Faraz Rana's recent guest column, "Wrenching religion from politics," in the Tuesday, Sept. 5, 2000 edition of The Observer, reminds us that the framers of our Constitution wisely separated religious and political institutions. But the column's suggestions that the First Amendment's "Establishment Clause" has anything to say — let alone anything negative to say — about Senator Lieberman's recent expressions of religious belief miss the mark.

The First Amendment limits the conduct of governments, not the expression of individuals, even when those individuals seek elected office. Insofar as "politics" encompasses not just the activities of public officials and institutions but also the speech, activism, expression and commitment of private citizens, the claim that respect for the Constitution requires us to "respect the separation of religion and politics" is simply wrong.

We are social beings; "politics" is what we do. It is the sum total of our efforts to achieve the common good. It is true, as the column suggests, that religious freedom is best served when religious institutions are autonomous and when the state is secular. That said, there is no way, nor is there any good reason, to "separate" religious faith from the important, and very human, civic project that is "politics." And there is certainly no reason to think that those who framed our Constitution thought otherwise.

Richard W. Garnett

Law Professor

University of Notre Dame

September 5, 2000

• Protesting death as punishment
  
• Quizzing your knowledge on diversity
  
• U.N. taking religious approach to peace
  
• Keeping religion in politics