Religion's role in Government

By Patrick L. Marsh

Religion has a place in personal life that should be protected as vigorously as any other freedom. However, religious views do not have a role in government, except to the extent such beliefs coincide with our understanding of freedom. Beliefs supported solely by religion are not appropriate to govern the public.

For me, it matters not what the founders may or may not have intended. The separation of church and state is crucial to a state that values freedom. No bill would ever get my support based solely on a religious foundation. Religion is a faith-based exercise, and basing a society's laws on that faith has no grounding in reality and the needs of a free society. This is not to say that a law based in religion is inherently wrong. It is simply an assertion that such laws that seek to establish a societal morality can easily become an infringement on freedoms that do not directly harm others. In these cases, we restrict the cause of freedom, and faith is no justification for doing so.

Of course this is not to say that the religious viewpoint should have no voice in public discourse. I fully support the ability for any individual to practice whatever religion the individual prefers. The government should not infringe on religion in any way. At the same time, I do not believe religion should seek to establish laws based solely on religious text. The legal system must support all members of the society and should promote fairness, equality, and above all freedom.

Religion can play a positive role in affecting society's morality, and currently does so, largely to our service. Religious institutions and individuals should be able to put forth opinions on whatever matter they see fit, and, should the legal system be in perceived conflict with a given religion, those members should be free to communicate their beliefs to consenting parties.

However, in the law, we should not be given to relying on the unprovable to build our system. We should instead support that which makes us freer to pursue our own ideas, providing we are not directly infringing on, or preventing the exercise of, another's freedom. We should support that which creates positivity, and care for all. To the extent these principles coincide with religion, we should celebrate the shared opinion. To the extent we differ, we should mutually respect opposing opinion, and work toward understanding.

As to expressions of religion in the public arena, I am completely opposed to them. Although the First Amendment prevents a law establishing a religion, I do not see a material difference between a government passing a law and that same government taking action as if a law were in place. For me, governmental institutions should not engage in religious expression. This includes prayer in public schools, religious ornamentation in publicly funded places, government-funded faith-based initiatives, and the like.

That being said, I am less inclined to be opposed to expressions that do not appear to be overtly government-related. For example, while I consider the Mt. Soledad cross to be inappropriate (for the reason stated above), I have no pressing interest to remove it. It does not present a governmental infliction of religion in the same manner prayer in public school does. So there is some grey area.

I am not opposed to any religion, and I firmly believe that people should be free to worship/believe as they see fit. However, I do not believe government has an obligation to enforce a code supported only by religious beliefs.