Thanks for a good conversation.

It doesn't seem that we are all that far off on our views. From my experience, when two rational people from opposing views talk long enough they usually find a middle ground. I agree that if a government official can be sure to keep their comments about their religion form being intrusive, manipulative, or overbearing, that these comments would likely be harmless. But the trouble starts with who defines what is crossing the line. I just think it would be best to avoid the issue in it entirety when acting in an official capacity. Especially if one is a member of the majority religion, they may not understand what it's like to not be in that group. There are people far more empathetic then I am, but I started my life inside Christianity looking out, and didn't understand what it was like being outside looking in until I was doing it.

Again, I generally agree with what you are saying. Even freedom of speech cannot be absolute. In the same way, no philosophy of tolerance can be absolute. We advocate free speech, but if you threaten to kill the President, you're going to be arrested. We advocate tolerance, but that doesn't mean we tolerate the killing of animals for the fun of it. It all comes back to values, reason, and judgment. We promote free speech and tolerance, but even these must have boundaries. So I agree with your main points.

> It is my opinion that when a person accepts being in a position representing and serving an entire community they have a responsibility not to do anything that may marginalize any of the people they chose to represent.

I agree with this. There is a civic responsibility that goes with an elected position. In my opinion that does not mean one cannot express religious ideas or even preferences. But if such expression becomes intrusive, manipulative, or overbearing for one's station, there need to be boundaries. I believe the First Amendment protects the right of elected officials to express religious beliefs even in the context of his or her governmental duties, but that individual must be circumspect to not marginalize citizens or to put so much religion into one's office as to tempt the threshold of being guilty of establishment. But there is nothing in the Amendment to require that a person must keep their religious beliefs contained to their private life. This is actually contrary to the freedom of speech and freedom of religious practice intents of the law.

You obviously feel very strongly that all religious dialogue should be banned from the speech of government officials, but that was assuredly not the intent of the founding fathers.

> Making a statement supporting any particular religion is a far cry from establishment, and such expression is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

but enough people in government form the same religion all making statements supporting that religion, or just religion in general, does become an issue.

The first amendment does give freedom of speech, and I take this freedom very seriously. But nothing is absolute, people do not and should not be allowed to say anything, in any location, at any time. It is my opinion that when a person accepts being in a position representing and serving an entire community they have a responsibility not to do anything that may marginalize any of the people they chose to represent. This isn't an infringement of there first amendment rights as they choose to do this themselves and they would still be able to express their beliefs in their private life.

I agree with everything you said here except your final phrase: "but when that person is on the job they should make no statement that supports any particular religion." The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religious expression. Even on the job, there is freedom of speech. Making a statement supporting any particular religion is a far cry from establishment, and such expression is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

A religion that included killing all dogs or deportation of all woman, or prohibition of alcoholic beverages in 1920, would all be great examples of why we should keep religion out of government. If someone can't come up with a good reason to support a law other then that it says so in their religion, then it's likely not a good law. Government has no right to tell people what they are allowed to believe, government has no place in religion. But religion should have no say in government, religion has no place in government. This doesn't mean that a religious person can't serve in government, but when that person is on the job they should make no statement that supports any particular religion.

I disagree with you. In a truly tolerant pluralistic society, all viewpoints are welcomed in the public square without bias or restraint. In a society truly characterized by freedom of speech and freedom of the press, religion by definition has to be included in the conversation. People are free to express their opinions about religion, their evidences, and their convictions, but that doesn't mean they have to foist them on others. Freedom of religious expression is guaranteed by the first amendment, but what the Bill of Rights forbids is the government forcing a religious expression on anyone.

It's not much different from our political culture. You are free to express your support for the candidate of your choice, to give your reasons, and even do your best to persuade me. I have the same rights. What you are NOT free to do is to outlaw my party, force me to your political position, and restrict my vote to your candidate. We can have freedom of political persuasion. But none of us is calling for freedom from political persuasion. The two don't go hand in hand.

> With out the possibility of freedom from religion, the government would have to define what is and what is not a religion.

