There are those who do and their own words testify to their intolerance. For example, because the moral Majority has worked with members of different denomination, one fundamentalist group has denounced Dr. Jerry] alwell for hastening the ecumenical church and for yoking together with Roman Catholics Mormons, and others. I am relieved that Dr. Falwell does not regard that as a sin and on this issue he himself has become the target of narrow prejudice. When people agree on public policy they ought to be able to work together, even while they worship in diverse ways. For truly we are all yoked together as Americans, and the yoke is the happy one of individual freedom and mutual respect. But in saying that we cannot and should not turn aside from a deeper and more pressing question --which is whether and how relig ion should inf lue nce government a generation ago, a presidential cand idate had to prove his independence of undue religious inf luence in public life, and he had to do so partly at the insistence of evangelical Protestants. John Kennedy said at that time: I believe in an America here there is no religio us bloc voting of any kind. Only twenty years later, another candidate was appealing to a ln evangelical meeting as a religious bloc. Ronald Reagan said to 15 thousand evange lica Is at the roundtable in Dallas: I know that you cant endorse me. I want you to know i endorse you and what you are doing To many Americans that pledge was a sign and a symbol of a dangerous breakdown in the separation of church and state. Yet this principle, as vital as it is, is not a simplistic and rigid command. Separation of church and state cannot mean an absolute separation between moral principles and political power. The challenge today is to recall the origin of the principle, to define its purpose, and ref ine its application to the politics of the present. The founders of our nation had long and bitter experience with the state as both the agent and the adversary of particular religio us view. In colon ial Maryland Catholics paid a double land tax, and in Pennsylvania they had to list their names on a public roll -- an om ino us precursor of the first Nazi laws against the Jews And Jews in turn faced discrimination in all of the thirteen original Colonies. Massachusetts exiled Roger Williams and his congregation for contending that civil government had no right to enforce the Ten Commandments. Virginia harassed Baptist teachers and also established a religious test for public service writing into the law that no popish followers"could hold any office But during the Revolution, Catholics, Jews, and Non-Conformists all rallied to the cause and fought valiantly for the American commonwealth --for John Winthrops city upon a hill.Afterwards, when the Constitution was ratif ied and then amended the framers gave freedom for all religion, and from any established religion, the very first place in the bill of rights Indeed the framers themselves prof essed very different faiths: Washington was an Episco palian Jefferson a deist and Adams a Calvinist. And although he had earlieThere are those who do, and their own words testify to their intolerance. For example, because the Moral Majority has worked with members of dif ferent denomination, one fundamentalist group has denounced Dr. [Jerry] Falwell for hastening the ecumenical church and for “yoking together with Roman Catholics, Mormons, and others.” I am relieved that Dr. Falwell does not regard that as a sin, and on this issue, he himself has become the target of narrow prejudice. When people agree on public policy, they ought to be able to work together, even while they worship in diverse ways. For truly we are all yoked together as Americans, and the yoke is the happy one of individual f reedom and mutual respect. But in saying that, we cannot and should not turn aside f rom a deeper and more pressing question -- which is whether and how religion should influence government. A generation ago, a presidential candidate had to prove his independence of undue religious influence in public life, and he had to do so partly at the insistence of evangelical Protestants. John Kennedy said at that time: “I believe in an America where there is no religious bloc voting of any kind.” Only twenty years later, another candidate was appealing to a[n] evangelical meeting as a religious bloc. Ronald Reagan said to 15 thousand evangelicals at the Roundtable in Dallas: “ I know that you can’t endorse me. I want you to know I endorse you and what you are doing.” To many Americans, that pledge was a sign and a symbol of a dangerous breakdown in the separation of church and state. Yet this principle, as vital as it is, is not a simplistic and rigid command. Separation of church and state cannot mean an absolute separation between moral principles and political power. The challenge today is to recall the origin of the principle, to define its purpose, and refine its application to the politics of the present. The founders of our nation had long and bitter experience with the state, as both the agent and the adversary of particular religious views. In colonial Maryland, Catholics paid a double land tax, and in Pennsylvania they had to list their names on a public roll -- an ominous precursor of the first Nazi laws against the Jews. And Jews in turn faced discrimination in all of the thirteen original Colonies. Massachusetts exiled Roger Williams and his congregation for contending that civil government had no right to enforce the Ten Commandments. Virginia harassed Baptist teachers, and also established a religious test for public service, writing into the law that no “popish followers” could hold any of fice. But during the Revolution, Catholics, Jews, and Non-Conformists all rallied to the cause and fought valiantly for the American commonwealth -- for John Winthrop’s “city upon a hill.” Af terwards, when the Constitution was ratified and then amended, the f ramers gave f reedom for all religion, and f rom any established religion, the very first place in the Bill of Rights. Indeed the f ramers themselves professed very different faiths: Washington was an Episcopalian, Jefferson a deist, and Adams a Calvinist. And although he had earlier