Religion and Public Policy

A strong cultural divide exists on the topic of religion in the public square and the definition of separate of church and state. The conservative mantra is "Freedom of religion not freedom from religion." The liberal agenda is geared toward erasing every reference to religion and all influence of religion from anything public (past, present and future).

These positions are seemingly mutually exclusive and for the far left and far right they are irreconcilable. However, for those interested in common ground, it is easy to find.

Let's start with basic assumptions: 1) The United States of America was predominantly founded on Judeo-Christian values based on individual rights. 2) The USA of the 21st Century has a widely diverse citizenry with regard to religious beliefs. 3) The government can make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Taking in consideration the first assumption, it is easy to see how government documents, memorials and buildings can legitimately contain words such as "In God We Trust" and "Under God." These should remain in place as a reference to the history of this nation. Actions to erase this history, tradition and remembrance of the impact of God on our country result in the cultural war we are in.

Combining assumption one and two from above, it is easy to see why we have a culture war at this time in history. The answer is simple. Acknowledge the country's history, but accept the future as a diverse nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and a host of other religions. To do this, we should stop trying to change the past and simply focus on the future. Putting this into pragmatic terms, commercial organizations should feel free to celebrate and honor any and all religious holidays it deems beneficial to its commercial entity. Christmas, Hanukkah and Kwanzaa can be treated the same or differently as deemed necessary by the commercial entity. However, the government should honor the religions equally as its constituents see fit. If a constituency is left out and is not embraced, then the government should amend its position. This does not mean that Sikh holidays need to be honored in a town that has no Sikh citizens. It does not mean schools should only sing Christmas Carols about snow and Santa. Jesus is not a bad word in the public square. Abraham and Mohammad are not poison either.

Finally, the last assumption paraphrased from the Constitution gives ambiguous guidance that needs a dose of common sense. Government cannot make laws, rules, regulations, policies or other guidance that supports one religion over another. Additionally, government cannot stop anyone from expressing their right of religious expression. Again, let's put this in pragmatic terms. The government is not in the business of accommodating religions. This includes not putting foot baths in public areas for Muslims at taxpayer expense. However, it also means that banning of women wearing headdresses is also unconstitutional. Both of these violate the Constitution. Commercial entities can make their own rules subject to public reaction that would then benefit or harm their shareholder goals, but government cannot make any policy (period). This also means government cannot punish commercial entities from making their own decisions on this topic.

At least for those actually religious, these three basic assumptions when combined with common sense and a desire for agreement will put an end to this culture war.

That leaves atheists and agnostics as constituents that need to be addressed. For this group, any reference to any religion can leave them feeling left out. There is no easy answer for this group. Militant atheists and agnostics are the minority group that drives the culture war. Their activities get the religious right up in arms. This upheaval may actually be the objective and in that case no middle ground is possible. However, this group can gain solace in the fact that the USA is a secular nation. They are protected by the establishment clause of the Constitution to be free to do whatever they want, but unless there is a way to "celebrate" their lack of religious affiliation there is no way they can be treated fairly. Without an instrument to be equal, atheists and agnostics may continue to feel left out. My suggestion is to not deny religious events that are Constitutional and find a way that their beliefs can be treated on equal terms. This argument will not appeal to all members of this group, but the alternative is an unending culture war.