now I have been around a few
years. I have been with The
Boston Globe newspaper com
pany since 1963. Having been the
circulation manager’s assistant,
and assistant to the editor for
urban affairs, and currently
holding corporate slots as direc
tor of community relations and
assistant promotion manager, as
well as one of six directors of The
Boston Globe Foundation, my
position affords me the oppor
tunity to examine and study the
communications industry from
the vantage point of one of the
relatively few middle-
management “insiders" able to
observe what has been happen
ing in the struggle, i have also
been a member of the Caucus’s
Communications Braintrust
Committee since its inception in
1972.
This paper, BLACKS IN THE
NEWS ROOM, is not intended as
a definitive treatment aimed at
knocking the fourth estate ex
clusively, but rather may help to
deal with the real power struggle
over “how to and who will tell
America’s story.”
A major concern to many of
us, especially in dealing with
print media, is that so many of
the top blacks who lead large
and important organizations do
not take sufficient time to study
and understand the media “es
tablishment” and its integral part
in the “system" that permits
and promotes social inequities. I
make this comment because my
involvement with this particular
communications workshop, ever
since it began, leaves me
questioning its productivity and
results. A majority of the sessions
is given to focusing upon broad
cast legislation. Although print
media is not subjected to the
same kind of governmental
regulations, print nevertheless
offers to minority individuals the
widest opportunities for ex
ploiting many grievances that we
are addressing today. My com
ments are not to be construed as
being “against” broadcast’s im
portance and clout, but more as
recognition that print can be
reached much morequick!y,and
ultimately our "message” can be
delivered more effectively.
Take for example, The Boston
Globe. It is the largest newspaper
in New England and is most
definitely an important and
essential part of the overall
business community. The Boston
Globe is a newspaper company
that is a business, and that means
it is about earning profits. To
maintain its business influence
means that it must keep its power
base. And that, in a nutshell, is
what the “power” game is all
about. And that power “con
trols” society. As in any kind of
business, maintenance of power
mandates constant effort to
increase profit margins.
Now the newspaper industry,
just like all other segments of
commercial media, has to sell its
worth to the public. In our
particular case, we (The Boston
Globe) must maintain our cir
culation dominance, while sales
of advertising linage dictate
whther we remain in top posi
tion and “power.” We are also
involved in an on-going cam
paign to keep our present
readers and gain new ones
through interesting and infor
mative editorial content, as well
as to maintain and increase our
advertising base. Advertising
accounts for sixty-six and two
(Continued on Page 19)