Biden on Religion's Role in Public Life and Church-State Issues

In light of the big news of the day, I thought I'd post some excerpts from various statements and stories that reflect Senator Biden's views regarding religion's role in public life and church-state issues.  Here are a few noteworthy excerpts:

From "The Fourth R: Conflicts Over Religion in American Public Schools" by Joan DelFattore (Yale University Press 2004):

[At a 1995 Senate hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment that would have re-introduced school-sponsored prayer, among other forms of state-endorsed and state-subsidized religion, Senator Orrin Hatch argued that] [t]he government should foster spirituality . . . as an antidote to moral decay.  Biden replied, "The coin of religious freedom, we must never forget, has two sides."   . . . .  America is one of the most religious nations on Earth, he maintained, precisely because the government has stayed out of religion.  In his view, the issue before the Senate was not whether religion was good but whether all Americans, including religious minorities, would benefit from increased government involvement with it.

From The Christian Science Monitor (August 2007):

"The animating principle of my faith, as taught to me by church and home, was that the cardinal sin was abuse of power," he said in an interview with the Monitor. "It was not only required as a good Catholic to abhor and avoid abuse of power, but to do something to end that abuse."

By the way, that statement helps shed some more light on an answer Biden gave at a Democratic presidential debate in September 2007 when he was asked what his favorite Bible verse was.  (I thought this was a poor question for a presidential debate, by the way).  Biden's answer to this question was: "Christ's warning of the Pharisees."

From the Associated Press (June 2006):

Calling the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks a greater shock to the American psyche than Pearl Harbor, U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden said Saturday that Democrats must demonstrate they can provide for national security to win back the presidency. . . .

"The next Democrat, whether it's me or Sen. Clinton or John Kerry, whomever -- the Democratic nominee -- they'd better be able to ante up right in front of the American people two things: security and faith," he said. . . .

Biden also criticized Democrats for their sometimes patronizing approach to religion, saying believers of different faiths don't expect everyone to join them.

"They just want to know we respect them," he said. "If we can't negotiate the faith issue, forget it, we won't win."

From an October 2007 interview with The Chicago Tribune:*

[Senator Joe Biden:] How was it that in '92 and in '96, Bill Clinton could get a majority of the Catholic vote, and 40 some percent of the Christian vote and 78 percent of the Jewish vote, and how was it that that Al Gore and John Kerry couldn't do that?

Because I think Democrats have it wrong. They think in order to get that vote, you have to demonstrate you're born again, or you have to quote the bible or you're a religious person. I don't believe that. I think the reason why Bill Clinton won that vote even though they knew he wasn't a paragon of virtue--and Al Gore was--was because when Bill Clinton sat in that fundamentalist pew, that Catholic cathedral, that Jewish synagogue, the guy sitting next to him believed Bill Clinton respected him, and respected his views.

The Democratic Party has become elitist. At fundraisers with wealthy guys, they are uncomfortable when I say that. I say let me ask you a rhetorical question: Do you think it's possible for someone to go to a fundamentalist church tomorrow, make an altar call, profess he's born again, and have a high IQ? They all smile. The truth is we have communicated--the elite in our party have communicated--that we really don't respect that.

Now theres a reason for that. They are so angry about the polarization of religion by the Christian right that they've said any talk of religion is bad. Well, I think it's about respect and I don't think that we should shy away from counterpunching. Saying hey, wait a minute, you want to talk about values? I'm your guy. Let's talk about values.

I really believe with every fiber of my being the vast majority of Americans agree with us-- about how to treat children, about the elderly, about the whole issue about dealing with the environment. We act like these people in the red states oppose us? They don't!

From the Associated Press (August 2007):

Biden, a practicing Catholic, acknowledged that he rarely has talked about religion in his 34-year Senate career, but suggested that would change if he wins the Democratic presidential nomination.

Let me also add a quick summary of Senator Biden's record on some major church-state legislation that ultimately became law and some other church-state issues.  Biden supported the Equal Access Act of 1984, the  Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, and  the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.  As the first excerpt listed above indicates, Biden opposed the Istook amendment, a proposed amendment to the Constitution that was designed to reintroduce school-sponsored prayer and to allow other forms of government-endorsed and government-subsidized religion.  The Istook amendment was defeated in 1998. 

Biden criticized a court decision that held that the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God"  violated the First Amendment.  He has spoken against teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in public school science classrooms, and he supported Clinton administration efforts to help public school officials, parents, and students to better understand religion's place in public schools under the First Amendment. *

There are some excerpts below the fold that provide a few more details about these and other matters.    

