GovernmentExecutive.com

Many leaders say faith plays a central role in their decisions. In a debate three weeks before the 2004 election, President Bush explained: "My principles that I make decisions on are a part of me, and religion is a part of me."

His opponent, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said essentially the same. "My faith affects everything that I do, in truth," Kerry said. "There's a great passage of the Bible that says, 'What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead.' "

Both men sought to be the country's top federal manager. And both clearly thought it would be to their political advantage to explain the centrality of faith to their leadership practices. Neither suffered public retribution for his revelations, despite the tradition of the separation of church and state in this country. On the whole, this is a nation that does not shy away from expressions of faith.

Indeed, the line of separation between church and state does not prohibit religious expression or discussion in the federal workplace. Bush's first attorney general, John Ashcroft, held morning prayers with staff at the Justice Department. There's been a Bible club at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland since the 1970s. And an executive order by President Clinton in the late 1990s gave federal employees express permission to hold prayer groups and to discuss religion with one another.

Clinton's order even said it's acceptable for federal employees to try to convince their co-workers that their religious views are right -- to proselytize, in other words. The order says only that the proselytizer must stop if the listener asks "or otherwise demonstrates that it is unwelcome."

Supervisors are singled out for particular restrictions in that order. Bosses cannot explicitly or implicitly require subordinates to participate in religious activities or create a hostile work environment on the basis of religion. And when dealing with the public, they must be careful not to represent religious beliefs as official government policy.

Bush recently said that he believes a religious revival is under way in the country, a "great awakening" similar to previous increases in religious activity in the nation's history. His own faith-based initiative is helping religious charities grow and participate in federal programs.

In the realm of social services, "government-faith collaboration" is one of the latest buzz phrases describing the growth of partnerships between public agencies and faith-based groups to help the needy.

For several decades, the line separating church and state seemed to be deepening. Now it appears to be softening.

Still, in the end, government has secular purposes. Government, for example, spends money to help ex-felons master the skills necessary to make an honest living and avoid recidivism. It provides education to develop an informed citizenry. It provides temporary housing to people whose homes are destroyed in natural disasters. Religious groups participating in government programs have to focus on those secular purposes, regardless of the theology that motivates them to serve.

Faith always has been a key driver of public servants, whether they are in the government, nonprofit or religious sectors. On the church-state line, federal managers who are driven by faith themselves have some leeway to talk about religion, but must in the balance let their good works speak for them.

COMMENTS

• I am a Christian. I don't go flaunting my "faith" or my "religion," but I am aware that my Christian beliefs shape my values. I'm sure that would be true were I a Buddhist, a Muslim, or a Jew, all of which advocate values that are admirable. As public servants and as concerned citizens, we should always apply our values when we make decisions. But we veer off into dangerous territory when we try to use religion (and usually it is Christian, as though that were the only valid religion) to support our every act. From my view, it just doesn't seem to always hold up. Denise Murden Posted December 6, 2006 12:17 PM
• To speak to Ted's trivia question, one does not have to swear on the Bible, be it the Jewish or Christian version; witnesses in court have performed such rituals as breaking a cup and saucer. "Affirming" is usually used by those considering themselves atheists. It's a question of what is significant to the swearer/affirmer. It's just a matter of time before someone being sworn into office will do the same thing. Using the Bible is traditional, it's true. Religion will have an influence on law because it speaks to ethics, but this does not mean religion does or ought to determine what a nation's laws should be. It's easy to be confused, but when the latter happens, you've got trouble! GovExec.com reader Posted December 4, 2006 6:18 PM
• American History 101? Apparently many people today either slept through the above subject, or never took it! Remember, this country was established by Englishmen who resisted not only the military and economic power of the English crown, but its narrow religious strictures. The so-called Pilgrims, while not as nice in reality as in Hollywood productions, were fleeing British religious control. Maryland was populated by Catholics for much the same reason. But the Founding Fathers, whether personally religious or neutral tried to balance tolerance with state control, not an easy task. To say that we cannot recognize history and American culture by exorcising all religious references in our money, oaths, government ceremonies is a ridiculous attempt by sad, pathetic atheists who feel morally superior, but without any religious code to rely on. Their "freedom from religion" is not morally superior to "freedom to practice religion." Whether it's in the Bill of Rights or Constitution is not the point. History and culture are. GovExec.com reader Posted December 2, 2006 10:22 AM