Should morality and religion play a role in the making of public policy?

Yeah, I suppose keeping the wording open is best.

Andy raises some good points, but I think this question may be fine as is. By keeping it that broad, the blogger can write about any aspect of the question, be it personal convictions of elected officials, or special interest groups, or something else entirely. The discussion will no doubt be exhaustive and cover the latitude of the issue, so the wording of the question as is seems fine enough.

This just in: the Supreme Court accepted another Religion-Government case for its docket. This one is about the rights of a religion to use drugs for rituals. Check it #225##here#.

The wording of this question is difficult. Do you mean morality and religion in the personal lives of those we elect to office and how this informs their decision making, or do you mean special interests putting pressure on our governmental institutions, like the Knights of Columbus when they pressured the words "under god" into the pledge of allegiance. It seems like it should be about the elected officials and their religious persuasions.

Ideally the secular ethics of the state should inform our leaders most, but of course value sand morals are going to play a factor in lives, but legislating morality is not the job of elected or appointed officials.

Law, by nature, protects by restriction. We limit our activities collectively to ensure that we live longer, less brutal lives. So even when what it protects is freedom or rights, law still does so by limiting. For example law codifies equality by limiting discrimination, curbing certain actions. The most free one can be is in a state of true anarchy, or with no laws. This is why the #195##disestablishment and free exercise clauses# in the first amendment are so interesting. Out of all the rights protected by law, the one the founders of this country saw fit to protect most and the one they list first, is that of religious freedom. By keeping the state and law out of the business of religion, religion is kept most free. This is a good thing. When the state begins expressing religiosity, far from endorsing a particular doctrine, it sullies them all. This is not just for atheists or humanists, but secularism with the first amendment keeps all religion safe and free, which should sit best with those who have the most stake in belief.