* Added material.

From a Christian Science Monitor piece on how Biden's faith informs his public work (August 2007):

"The animating principle of my faith, as taught to me by church and home, was that the cardinal sin was abuse of power," he said in an interview with the Monitor. "It was not only required as a good Catholic to abhor and avoid abuse of power, but to do something to end that abuse."

The issues that have most engaged Biden in public life draw on those teachings, from halting violence against women to genocide. At a personal level, his faith provides him peace, he says. "I get comfort from carrying my rosary, going to mass every Sunday. It's my time alone," he says. . . .

But Biden believes he can bridge much of that divide. "My views are totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine," says Biden, a six-term Democratic senator from Delaware. "There are elements within the church who say that if you are at odds with any of the teachings of the church, you are at odds with the church. I think the church is bigger than that." . . .

"My idea of self, of family, of community, of the wider world comes straight from my religion. It's not so much the Bible, the beatitudes, the Ten Commandments, the sacraments, or the prayers I learned. It's the culture," he writes. . . .

Biden was one of the first Catholic politicians of the Vatican II generation. From 1962 to 1965, the Vatican Council II produced documents that opened the door to ecumenical dialogue, freedom of religion and conscience, and greater involvement of the laity in affairs of the church, including saying the mass in English and more emphasis on individual Bible study.

"I was raised at a time when the Catholic Church was fertile with new ideas and open discussion about some of the basic social teaching of the Catholic Church," Biden says. "Questioning was not criticized; it was encouraged."

"[A Catholic teacher] led me to see that if you cannot defend your faith to reason, then you have a problem," Biden says. . . .

On the Senate floor, the tough votes also came early and often. In his first term, Biden faced the first of many votes on whether to curtail abortion rights for women. As a freshman Democrat, he was approached by all sides. He told them that while he personally opposes abortion, he would not vote to overthrow the US Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that gave women the right to terminate a pregnancy. Nor, however, would he vote to use federal funds to fund abortion.

"I don't think I have the right to impose my view – on something I accept as a matter of faith – on the rest of society," he writes in his autobiography. . . .

"Joe Biden is one of the most sincere Catholics I've known in my 40 years as a priest," says Monsignor William Kerr, executive director of the Claude Pepper Center at Florida State University. The two men met by chance outside Biden's Senate office and began a conversation on faith and politics that has continued nearly 30 years. Monsignor Kerr recounts a conversation with Biden on Pope John Paul II's efforts to discourage President Bush from going to war in Iraq. He says that Biden told him: "I just have to tell you the pope's wrong on this, I'm going with the president. That was morality, this is politics."

Looking back on this decision, he writes, "I made a mistake." He had "vastly underestimated" the incompetence of the Bush administration in its conduct of the war. The "fantasy" of remaking Iraq in the US image was a goal that could not be imposed on a "fragile and decimated country," he writes in his new book. Instead, Biden proposes a partition of Iraq along sectarian and ethnic lines to help restore security for Iraqis – and more robust international diplomacy to help sustain it.

Without taking a position on how Catholics should vote, Biden makes a case for staying connected to the church and its culture. "If I were an ordained priest, I'd be taking some issue with some of the more narrow interpretations of the Gospel being taken now," Biden says. "But my church is more than 2,000 years old. There's always been a tug of war among prelates and informed lay members."

From an Associated Press piece discussing Biden's views on Democrats and religion (August 2007):

Democrats have been too afraid to talk about faith, Biden said at a Rotary Club luncheon. But what voters really want to know is whether a president believes in something bigger than themselves and whether he or she respects the faith of others, he said.

"No one ever accused Bill Clinton of being a citadel of virtue, even from the start. How was it that he got 58 percent of the Catholic vote? How was it that he got almost half the evangelical vote?"

It wasn't because they thought Clinton believed as they did, the Delaware Democrat said.

"When he sat next to you in a Catholic church or a fundamentalist church, he respected your views," he said. "Fair or unfair, when Al Gore sat in that church, when John Kerry sat in that church pew, the perception was: 'Maybe he doesn't really respect my view."'

Biden, a practicing Catholic, acknowledged that he rarely has talked about religion in his 34-year Senate career, but suggested that would change if he wins the Democratic presidential nomination.

"I can hardly wait for one of these guys on the other side tell me about family values. I can hardly wait for them to tell me — a guy who's commuted for 34 years to get home and put my kids to bed," he said. "I can hardly wait for them to tell me — a guy who's been married for 30 years when they've been divorced three times. I can hardly wait."

