Clifford Brown, a former USAID lawyer argues that the agency places too much emphasis on the separation of church and state and should be more active in promoting moderate religious beliefs and practices in areas where extremism poses a threat to peace. This comes on the heels of an Inspector General investigation that found hundreds of thousands of dollars of US taxpayer money recently went to support religion abroad, and recommended changes and clarification in policy. The Washington Post reports today:
At the heart of the debate is a dispute about the intent of the First Amendment's establishment clause, which bars Congress from establishing a state religion or prohibiting the free expression of religious thought. Brown, who served as a USAID lawyer for more than a decade, said he thinks that the First Amendment does not apply to overseas assistance.
"Our legal position is too conservative. We've got a war on terror," Brown said. "The lawyers are concerned about excessive entanglement with religion. Well, we're already entangled."
This strikes me as a false choice. We should be able to meet foreign policy and military objectives without abandoning the First Amendment and core religious freedom principles, at the water's edge. If some clarification and case-by-case guidance are needed to naviage this terrain, isn't that preferable to a blanket determination that a constitutional protection simply "does not apply"?
