Some who wish to not have other religions impose their beliefs on them are simply frightened of the possibility of a dominant sect mandating participation in some particular religious proscription (this fear despite the fact that there is rarely any real threat of that happening). The most militant though are as you describe Scott, seeking to be unfettered by any standard of behavior.

I am very turned off by those that blatantly use their church affiliation as a campaign marketing ploy. Some of what I have seen in promotional material is quite appropriate. Some approaches, on the other hand, smack of using church affiliation for personal gain. Somehow, I’ve got to believe that such approaches don’t sit well with God.

If we heed the thoughts of those who do not wish another “religion” to impose their teachings on them, where do we go? The following is in no way meant to be sarcastic or silly, but if I follow that concept through to its end, then I can claim that nobody can impose their standard of morality, of what is right and wrong, on me and therefore, if I so choose, I can murder and plunder, rob and rape, or abuse little children is I desire. Why? Because nobody could “impose” their “religion” on me. If I state this to others they would call me absurd and other things, yet, the foundation is set to dismiss anyone’s moral and ethos, and at what point to we cross over? Hence, we hear the cry that “you cannot legislate morality”. Yet, moral behavior has always been legislated and in the absence of moral behavior being legislated, immoral behavior will fill the void.

For us to function in a society, there must be some common denominator for moral and ethical behavior and that usually comes from “religion”. I believe that most, if not all, “religions” fundamental doctrines surround behaviors that are considered moral and ethical.

Now, there is no doubt that throughout history, men have hid behind “religion” to clearly impose their will on others, and (I am willing to propose) was done in complete disharmony with the underlying principles of the religion. The religions of the world almost all promote the individual as a being of worth but in many cases the men and women who belong have abused the religion to promote their own power grab and take power and agency away from others.

I suspect that behind peoples’ claims of religious intrusion is the desire that they be unfettered by any standard of behavior. Thus, eliminating the ability of a religious group to make statements on moral and ethical principles is not dissimilar to an invading army seeking to destroy the communication of the enemy. Moreover, eliminating any requirement to behave in certain ways eliminates responsibility and accountability.

The foundation of the United States is based on Christian-Judeo moral and ethical principles, but those principles are not at all inconsistent with the underlying principles of the other religions of the world. However, there is a difference between believing in a God versus the principles and ethos that come from a religion. In no sense do I see “religions” entering the political and legal world and commanding men and women to believe in their God.