What really separates church from state

We ought to re-read the Constitution regarding “church and state.” There’s no prohibition of spiritual/religious “display,” “association” or “speech” unless one is in a position of power (i.e. government, education) and tries to promote dogma, deity or belief system (i.e. proselytize).

For example, a citizen group may choose to display acts from the Koran, Bible, etc. in a religious, social justice or historical contexts during the appropriate time of the year. The issue is really about “intent” and “power.”

There are no compelling arguments against said example when public funds or resources are not used.

My interpretation of “church and state” leans more toward conflict with “public policy,” than the display of a myriad of belief systems that make up the fabric of a community and that may “converge” at one time of the year.

Rachael Kessler from Stanford has done some thoughtful writing in this area, “The Soul of Education.” A theory regarding the proliferation of violence and “disconnectedness” by some youth in our schools is that our overzealous interpretation of the “church and state” provision in the Constitution has inhibited the appropriate demonstration/expression of belief systems by our youth. The Constitution does not prohibit the expression of spiritual beliefs or orientation by students in our schools, just by “those in power” (i.e. teachers). Teachers can facilitate discussions, but may not preach, proselytize, etc. Maybe if we had more discussions with our young people about their belief systems and spirituality, they’d become more accepting of themselves (self-actualization), and at least tolerant of other belief systems in the community as they mature.

Welcome all. Celebrate the human diversity (fabric) and myriad of belief systems present in our community.

Happy holidays.

Paul Maguire, Ph.D., lives in Palmer and is a spritual care provider in the Volunteer Department at Providence Alaska Medical Center.