Constitutional principle
How candidates described religious liberty and the separation of religious institutions from government.
Archived essay
The 2000 election discussion
Originally written 18 October 2000 · Updated 6 November 2000
During the 2000 campaign, the Web, White and Blue project invited presidential candidates to respond to questions submitted by members of the public. One question asked how government should protect religious freedom and maintain church–state separation as religious diversity increased. It also asked whether Wicca should receive the same recognition as other religions in the military.
The responses varied. Some candidates emphasized broad constitutional protection, while others drew distinctions between traditions they regarded as part of the country’s religious heritage and those they did not recognize. One participating candidate chose not to answer this question.
Candidate responses
Patrick J. Buchanan
The archive records that Buchanan participated in the wider survey but did not provide an answer to this particular question.
George Bush
Bush’s response affirmed religious freedom, tolerance and diversity as constitutional principles. It named several established traditions but stated that he did not regard witchcraft as a religion and did not believe the military should promote it.
The original editor argued that this position raised a question about whether constitutional protection was being applied equally to smaller traditions. The commentary also distinguished Wicca from the many unrelated activities described by the broader word “witchcraft,” noting that the terms should not be treated as interchangeable.
For this archive, the central issue is the difference between government promotion of a belief and equal treatment of people who hold that belief. The page links this question to the wider principle of religious accommodation.
Al Gore
Gore’s response strongly supported separation between religious institutions and government while arguing that religious and ethical perspectives could still contribute to public discussion. He presented religious liberty as a protection against both official establishment and interference with free exercise.
The archive’s editor concluded that this answer did not directly resolve whether Wiccan service members should receive equal recognition. The omission illustrates how campaign language about general principles can leave a specific minority-rights question unanswered.
John Hagelin
Hagelin’s response supported a strict separation between government and any particular doctrine. It also argued that no faith should be denied recognition and that broad ethical principles could inform political life without becoming an official religion.
Howard Phillips
Phillips supported liberty of conscience in general but proposed limiting military chaplain services to traditions he associated with the country’s biblical heritage. The archive presents this as a narrower model of religious recognition, with different levels of access for different communities.
The editorial analysis challenged that distinction by pointing to the diversity of religious and spiritual traditions in the United States, including Indigenous traditions, Wicca, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and other communities.
Why the distinction matters
Religious freedom has two related dimensions: the right to practice a religion and the right not to have government establish or favor one. A policy can claim to protect liberty while still creating unequal treatment if it recognizes some sincere traditions and excludes others without a neutral justification.
Wicca is used in this archive as a case study in how public institutions classify minority religions. The broader lesson is methodological: terms should be defined carefully, historical claims should be checked, and a government’s neutrality should be assessed by its treatment of people rather than by whether officials approve of their beliefs.
Related reading
Archive note
The candidate statements and editorial analysis belong to the 2000 election cycle. Names, offices and political positions are presented for historical context. This page does not describe current candidates or current policy, and it does not reproduce extended source quotations.