Democratic Candidates on Religion, Denver Post (July 2007):

Joe Biden
Roman Catholic

In 2005, Biden told The News Journal (Wilmington, Del.): "This is a nation founded on the idea of the separation of church and state. After 200 years, why the hell would you want to start messing with that?" Biden also stated that his religion is "part of my spirituality, part of my identity." However, Biden supports abortion rights and federal financing for embryonic stem-cell research, stances that run in opposition to those of his church.

Sources: The News Journal (Wilmington, Del., Aug. 6, 2005), The Associated Press (March 12), Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life (accessed July 6)

Joe Biden on court decision that Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" was unconstitutional  (The Hotline, September 2005):

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), on separation of church and state:
"It was not written to prohibit the government's acknowledgement
of God. In my opinion, the court's decision is dead wrong."

Joe Biden on teaching intelligent design in public science classes  (The Hotline, August 2005):

Pres. Bush's comments last week "supporting the teaching of
'intelligent design' alongside the theory of evolution in public
school science classes has fueled concerns among some of the
wall between religion" and gov't "could be breached." Sen. Joe
Biden (D-DE): "This is a nation founded on the idea of the
separation of church and state. After 200 years, why the hell
would you want to go messing with that?" (Brooks, Wilmington
News Journal, 8/6).

Biden on Bush promoting then-Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers by referencing her faith, The Washington Times (October 2005):

Mr. Bush tried to stem mounting criticism of Miss Miers among conservatives last week by emphasizing her evangelical Christianity.

"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers' background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion," he said Wednesday.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat and also a Judiciary Committee member, called the religion references inappropriate and a sign of desperation.

"I call that groping. It sounds like a man who is going down and decides to try to throw something to his supporters," Mr. Biden said on CBS.

Jimmy Carter on values, politics, and Biden, The Washington Post (November 2006)

[When Jimmy Carter ran for president, he thought that] "the American people . . .  wanted to believe that their president was guided by moral values that were permanent and unshakable and fairly clear, and, of course, these derive from religious faith, and I don't think it has to be Christianity," [Jimmy] Carter says, pausing and looking outward to the damp blanket of leaves covering his lawn. "But I think that's a legitimate expectation on the part of the American." . . . .

"I have confidence that intelligent people: Joe Biden, Senator Bayh . . . and Ms. Clinton -- I think they are very carefully considering what happened in 2004 and how they can avoid the pitfalls of being branded as nonreligious and appealing to the moderate voters who were alienated before," Carter says. "I know if they are going to run for president, they are obsessed with this subject."

Biden on debt relief and role of religious organizations in pushing it (US Newswire 1999):

Against long political odds, Episcopal, Catholic, and Protestant churches
in the United States came together and successfully pushed a package
through Congress to provide debt relief for poor countries.  "We haven't
seen this sort of push from the churches since the anti-Apartheid
movement," said Thomas H. Hart, director of government relations for the
Episcopal Church.
   Late last night, congressional and White House negotiators overcame
lingering disagreements on how to let the IMF cancel some of its loans to
poor countries. The deal finalized one of the few remaining issues in
budget negotiations, paving the way for Congress to adjourn in the next
couple of days. . . .
      Senator Joseph Biden, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee and a cosponsor of debt relief legislation, concurred.  "I
applaud the efforts of the Episcopal Church and the many organizations who
came together to raise and move this issue before the Congress and
Administration, particularly in a very difficult political environment,"
Biden said this morning.

Biden's co-sponsorship of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Deseret News editorial on Supreme Court decision striking down parts of the Act, June 1997):

The Supreme Court's decision to overthrow the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was unfortunate.

More unfortunate, however, is that the 6-3 decision Wednesday reinforced the notion of an activist supreme judiciary that is reluctant to let Congress legislate and to content itself with the role of legal interpreter. . . .

Apart from control and power struggles between the court and Congress, the problem with legal precedent is that it may be widely interpreted and misinterpreted by state and federal courts. Case in point is the Supreme Court's own abandonment of sound precedent in its 1990 ruling that prompted passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by Congress in 1993.

Prior to 1990, the court had consistently ruled that any governmental action that hindered religious observance was unconstitutional unless it served a "compelling state interest." That was an appropriate standard of religious protection.

But Oregon vs. Smith was a drastic departure from that standard. The majority in that case held that any generally applicable law that incidentally impeded religious practice or worship was not invalidated by the First Amendment's free-exercise guarantee. Only laws that were specifically intended to stymie religious practice were forbidden by the First Amendment.

