Religion is a touchy subject for most people. People do not like to have their beliefs called into question, so the topic is usually avoided in polite conversation. Just bringing it up will earn you the ire of your friends, coworkers, classmates, or whomever may be within the distance of your voice. Sometimes even if a person holds the same beliefs you do, they may still be offended by the mere fact you are discussing them openly. This phenomenon is quite peculiar to me.

With nearly 170,000,000 adults in this country identifying themselves as religious in some way or another according to the 2000 census, and almost 160,000,000 of those people subscribing to some form of Christianity, it truly is curious that so many people find the topic of religion to be taboo.

Perhaps it is because religion is so sacred to so many. Maybe people fear exposing too much of themselves by discussing what they believe. Or people may just not want to shake the very foundation of their beings by calling into question their core beliefs. Whatever the reason, religion is usually off limits for debate.

That is, of course, unless the topic is separation of church and state. The mere thought of this issue produces images of the Ten Commandments adorning the lobby of a courthouse and the phrase “under God” in our pledge of allegiance.

Proponents of the separation of church and state point to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....” These 16 words have sparked the debate between the advocates and opponents of separation for the past few decades.

The debate erupted in 2000 when Michael Newdow, an avowed atheist, sued the Elk Grove Unified School District, along with the United States Congress, then President Bill Clinton, and the state of California, for forcing his daughter to listen and participate in the pledge of allegiance, which contained the phrase “under God.” Mr. Newdow claimed the inclusion of those two words constituted an endorsement of religion that, he said, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The case went before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002 where they ruled in favor of Mr. Newdow and removed “under God” from the pledge. However, the case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court where the court overturned the Appeals Court decision because they found that because Mr. Newdow was did not have custody of his daughter he could not file a suit on her behalf.

Consequently, another case was filed more recently in January of 2005 on behalf of three unnamed families against the use of “under God” in the pledge and a district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs citing the 2002 Appeals Court decision as precedent.

While I disagree with the notion that calling upon a non-denominational deity named “God” in the pledge of allegiance violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, I recognize that the separation of church and state is not enforced as much as it should be.

Much attention is paid to just one side of the argument, and that is that religion should not influence the operations of the state. However, what happens when the state tries to influence the operations of churches? Does that not constitute a violation of the separation of church and state?

Take, for example, the case of Michelle McCusker, a 26-year-old Catholic school teacher in New York. Ms. McCusker informed the administration of the school that she was pregnant and that she did not intend to marry the child’s father. A few days after breaking the news to school officials, Ms. McCusker was shocked to discover that she had been fired from her teaching position. According to the L.A. Times, “Officials said that she had signed a contract to uphold core teachings of the Catholic faith and that her behavior had violated that agreement.” The New York based Civil Liberties Union has filed a complaint against the archdiocese on McCusker’s behalf.

As a former Catholic school student, I know that teachers are not only there for the intellectual development of a child, but for their spiritual development as well. In that regard, I can see how the presence of an unwed, pregnant teacher could cast the teachings of the Catholic Church in doubt in the minds of some or all of the children at that school.

If this case is taken to court, who should win? Did the school discriminate against the woman because she was pregnant? Is the school justified in firing the woman because she violated the terms of her teaching agreement? Should the state even consider this case if it were to come before it?

I say no. If we are to live in a society that advocates the separation of church and state, we must respect the established laws and mandates of each. If a person signs an agreement to teach at a religious institution, whether they are a man or woman, they should be bound to the conditions of that agreement, and the state should not have a say in the matter. The NYCLU has no case. Michelle McCusker was rightfully fired.