Not at all. It is the government's place to define what they consider to be religion and what does not meet the criteria as far as such things are part of public policy (taxation, freedom of expression, right to worship, etc. For instance, a religion that includes killing all dogs, or one that includes the deportation of all women would not fall into the definition of a rightful religion.) But what the government does NOT have the right to do is to mandate what I worship and how. THAT would be the end of freedom of religion. The First Amendment stipulates that the spheres of policy of government and of religion need to be separate spheres, not that religion should be eliminated from the public square.

It's not possible to have freedom of religion without freedom from religion as a possibility. With out the possibility of freedom from religion, the government would have to define what is and what is not a religion. And that would be the end of freedom of religion.

It means that the government should not make laws forcing me into a certain religious framework. It's not the government's business to tell me what to believe regarding religion.

You'll notice that the first amendment doesn't say "freedom from religion." It is about establishment and free exercise. The government has no business forcing me into a certain religious practice, and I am free to practice religion as I wish. That's what the amendment means.

The founding fathers were a religious bunch, and they exercised their form of religion (whether deism or Christianity) in both private and public forums. If a president is a Muslim, Jew, or a Christian, good for him or her. He's allowed to practice it freely. It will of course enter his views on public policy because a person's religious belief in endemic to one's value system. Now, he should not, as a consequence, make laws to try to force other people to be Muslim, Jewish, or Christian, but that doesn't mean religion has no place in the public square.

Charles Colson, former Chief of Staff to Richard Nixon, writes, "Throughout most of its history, the U.S. has enjoyed uncommon harmony between church and state. The role of each was regarded as essential. As recently as 1954 the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the contention that government should be neutral toward religion. Justice William O. Douglas sated that “we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Only 9 years later, barbed wire was thrown up on the 'wall of separation' between the two as the court reversed itself in its landmark school prayer decision. It didn't stop people from praying, and wasn't designed to do that, but it reflected the public consensus about the role of religiously based values in public life."

The Bill of Rights would imply, and rightly so, that the church should not be involved in politics any more than the government should be involved in religion. The First Amendment teaches us that the proper business of the church is with the salvation of the soul and the proper business of the government is in social administration.

My problem with your desiring a total divorce of all things religious and public is the marginalization of religious practice to the world of "opinion," which the government's place is to deal with "real life." My perspective is that all truth must be public truth—truth for all. A private truth for a limited circle of initiates is no truth at all. Lesslie Newbigin writes, "Even the most devout faith will sooner or later falter and fail unless those who hold it are willing to bring it into public debate and to test it again as experience in every area of life. If the Christian faith about the source and goal of human life is to be denied access to the public realm, where decisions are made on the great issues of the common life, then it cannot in the long run survive even as an option for a minority. Since there can be neither a total identification of the church and political order, nor a total separation between them, then there is room for much discussion of the ways in which their relationship is to be ordered."

Colson, again: "Wise men and women have long recognized the need for the transcendent authority of religion to give society its legitimacy and essential cohesion. Cicero argued that religion is 'indispensable to private morals and public order … and no man of sense will attack it.' ... The American experiment in limited government was founded on this essential premise; its success depended on a transcendent reference point and a religious consensus. John Adams wrote, 'Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any others. Tocqueville credited much of America's remarkable success to its religious nature; it was later called a nation with 'the soul of a church.'

"Today, increasing numbers of thinkers, even those who reject orthodox faith, agree that a religious-value consensus is essential for justice and concord. The church resists tyranny; it encourages civil liberties; it seeks justice and peace.

"Religion, however, cannot be the whole picture. People need civic structures to prevent chaos and provide order. Religion is not equipped to do this, and when it has tried, it has brought grief and failure. An independent state is crucial to the commonweal."

What does "Freedom from religion" mean to you? To me it means that I shouldn't have to live my life by any religion's rules. I don't see how freedom of religion can possibly exist without the possibility of freedom from religion. So I am quite confused when I seen or heard the quote "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion"

To be clear, I'm not saying I want to be able to ignore secular laws that just happen to be similar to some religion's rules. Laws against murder and theft, for instance, have sound secular reasons to exist.