This whole “under God” and “In God We Trust” issue with our country’s pledge and currency makes one think a lot. Is it, as many have said, simply an indication of our country’s religious heritage, or is it, as my mother would say, an indication that the United States is primarily a Judeo-Christian-founded and populated nation and therefore indicates the nationality of our religious beliefs? Or is it, as Michael Newdow would say, a violation of our religious freedoms by forcing a particular religious viewpoint into what should be a purely patriotic act?

Frankly, I’m all for the separation of church and state. I am because with these things you must either be all or nothing — you cannot mix some things and not others. Religion and politics strike too close to the heart of many to ignore their influence and importance to the individual person; a policy lacking in fortitude for going one direction or the other simply makes a wishy-washy mess at the end. So, a direction needs to be established.

Secondly, since the United States has already transformed and evolved into a nation of many different races, cultures, backgrounds, and religions, we have already established ourselves as more than a monoreligious environment. So, we cannot fully merge church and state any more — what would we choose for the “national” religion? As most people know, many of the founding fathers were decidedly non-Christian (most were either Deists or Unitarians) and while they believed in God, there was certainly not a unified expression among them as to exactly what, or who, God (is)was. In the present time, we have a plethora of religions and religious beliefs extending the full spectrum of human thought and existence. To choose one over the other would not only be unfair but a form of religious racism (religicism?).

Therefore, the only clear path left ahead, though it be fraught with the various stones and tree roots of legal issues, consternations with various cases and statutes, and the occasional exception because of circular logic, is to declare the concepts and influences of church and state, as far as the government is concerned, separated.

This is a boon to the religious populace of the country, I believe. By not having the government choose a religious path to trod, the religious contingent is assured non-interference by the government in their worship and affairs. No doubt if the government choose Lutheranism as its religion of choice and then insisted on regulating the content of the church service you would hear a raucous outcry at the mere idea. Therefore, the religious amongst us should revel in the fact that the separation of church and state is proceeding nicely.

So, if you are religious and you find the case of the Pledge of Allegiance and other such government/church arguments to be a chance to get on your soapbox and preach, think twice. Consider what you are asking the government to do in the name of religion and ask yourself if you really want the politicians involved in that sector of your life. If you think that such involvement would ultimately make your life harder, then encourage the separation of such religious aspects from the greater political mainstream and keep your options open.

After all, the government never used to be involved in retirement planning and looked what happened to that.