Should a secular humanist that has been denied a state job due to a refusal to declare a belief in the existence of God appeal to the United States Supreme Court if the Supreme Court of Michigan has denied him relief?

He should not only appeal; he should win on appeal because his constitutional rights have been violated.

This country was founded on, among other things, the principle of religious freedom. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." The intention of our founding fathers was to relinquish control of religion to the people of the United States. The founding fathers wanted a new government that did not require, as did the English monarchy and colonial governments, religious oaths or the practice of a particular religion.

The United States Supreme Court recognized that the government and the church should remain separate in order to protect individual rights. In Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488(1961), the court held that making Torcaso declare a belief in God before he could serve as notary public in the state of Maryland violated the First Amendment. The court quoted Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 59(1947) "We renew our conviction that we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religions.'" Torcaso v. Watkins, supra at 494.

In another important case, West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624(1943), which overruled a very similar case decided just a few years earlier, Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586(1940), the United States Supreme Court ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses could not be forced, against their religious teaching, to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The Court recognized their First Amendment rights and that, "no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion ... or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, supra at 642.

America prides itself on being a "melting pot"- the home of people from many different countries, of many different nationalities, practicing many different religions, or none. That makes it all the more important that all citizens are free to believe as they choose. The secular humanist, like all American citizens, has the right to believe whatever, free from governmental coercion, provided his beliefs do not infringe upon the rights of others. The government cannot sanction one religion or set of beliefs and condemn others.

The right to freely practice or not practice a religion is rooted in the concept of liberty, a core democratic value, and must be very carefully protected. Otherwise, as happened in our hypothetical, citizens could be deprived of many important rights or opportunities. There are few things as important as a person's belief system and the practice or non-practice of religion must be an individual choice, not mandated by the government.