America may be the most churched nation on earth, one where every faith, creed, cult and sect thrives in the sunshine of individual choice. Unlike nations that have either nominal or active state religions, the fact that our government officially plays no favorites gives us hope of remaining a place where many faiths live with amazingly little friction.
When someone claims - as state Sen. Parley Hellewell was heard to do the other day - that American court rulings have limited the freedom of religion in America, that person can only have a definition of "freedom of religion" that is all about one's own religion and not at all about freedom.
Hellewell told a legislative interim committee Wednesday of his plan to introduce legislation that would promote more religious expression in government, schools especially. But, given the real law in the United States - not the rumors spread by those who raise money by frightening people of faith - such a law would be either unnecessary or unconstitutional.
Unnecessary would be the law that tells students they can say grace before lunch, add a religious club to the menu of other extracurricular organizations or wear a Jesus T-shirt to school (unless the school had banned message T-shirts of all kinds).
The belief that such behavior is now banned anywhere in America is false, though it is occasionally given new life by some dumb assistant principal who confiscated a Bible or banned a painting of Moses from a student art display because he didn't get the memo. (The memo being the U.S. Education Department's Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer guidance.html).
Unconstitutional would be any measure that seeks to promote Christianity, or any belief system, with the imprimatur of government.
Hellewell's stated desire to "defend our freedom" by using the power of government to set one belief system above others only makes sense if one believes that freedom belongs only to those who have the most votes.
If such a law were passed, that would be a difficult and, to taxpayers, expensive claim to make before it would, inevitably, fail.
