The Separation of Church and State

The birth of the United States was due, in large part, to the efforts of people fleeing religious persecution in Europe. Eventually, as the collection of settlements formed a government and became a nation, those early participants ensured, through the first amendment, that succeeding generations would be able to worship without the influence or intrusion of government. However, the increasingly diverse nature of the U.S. population has broadened the national religious perspective from the early European Protestantism to an array of some 1,200 recognized religious bodies ranging from the Judeo-Christian God to Egyptian cats. Today, we are confronted by the question of how much religion do we allow in government, and how much government do we allow in religion.

To Catholics, Jews, Protestants, and Mormons, the concept of "God" as a supreme spiritual being of immense power and infinite love is universally recognized. Indeed, this is the "God" that is usually referred to on our coinage and in our Pledge of Allegiance. This concept might have been viewed as proper and widely accepted 200 years ago. But today the question must be must be considered whether that particular devine being has any deistic precedence over the Islamic Allah, the Shinto ancestors, or the earth-based gods of Wiccans, Native Americans, or Native Hawaiians. While the remote possiblity exists that all these divine icons could be one in the same, humanity, trapped within the limited prespective of 3-dimensional mortality, is nevertheless incapable of defining a broadly acceptable definition of God.

For many years, a universal feature of public school life was the morning prayer, led by a teacher or principal. Since this prayer was directed to the universally accepted and understood "God," there seemed to be littel objection to this daily rite. beginning in the 1960's there was a growing attitude which rejected traditional standards of discipline and ethics, which included not only societal norms and mores, but religion as well. On into the 1970's religion began a steady recession from the cultural mainstream. People turned to other forms of expression in their desire to seek spiritual fulfillment. Also feeding this movement was a kind of simple-minded rationalization that if there was in fact a God, then why was there so much suffering and misery? In the 1980's the pendulum began a swing back to the right, as religious conservatives fought to regain lost ground. The societal battles which erupted then continue today, alhtough more for political than theological reasons.

Those who resist religion do so no longer on the basis of a lifestyle choice, but out of a growing contention that Judeo-Christianity was not the sole arbiter of human salvation.

The United States is a nation founded, by and large, by spiritual people seeking religious freedom. Their desires in thie regard permeate nearly all of the documents and writings generated during our early history. Throughout our history, struggles for freedom and justice have had at their core a strong belief in God. To ignore these facts in the study of history and politics is a mistake born out of ideological myopia. It is imperative, therefore, in the modern classroom, that students be introduced in a general way to the broad spectrum of religious belief. Indeed, a thorough understanding of conflicts in the modern post-9/11 world is incomplete without an examination of the differences between Islamics, Christians, and Jews. To understand conflicts in the Middle East, the Balkans, and Northern Ireland may be impossible without such comprehension.

I tend to be an accomodationist. I believe that any person should have the freedom to worship whatever they identify as their deity, provided the exercise of that freedom does not infringe on the rights of others. This includes a certain amount of tolerance toward the observance of celebrations which may not reflect the individual's beliefs, but nonetheless are deeply ingrained in the fabric of American culture. For example, the Christian's tolerance of pagan symbology during Halloween, or the Jew's tolerance of Christmas point to the reality that it is very possible for people of deep theological convictions can accept the beliefs of others without compromising their own. Of course, the followers of radical Islam have proven their abject refusal to tolerate any other beliefs save their own.

Many of us have entertained ourselves by playing the mental game known as "If I Ran the World," structuring an imaginary world based on our own unique perspective. In my pseudo-world, freedom of religion is paramount, so long as that exercise does not violate the rights of others not so inclined. Aggressive prosletyzing falls outside the realm of this kind of expression. If a child desires to pray over a school lunch before eating, I see no problem. Given my memories of cafeteria quisine, this might not be a bad idea in and of itself. Cetainly it is understood that as long as teachers give tests, there will be prayer in the public schools. I am a little less sure of the idea of allowing relgious displays on government property. I can conceive of a situation where the local governmental body, in an effort to represent all points of view, is forced to put up so many competing displays that the normal transaction of business is impeded. However, churches and homes provide ample opportunity for expression of this type so perhaps the county courthouse gets a very understandable pass on holiday displays.

The whole question of religious expression boils down to the very basic idea that the relationship with a supreme being, however identified, is a deeply personal one and should be respected by all. For humans trapped in the limits of a three-dimensional reality the final answer to the question "what is God?" can only be found on the far side of that black, impenetrable wall which we call "death."