• Editor's note: Dr. Adler will speak on this topic tomorrow at 7 p.m. in the Coeur d'Alene library community room. The public is invited.

Maintaining a semblance of the separation of church and state, a critical cornerstone in the creation of political and social rights in America, has never been easy. Indeed, judicial rulings on the meaning of the religion clauses of the U.S. Constitution almost always inspire debate and controversy. It can hardly be otherwise. Although two provisions in the First Amendment - the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause - were conceived by our founders as running in harness, with the overarching aim of protecting religious liberty, assertions of religious rights and the exercise of governmental authority have generated more confusion and stirred more passionate reactions than any other part of the Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling this week, in Town of Greece v. Galloway, upholding the authority of the city council in Greece, N.Y., to open its monthly meetings with a prayer delivered by clergy selected from congregations in the town, renewed fundamental questions about the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government from engaging in practices and policies "respecting an establishment of religion." In years past, the Court had held that legislative bodies could commence their sessions with prayer without violating the Establishment Clause, so long as the prayer does not "proselytize" or "advance any one faith or belief."

With very few exceptions, however, the city council of Greece, from 1999-2007, opened its meetings with a Christian prayer, delivered by Christian clergy. Did this practice violate the separation of church and state, on the grounds that the city was promoting religion? The Court, in an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, said "no." According to Justice Kennedy, prayers before legislative bodies - city councils as well as legislatures - are permissible even if they embrace theological concepts that are central to particular creeds and sectarian teachings, including "Christ" and the resurrection.

Justice Kennedy's opinion seems inconsistent with the principle of the Establishment Clause which creates a "wall of separation between church and state." Championed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, among other founders, that principle has been embraced by the Court as "fundamental." For roughly 75 years, the Justices have maintained that the "wall" may not be breached. But the ruling in Greece affirms the observation of Justice Robert H. Jackson, who correctly predicted in a 1948 case that the Court would make "the legal 'wall of separation of church and state' as winding as the famous serpentine wall designed by Mr. Jefferson for the University he founded."

Of course, a complete wall between church and state is neither possible nor desirable. Religious organizations have a right to lobby and petition government for various programs and policies. Certainly ministers, like all other citizens, have the right to hold public office. Sectarian schools are obliged to teach the secular subjects prescribed by the state and are required to adhere to compulsory school-attendance laws and state health and safety standards. The accommodation of religious practices promotes religious liberty, but wherever the line is drawn, government is prohibited from "advancing" religion.

Why did Jefferson, Madison and the founders see wisdom in some separation between church and state? As keen students of history, they recognized that religious liberty was not enhanced, but jeopardized, when the government aided and advanced religious faiths and tenets. Persecution of those who did not share governmental beliefs was widespread in Europe, and it was practiced in various American colonies as well. Madison deplored the "diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution" that raged about him during the colonial period. Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Quakers and other religious minorities were whipped, fined and imprisoned and forced to support the established Anglican Church."

America has made progress in advancing religious liberty by curbing governmental action in the realm of religion. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom of 1786 represented a groundbreaking achievement through denial of state power to compel people to tithe or otherwise support religion. The premises and spirit of that statute were embodied in the Establishment Clause. As Madison described it, religion enjoys more success, and more "zeal" among its members when undertaken voluntarily than when aided or advanced by government. Congress was surely correct when, in 1988, it passed a resolution that captured this Madisonian sentiment: "religion is most free when it is observed voluntarily at private initiative, uncontaminated by Government interference and unconstrained by majority preference."

David Adler is the Director of the Andrus Center for Public Policy at Boise State University, where he holds appointment as the Cecil D. Andrus Professor of Public Affairs.