Elsewhere

For quite a while now, I’ve been all
about separation of church and state. I have rallied against Bush’s
blatant promotion of his religion’s agenda in public policy, citing
that the Constitution’s assurance of religious freedom should insulate
us against subjugation to someone else’s moral values.

Slowly I
have come to the realization that morality and public policy are
intrinsically linked. Our judicial system is based upon principles and
values that, ultimately, have a base in religion, or at least some
concept of moral values, somewhere along the line. The real question is
not whether our public policy is laced with moral values, but to what
degree — where we draw the line, and that gets really iffy. A value
that one person sees as overstepping boundaries may be fundamental to
the worldview of the next person. Who is right, and which way should
policy go?

In any case, freedom of religion is a noble goal, but
at some point we are all subject to laws which derive from someone
else’s moral values. I think the key to sanity is to be firm and clear
about your own personal moral values–i.e. make a choice, or others
will make it for you–and voice your values through whatever means you
feel are right and necessary.

I’ve been blaming Bush for playing
a bad game, but actually it’s a game we all play, knowingly or not. I
still vehemently differ with him on ends, but I no longer blame him for
his means. This is an instance where a literal translation of the
Constitution’s semantics falls a little short of reality.