Ironically, in light of Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling, the majority decision in the pivotal 1990 case remanded the responsibility for protecting religious liberties to the legislative branch and away from the courts and the constitution. Now the reverse has occurred and the high court has reclaimed that responsibility.

The potential erosion of religious rights from Smith vs. Oregon sparked an unlikely political alliance among a variety of religious groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and others. Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Joseph Biden, D-Dela., co-sponsored the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to legislate that protection.

Biden praises Clinton administration guidelines on religion expression in public schools (The Roanoke Times, September 1995):

The Clinton administration wants to end confusion over students' rights to religious expression - and possibly put the brakes on conservatives' push for a constitutional amendment on school prayer.

Students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals and pray before tests under federal guidelines for religious activities in public schools that have been issued at President Clinton's direction.

Students also may pray and discuss their religious views in informal settings outside of class, such as in the cafeteria and hallways, subject to the same rules that apply to other student activities and speech. . . .

On Tuesday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch began hearings on whether Congress must legislate protections of religious liberty.

Riley's directive to public school superintendents ''is not likely to have much impact,'' Hatch, R-Utah, said. ''It contains no teeth, for there is no enforcement mechanism for violations of a youngster's religious liberty.''

But the ranking Democrat on the committee, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, defended the directive, saying ''all of us should lend our support to this brave new effort to set the record straight.''

Biden votes for Equal Access bill (UPI, September 1983):

[The] Senate Judiciary Committee is backing a bill to let elementary and high school students meet for prayer or Bible study in classrooms after hours.

The panel Thursday endorsed 11-4 a proposal by Sen. Jeremiah Denton, R-Ala., requiring schools to give students who want to meet before or after school for religious purposes the same chance to use classroom space as student chess, debate or other clubs.

''The meeting can be Jewish students, Moslem students, students of any denomination,'' Denton said. ''The point is they must be granted equal access, just like a drama club or anybody else.''

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., voted for the bill with some reservation but argued it is ''necessary ... to make clear to various groups around the country who are confused about what they are and are not able to do.''

[NOTE:The bill that ultimately passed and was enacted into law, the Equal Access Act, applies only to public secondary schools.]

Biden leadership on the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (White House statement 1998):

I welcome today's strong bipartisan Senate passage, and the anticipated passage in the House of Representatives, of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. . . .

The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 is a welcome and responsible addition to our ongoing efforts. Its principled, measured approach rightly emphasizes effective remedies over broad, symbolic gestures.

I also wish to applaud the bipartisan, cooperative approach that helped achieve this legislation, in particular the leadership of Senators Nickles, Lieberman, Hagel, Biden, Feinstein, and Specter and Representative Clement. I'd also like to pay tribute at this time to Representative Frank Wolf, whose longstanding and devoted advocacy for this issue has been an inspiration to those of us so determined to promote religious freedom abroad.

This legislation is not directed against any one country or religious faith. Indeed, this act will serve to promote the religious freedom of people of all backgrounds, whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, or any other faith. I look forward to signing this Act.

Biden queries then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas on free exercise issues (Transcript , September 1991)

SENATOR BIDEN: Now, let me move to another area, if I may, and that is to the area we have touched on very briefly, religion, if I may, not your religion or mine, how the Court deals with religion.

Judge, this is one area where the level of protection accorded fundamental rights is changing, and I do not think most of us even know it. You know it, and that is the right of free speech and the free exercise of religion. These rights, which, perhaps more than any other, are central to what most of us believe to be what it means to be an American.

In my view, these rights deserve the highest level of protection by the court, and I would like to start first with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which provides, as you well know, "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion."

Now, until last year, the Supreme Court applied the standard known as strict scrutiny, when reviewing legislation that restricted religious practice. Under the strict scrutiny standard we have discussed a number of times, but it bears repeating, the State first needed a compelling reason for restricting the religious practice, and, second, the State had to show that no other alternatives were available for it the State to achieve its goal. It has been a test now for about 40 years, 35 years, a two-prong test.

Under this doctrine, the Supreme Court held, for example, that the compulsory education law could not be used, for example, to require Amish children to attend school, when their parents believe that they have a religious duty to be educated at home, the Yoder case, Wisconsin v. Yoder.

The Court reasoned that, even though the State was not acting out of any hostility, and even though the State had a compelling reason for making children attend school, in general, in Yoder they held the State law could not constitutionally be applied to the Amish, because there was "no compelling reason for abridging the religious freedom to educate their children."

