The role of state-church separation in American law has been on my mind recently. Here’s what’s bothering me: I have a vague understanding of what “religion” means, although I’m aware that my understanding of the term is heavily influenced by personal religious biases. But I’m really not sure what “secular” means. Everybody, religious or not, believes certain things about the world to be true and certain things to be false. From a constitutional perspective, what’s the difference between a belief that happens to coincide with that of a major religious institution and one that doesn’t? You might answer that so-called religious beliefs simply have a special legal protection. But that’s not good enough. In order for certain kinds of beliefs to enjoy special protection, there must be some difference between those beliefs and others. Even if you make the silly distinction between “faith” and “reason”, the same problem arises. What about entirely secular beliefs that make no sense? (I can think of a few). Or a secularist who expresses beliefs that are often associated with religion? Is it the belief that is either “religious” or “secular” or is the individual expressing that belief?

There’s a real tension in the First Amendment. In two sentences, the Constitution mandates that we figure out a way to differentiate between (and then balance) “belief” and “religious belief”, “custom” and “religious custom”, “ideology” and “religious ideology”. Yet, it provides no tools for defining “religion”. To suggest that the Constitution is “godless” doesn’t help. The government can’t be religiously neutral for the same reason it can’t be ideologically neutral.

I have no real solution; I’m just using this space as a way of thinking out loud. But I think the courts, in navigating the First Amendment should focus on defining key terms. At least in discussions I’ve participated in, “religion” is taken to imply the stereotype of American Christianity and “secular”, that of left-wing humanism - which does very little to illuminate the issues at hand. We have to think more deeply about what we call “religious” and “secular”. We can’t interpret the Constitution unless we understand the words it uses.

I’m planning to take a Church and State class next semester. Hopefully, it will help clarify some of these problems.