Where is this country headed? Do you see any danger in ever closer ties between church and state? Have those barriers between church and state been broken to some extent? Locally, the Baptists hold religion classes at Valley School (Awana) and store their equipment at the school. I wonder if that gives a stamp of credibility and validates a certain religious point of view.
Government must remain neutral and not actively for or against any group. There are no constitutional barriers nor should any law ban religion in the public arena; this principle means that government officials can not attempt to ban unofficial expressions of religious belief or practice in public schools. Government policies and actions are also may not attempt to establish some religious practice or entangle itself in religion.
Government policy can only have a secular purpose that is neutral to religious or non-religious belief. That is, the principle of neutrality in the public square means government official may not actively attempt to separate religion from government by prohibition of religious activity in the public square. The Constitution does not require the separation of religion and government; it prohibits the establishment of religion or its free exercise thereof by government.
The principle is that government must remain neutral, not that it must erect a barrier against religion since that would be to discriminate against religion. To remain neutral government must neither advance nor inhibit religion. This neutrality principle requires neutrality both among religions, and between religion and non-religion.
Concerning the use of school buildings, there is nothing wrong with allowing public facilities to be used by groups whether religious or non-religious as long as all groups are treated equally without regard to the content of their beliefs or practices; a policy cannot discriminate against a group on the basis of the content of the groups beliefs or practices. If Valley school officials have a policy that allows community groups to use school facilities and there is no compulsory attendance imposed on students by school officials, the use of a public school building by the Baptists or any other group is proper; the principle of neutrality requires that we be tolerant of all groups.
On the other hand, if a school official or coach organizes the giving of a prayer at an student assembly or in the team locker room to the assembled team, the students are effectively under compulsion, the intent of the activity is religious, and the school leaders are entangling the government in religious practice. Government must not advance certain beliefs by its word or deed; the establishment of some beliefs necessarily includes an intolerance of other beliefs or practices.
The principle of tolerance is more than one of limitation on government actions; it is a broad, moral principle. It means we must try to understand that tolerance does not mean to discriminate by word or deed, that is, by actively prohibiting or denigrating those beliefs which we ourselves do not hold. For example, for liberals to speak of “hate radio” or to denigrate Tea Partiers suggests an intolerance that is not part of Classical Liberalism but arises out of political passion. The principle of government neutrality is part of the more general principle of tolerance and acceptance of diversity. Where there is no direct, tangible consequence of harm to others, we must leave others alone.
