I woke up to the sounds of C-Span's Washington Journal host's rustling of the morning papers.

Today, she was reading an article from the NYTimes about Jacques Chirac wanting to pass a law against the wearing of scarves (Muslim), scullcaps (Jews), and 'large' crosses (Christians) in public schools.

Derek posted about it and I totally agree with his position (except for the part where he says, "Let's be clear: I don't like religion...haven't for a long time.") On this point, he's entitled to his opinion, but I think it's based on a few bad 'fundamentalist' apples instead of the vast majority of people who get hope, strength and happiness and a bunch more positive things from their religious faith.

But he's right on with this:

But I believe very strongly in the principles of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

I strongly believe the government itself should be secular. It should not play favorites with regard to religion, and it should not engage in religious practices as an institution (that means no reference to god on our money, no ten commandments statues in our courthouses, no oaths on bibles before giving testimony, no religiously-based Federal holidays).

However, the government has a very large stake in protecting the rights of citizens and groups to freely practice their beliefs. That means if I want to go out and pray aloud in a park, or preach on a street corner, or put a giant Star of David on my front lawn, the government has an abiding duty to protect my ability to do so.
...

You can't, and shouldn't even try, to impose secularism on individual citizens. You should strive to ensure that the institution itself does not sponsor any religious activity (e.g. leading prayers), but the government should go out of its way not to interfere with an individual's religious freedom, unless it has a very strong, overriding need to do so.