Hello and welcome to the political orphanage, a home for Puckley Misfits and Problem Solvers.

I'm your host Andrew Heaton.

I don't want to ask you a question.

Where is the bright line between an individual's ability to practice religion

and the point at which the state itself

endorses a religion.

Now most of the time that's a simple proposition.

You, the individual, are welcome to believe whatever religion you like.

Believe two contradictory ones at the same time.

Crazy or boring as you care for.

Free Church of the screaming Jesus, all the way to moderate sub-thermal Presbyterian.

Enjoy yourself, this is America.

And as for the government, it can't endorse or push religion on anybody. The state is hands off when it comes to religion.

This sounds familiar so far, right? In America, we have separation of church and state, and

we have freedom of religion. But what happens when individuals who have freedom of religion

work for and inside of the government?

When does government neutrality trump an individual's free exercise of faith?

Better still, what happens when the individual's religious beliefs, like pacifism or swearing oaths come into conflict with basic functions of government,

like taxes or holding office or jury duty.

I'll give you an example.

Let's say a high school public teacher makes her students write an essay about why Islam is the one true faith.

Most people would say that as a public employee, she would be violating the separation of church and state.

...