Salt Lake Tribune columnist Rebecca Walsh seems quite anxious about the fact that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints convenes a lunch-time discussion once each year for Utah legislative leaders from the Republican Party, and another one for the Democratic Party ("Walsh: End LDS-legislator huddle," Tribune , Jan. 26, http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_11558763).

Of course, it's difficult to calm someone who invariably sees a conspiracy behind every pew, but here are the facts.

Anyone remotely familiar with American political history and the principles of democracy knows that churches have always had a legitimate voice in the public square. Every individual, and every organization, has a rightful stake in the direction of government. When values come into conflict, as they do in every society, a healthy democracy requires all those who seek its prosperity to be actively engaged, including religions. Provided that the participation of these constituents is legal, such input should be welcome.

Meetings in which legislators confer and consult with religious leaders do not constitute an "establishment of religion" as stated in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The LDS Church's will or doctrine is not binding on state law, nor should it be. It is simply one in a collection of voices and interests that may sometimes compete and sometimes be complementary. The church's views are offered for consideration, not as a mandate. It aims only to exercise its constitutional right to participate in public policy like other constituents, and in particular to raise moral concerns.

Contrary to the often narrow conception of political participation, all law is a reflection of the particular social, economic, cultural, even religious, mores of a people living under a single jurisdiction. These values, and the myriad complex factors they entail, all contribute to the legislative process. Likewise, each constituent part of society, whether it is an institution or an individual, has opportunity for expression. It seems unreasonable that churches should be singled out as unfit participants.

Of course, Walsh has never been invited to these lunch meetings. I have, so I can throw a little light on what invariably happens. Lunches both for Democratic and Republican legislators follow exactly the same pattern:

An expression of appreciation to those who work long hours and devote a good slice of their lives to serving our communities.

A reminder that we meet with both parties, and that the church maintains its position of partisan neutrality.

Much more listening on the part of church representatives than speaking. Legislators are much more prone to express a variety of views on issues than are church leaders.

As any legislator who has ever attended these lunches will tell you, the LDS Church's central message is to encourage legislators to be wise, thoughtful and compassionate as they go about the people's business. It is not prescriptive. The church takes a position on very few bills anyway, but when it does that position is made public.

To columnist Walsh, these efforts by the Legislature and the church to understand each other are "an unconstitutional outrage." She calls it "ring kissing" and scathingly refers to church representatives as "oracles." In my experience, reverting to extreme and overstated language like this simply reflects an absence of legitimate argument.

Michael Otterson is the managing director of public affairs for the LDS Church.