Let me posit a definitional distinction between faith and religion. The distinction is personal, rather than universal. But it will guide this discourse. In this context, by faith I mean a pervasive, transcendent belief in the common good—in essence, in the divinity of humanness. In contrast, religion is bound by dogma. Religions—multiple—are discrete belief systems, each separate and distinct from all others in certain ways, some slight, some substantial.
The label God crosses both faith and religions, and so it is important to make a distinction between God as faith shorthand for universal divine humanness and God as appropriated by religion, such as the “Christian God” (as if there were only one) or the “Muslim God” (remembering that Allah is merely Arabic for God.)
This distinction is maintained, despite much confusion and argument over the point, in the national use of the phrase “in God we trust,” which can be seen on most currency and coins. This is not the God of a particular religion (despite the desires of those who would make it so). This is a faith expression, not a religious one. Therefore, such use does not violate the Establishment Clause, that phrase in the First Amendment that says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
One has only to look at the most basic of our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, to see an initial iteration of this principle in its opening words:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
“The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” is a faith expression, not to be confounded with a religious declaration. Such expression, in fact, would have had to cross several religious sensibilities, given the numerous religions represented among the signers of the Declaration.
Faith, governance, and democracy intersect in this foundation, as they have done ever since. However, the intrusion of religion into this intersection also has been, since the founding days of our union, a danger. In the current political climate this danger has been heightened. Narrow religious dogma, as espoused by some political candidates, is incompatible with democracy because it resonates with only some of the people, in many cases a very narrow band of the population spectrum.
Democracy relies on compromise, on the participation of all the people in the governance of the nation. When religious dogma descends to rigidity, it is incompatible with democracy because some people are excluded from participation by the beliefs and practices of their religion. Many religions are exclusive; faith and democracy are inclusive. The Founders understood this distinction, and our notions about separating church and state stem from this understanding. It should be further understood that some religions are, at heart, faith-less. One may be faith-full with or without benefit of religion. And it is faith that supports the enterprise of our democratic governance.