Then, last year, the Supreme Court decided the case of the Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith. In the Smith case, the Court held that the Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental use of peyote. I think that is how it is pronounced, is that correct? Never having used it, I am not sure of the pronunciation. Peyote, it is a drug used in an Indian ceremony and it has been used historically by them. Thus, a State could deny unemployment benefits to those who were discharged from employment for such use.

Now, I do not want to discuss the specific case of the case nor the specific outcome. Instead, I want to ask you about your understanding of the reasoning the Court used in this case. Justice Scalia, writing for a 5-to-4 majority, concluded that, as long as the government is not specifically trying to restrict religion or as long as it is not trying to discriminate against religion, it can apply a general law against a religious activity, and it doesn't matter what effect the law has on that religion, in a sense striking down what historically--not historically, what the last several decades has been the second test needed to be passed, in order for the State to be able to take such action.

In other words, even if the law passed by the government has a devastating impact upon a religious practice, the law is still constitutional, according to the majority, Scalia writing for them, is still constitutional, so long as the government acted with a legitimate purpose when it passed the law.

Now, Justice O'Connor, on the other hand, said she would have upheld the ban on peyote, without changing the legal test that has historically been applied, without abandoning the strict scrutiny test. Now, Judge, which approach do you agree with, not whether or not it should be outlawed or not outlawed--that is not the issue as far as I am concerned. Do you agree with Scalia's approach, or do you agree with O'Connor's approach?

JUDGE THOMAS: Senator, I think as I indicated in prior testimony here, when the Sherbet test was abandoned or moved away from in the Smith case, I think that any of us who were concerned about this area, because, as we indicate, I think we all value our religious freedoms, I think that there was an appropriate reason for concern, and I did note then that Justice O'Connor, in applying the traditional test, reached the same result.

SENATOR BIDEN: Correct.

JUDGE THOMAS: I cannot express as preference. I have not thought through those particular approaches, but I myself would be concerned that we did move away from an approach that has been used for the past I guess several decades.

SENATOR BIDEN: Judge, I asked the same question of our most recent Justice and Justice Souter had no problem telling me that he agreed with the O'Connor approach. I do not care which approach. You obviously know the area well. You obviously know the facts of the cases. You obviously have an intense and deep commitment to religion and your faith in God. Do you mean to tell me you have not thought, when this came out, which approach you thought was appropriate.

JUDGE THOMAS: Let me restate my answer. My concern would be that, without being absolutist in my answer, my concern would be that the Scalia approach could lessen religious protections.

SENATOR BIDEN: Judge, as a matter of fact, it does. I mean it is not whether it could or should. I mean it does, it limits the protection, for example, in the case--I guess it was in New Mexico, where they passed a law saying minors cannot drink wine under any circumstances. As you know, in our church and in many churches, there is a sacramental taking of wine at communion, and in most churches that occurs in most Christian religions--I cannot speak for others--and it occurs when kids are seven years old or eight years old, and it impacts significantly.

As you know, it was struck down, that restriction in New Mexico, it never got up to the Supreme Court, to the best of my knowledge. But clearly, under the test applied by Scalia, such a law could be passed and it would be held constitutional. It has a big impact, it is a big deal, not a minor thing.

JUDGE THOMAS: And I guess my point is our concerns are the same, that any test which lessens the protection I think is a matter of concern. The point that I am making, though, in not being absolutist is that I think it is best for me, as a sitting Federal judge, to take more time and to think that through, but my concern about the approach taken by Justice Scalia is that it may have the potential and could have the potential of lessening protection, and I think the approach that we should take certainly is one that maximizes those protections.

SENATOR BIDEN: Judge, you know, when your confirmation is over and if you are on the bench, you are on the bench and the next nominee comes up, we now talk about the Souter standard and how Souter did not answer questions that some suggest he should or shouldn't have, I am not making a judgment on that. We are going to have a new standard, the Thomas standard, which is you are answering even less than Souter.

SENATOR HATCH: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is true. I think he has answered forthrightly and very straightforwardly all the way through this thing. He may not give the answers you and I want--

SENATOR BIDEN: No, I am not looking for an answer that I want, let me make it clear, Senator. I am just making a statement of fact. I asked the precise same question of Judge Souter. Just Souter, sitting not as a Federal judge, sitting as a State court judge, said "I agree with O'Connor," no ifs, ands, buts about it, just click, bang, I agree with O'Connor. That is the only point I am making.