Jenna Sullivan, Staff Writer

Some worry about sports, some about grades. Well, I worry about protecting the separation of church and state. Hey, whatever floats your boat, right?

Here’s where I’m coming from. In 1934 a cross was erected by Veterans of Foreign Wars to honor the fallen soldiers. This was done without the approval of the government, on Sunrise Rock in the Mojave Desert (a National Park). In 1999 a Buddhist asked the National Parks Service for permission to place a Buddhist shrine near the monument and was refused. Frank Buono, a former park employee, sued. The lower appellate courts agreed. The case is now before the Supreme Court, which is split. Since this federally owned land, in order to “resolve” the case, Congress transferred the patch of land where the cross stands to a private owner.

This case really got me thinking. I’m no dummy. I know that religion is a deep thread that makes up humans and society. If Joe doesn’t see that cross on that property, he’s sure to see one at a church down the road. We are a thinking and feeling people. I, myself, am a Christian. However, here’s where things get sticky. Not everyone else is. That’s right, there are thousands of various religions and denominations in the U.S. So when a federal court allows one to stand out, it should allow all. It’s like if you invite Jimmy to the party, it’s just rude not to invite Sally and Jane and Bob, etc. But here’s the thing, there are too many “friends” to invite. So don’t have a party. There’s just no need. Religion has an influential place in society and in politics but only in the minds of people, influencing them to think or act a certain way. This is the only influence it should have within politics.

As a nation that believes in liberty and individual rights, the United States should strive to remain neutral in the religious sphere. In these past few Supreme Court cases, judges have essentially been asked to assess the validity of a religion or a religious symbol, and this just isn’t good. Not to mention, those public religious symbols aren’t doing much for those religious communities. I mean let’s face it, if the feds say it’s okay, people are going to take advantage of that, and sooner or later a Bahai Faith nine pointed star will be as commonplace as McDonalds. This means that the quantity of religious expression skyrockets and the value of personal faith is diminished. So where do we draw the line? I realize that our money says in God we trust, etc. And honestly, I don’t necessarily find that morally sound but that’s a hard battle to win.

I don’t need God on my money or on a billboard on the freeway. I want him for myself and within my heart. And I’m sure that non-Christians don’t want him on their freeways either. If you are trying to make a religious statement, make one in a personal way. Lean away from low-impact, abrasive and impersonal signs on public property because public property is public—meaning Jimmy and Sally and Jane and Bob will be at that party and we wouldn’t want to offend them would we? I know I’m using simple language but I really do find this concept that simple.

But I also know it can get complex. Questions like these lead us to bigger questions like “Well Jenna, won’t Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s religious and ideological views occasionally or frequently creep into his conscience and understanding of what’s right and wrong?” Yes, they will. You see it’s impossible to completely pull religion out of government because government are is made up of people, and often times people are made up of religion. This is where black and white turns a little gray. But one thing remains clear to me, in the words of the Baptist Joint Committee, “We should not ask government to promote our religion if we would not want it to promote the religion of others.”