The authors of our Constitution were aware of the importance of religious freedom in our newly declared nation. They were equally aware of the dangers inherent in government promoting a particular religion. Thus, the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

The familiar phrase, “wall of separation between church and state,” was articulated by our third president, Thomas Jefferson, as he tried to strengthen this critical concept of religious liberty. During those early years of our nation’s history, Christianity was the religion practiced by a majority of our citizens and it was only natural that Mr. Jefferson would use the the phrase, “church and state.” Today, we realize it would be more accurate and more appropriate to use the phrase “religion and government.”

During the next two hundred years of our history we were assured that government would protect the freedom of religious belief and would not mandate a particular religion. For their part, religions would follow the Constitution and laws of the government.

In recent years, these distinctions have become blurred. The Interfaith Alliance Hawai’i joins other organizations, both religious and secular, who are trying to clarify this misunderstanding. We need to maintain the separation between church and state while working toward the appropriate expression of religious and secular values as they relate to public discourse and policy. When religions and government operate independently they function with freedom and integrity. When they work together progress is made toward our common goals.

Therefore, we have arrived at a critical junction in our nation’s history when there is a need for the re-establishment of the right relationship between religion and government. The national office of The Interfaith Alliance has included these statements in their publications:

• Stop manipulation of religion for partisan political purposes.
• Stop manipulation of politics for sectarian gains.

All people of faith need to address the question: “What is the appropriate expression of faith in the public arena?” A personal faith can be an integral part of who we are as a person and cannot be simply “checked at the door” when we go to work or make a public pronouncement. However, we have witnessed how this freedom can be abused and we need to provide the appropriate guidelines so religion can inform politics without over-reaching.

We believe that religion is personal, but never just private; that religion is also actively involved in the public sector; that religion is vitally concerned with matters of justice, peace, freedom, the environment and the sanctity and dignity of all creation and all people; and that both religion and politics should act with inclusion and transformation rather than exclusion and maintaining the status quo.

The moral principles that direct our lives are derived from a variety of sources; family, community, education, philosophy and religion. For example, the virtue of respect is a universal principle found in all the above sources and therefore, can’t be claimed as unique by any of them. When an elected official is known to be Jewish or Moslem or Hindu or Christian or Buddhist or of any other religion, we can expect they will act with respect and make decisions based on their understanding of respect. We can also expect them to refrain from shaping or using a decision to promote their personal faith. This would indicate both separation of purpose and appropriate action.

Likewise, religious leaders should speak and act according to these same moral principles when they participate in a political conversation and when they engage the social justice issues that face our society ( civil rights, poverty, substance abuse). Their conviction is founded upon their personal faith but is expressed through words that reflect universal moral principles—not religious doctrine, belief or practice. Again, the United States was not founded on Christianity but upon universal moral principles.

The ensuing conversation should lead us toward clarity of purpose for our mutual goals and a spirit of cooperation in the implementation of solutions.

It’s time to recognize the strength within America’s religious diversity, including the right to not follow any religion. It’s time to free our government from the entanglements of religious doctrine, while steadfastly holding it accountable to moral principles.