"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Or at least that's how Thomas Jefferson saw it in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. Most Americans accept Jefferson's wall as fundamental legal doctrine; many would probably be shocked to learn that the phrase "separation between Church and State" never occurs in the Constitution. Jefferson's unofficial addendum to the First Amendment highlights a tricky area of political philosophy: the interaction of religion and politics. While the First Amendment clearly states that the government cannot dictate religion, Jefferson's metaphorical wall implies that religion and government can never intermingle. The subtle differences between these philosophies are often at the heart of political discussion, especially during election cycles.

So what are the differences between the Constitution and Jefferson's interpretation of it? Most notably, the First Amendment does permit the Church (widely assumed to mean any religious group) to influence the government as long as it does not "establish" or "prohibit" a religion. On the other hand, "separation between Church and State" implies not only that the government should not legislate religion, but that religions, and presumably the individuals that make up religions, ought not influence the government in a religious context.

In the US, it seems the government has done quite a good job of keeping its nose out of religion: there is no national church, and individuals are free to practice the religion of their choice. But there's no denying that religion plays a monumental role in today's politics and government. Concerning issues from abortion to gay rights to science curricula, the primary conflict is between secularity and religion. Although few Americans believe that the government should directly espouse religious beliefs, many debate the validity of taking religious beliefs into consideration if a religion is not explicitly promoted or hindered.

Although considering religious beliefs in the matter of politics and government does not necessitate establishing an entire religion, it often establishes aspects of religion. To claim that certain proposed legislation, like the Federal Marriage Amendment, isn't the establishment of religion just because it doesn't contain the names of Jesus, Moses, or Mohamed is absurd. If religious proclivities were removed from the discussion, Congress would only be debating whether personal freedom outweighs a miniscule drop in tax revenue. Though taxes are very enticing to any government, I think most people would agree to allow same-sex marriages if there was truly a wall of separation between church and state.

In fact, religion, by its nature, is in direct conflict with democracy. A fundamental precept of liberal democracies, adapted from John Stuart Mill's "harm principle," is that liberty ought to be extended until it infringes upon another individual's rights. Simply put: "Mind your own business." In contrast, most religions promote intervention and strict absolutes.

Those who want to "break down the wall" misunderstand the role of the government. As economic conservatives often say, "The government can't do everything for you." While humans are surely limited creatures, with a limited number of neurons, just five senses, and an inability to know "all truth," governmental decisions must be made from a pragmatic standpoint. Citizens of a democracy must realize that belief is not in the same category as logic: political decisions cannot be made based on the sole reasoning of "God said so." Religious opposition to abortion or homosexuality isn't necessarily illegitimate, but the government is not the proper arbiter of such debates. The US government was founded to protect and enforce rights, not defend against sin.

Of course, even though we've established that there should be a strict separation of church and state, the government can only do so much. No one will ever know if someone fails to check their religious beliefs at the doors of a Congressional debate. Unfortunately, Jefferson's wall has been replaced by a very fine screen. In most instances, Americans do a pretty good job of separating religion and government, but every so often we feel the wisps of religion intermingling with politics. Hopefully, this Election Day, the voting booth will be closer to an ark of pragmatism than a confession booth.