I like to keep this blog non-political except for my occasional gripes or satire pieces, which are meant to be funny rather than persuade anyone.

I also try to do the same with religion. I never question anyone’s faith, nor do I write from a religious perspective. I have previously written about my philosophical views, including why I believe God is a man-made construct, but those are simply my thoughts, not an attempt to tell anyone what they should believe. Here is that post.

Having said that, politics and religion inevitably cross paths, and when they do, they can make for interesting, and sometimes concerning, conversation.

Recent events are what prompted me to write this.

Note: The dates and events referenced below are based on reporting from Reuters, PBS, the Houston Chronicle, and other published sources.

In late June, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, speaking as chairman of President Donald Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission, argued that the phrase “separation of church and state” has no constitutional basis because those exact words do not appear in the Constitution. While he is technically correct that those exact words do not appear in the Constitution, I think focusing on the wording misses the much larger constitutional principle that has guided American constitutional law for more than two centuries.

Around the same time, President Trump hosted the commission as it presented recommendations calling for a greater role for religion in American public life.

At the same time, debates in Texas over proposed Bible-based curriculum in public schools raise an obvious question for me. If the goal is to expose students to religion, should that also include the Quran, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, or other religious texts? If not, why not?

Then, on July 1, Vice President J. D. Vance criticized the Vatican’s position on immigration, describing it as “troubling.” Earlier this year, he also suggested that Pope Leo XIV should “be careful” when speaking about theology and public policy.

Government should not dictate religion, and religious institutions should not govern the state. The two will inevitably influence one another, but neither should control the other.

None of these statements, by themselves, threaten religious freedom. Politicians have every right to disagree with religious leaders, just as religious leaders have every right to criticize governments. What concerns me is the broader direction of this conversation.

The important point is that while the exact phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion while protecting the free exercise of religion. Later, in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson described this relationship as a “wall of separation between Church and State,” a phrase that has influenced constitutional interpretation for more than two centuries.

To me, that principle has never been about keeping religion out of people’s lives. It has always been about keeping government from choosing sides. Whether someone is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, or follows no religion at all, everyone deserves the same protection under the law.

I’m not suggesting America is on the verge of becoming a theocracy, nor am I saying politicians should never express their religious beliefs. Faith has always played a role in American history, and many of the Founders believed in God and divine providence. Some were influenced by Deism, while others held more traditional Christian beliefs. They did not all agree on matters of theology, but they shared a healthy skepticism about government becoming intertwined with religion. They were well aware of Europe’s long history of religious conflict and governments favoring one faith over another, and they wanted to protect both religious liberty and individual conscience.

To me, the First Amendment reflects that wisdom. It doesn’t tell people what to believe. It simply says the government shouldn’t make that decision for them.

That is why I think this conversation matters.

One of the greatest ideas the Founders gave us wasn’t freedom from religion. It was freedom of religion and, equally important, freedom from government deciding religion. Those are not the same thing.

Whether you are deeply religious, casually spiritual, or don’t believe at all, those protections belong to all of us equally. I happen to think that’s one of America’s greatest ideas, and it’s worth preserving.

Please leave this field empty

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.