There are American attorneys who could build viable practices solely by representing atheists seeking to remove Nativity scenes from the front of courthouse lawns. Proclaiming "separation of church and state," they profess to have the market cornered when it comes to our Founding Fathers' intentions.

Are they right?

According to one Denver lawyer, they are mistaken. Joseph C. Smith, a former deputy attorney general for Colorado, is the co-author of a new book titled, "Under God: George Washington and the Question of Church and State." [1] Smith believes strongly that as a nation, we've misconstrued what the Founding Fathers actually desired when it came to the role of religion in America.

As history teachers rarely discuss, the basis of America's notion of the "wall of separation" between government and organized religion comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. According to Smith and his co-author, Dallas writer and attorney Tara Ross, Jefferson accepted that this view on the First Amendment was not widely shared. They also point out that Jefferson never again publicly advocated for separation of church and state.

The letter, they argue, was written for political purposes and was brushed aside for more than seven decades, until 1879, when the U.S. Supreme Court took up a case concerning a Mormon polygamist. It was then that "separation of church and state" emerged as a legal authority. It took nearly six more decades for the Court, in Emerson v. Board of Education, to fully embrace the term.

With the tenacity that atheist activists use to argue for separation, however, you'd think the language appeared in the Constitution. Of course, it did not. So why should we care? This is the question I posed to Smith.

"Whether any particular government policy that accommodates or promotes religion is wise or effective, remains a debatable question," he told me. "What is less debatable, in many circumstances at least, is whether such policies are constitutionally permissible. Many of them clearly are."

Now to set the record straight, I'm not a Christian activist. In fact, my Sunday morning attendance rates are enough to make my parents cry. But I've always accepted Jefferson's doctrine as good enough. I've envisioned myself moving to Dearborn, Michigan, where nearly half of the city's 100,000 residents are Muslim and noon prayers waft over loudspeakers in Arabic. Would I want my children subjected to Islamic doctrine at their public school? Of course not, unless it was presented in the course of academic analysis.

But Smith and Ross are not arguing for a religious state. Instead, they are arguing for a broader embrace of religion in our society, believing that we should focus not only on Jefferson's letter for our relationship with religion, but also the views of our nation's first president, George Washington.

According to Smith and Ross, Washington believed that religion — though not a specific denomination — was key to forming an effective self-governing society. As the authors see it, Washington advocated for the promotion of religion, not the abolishment of it, in our public culture.

In Washington's 1796 Farewell Address, he proclaimed that "of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." Washington was on to something. Religion helps create a moral society.

As long as religion isn't forced upon people, why push it out of the equation unnecessarily? If I live in Dearborn and my kids aren't forced to read the Koran, what's wrong with a Muslim-majority practicing their religion in public places? Absolutely nothing. In fact, as Washington would believe, if it reconnects people to their moral commitments, all the better.

The so-called "religion clauses" of the First Amendment mandate that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof." Where the primary religions are denominations of Christianity, why take down the Ten Commandments, the Nativity scene, or the phrase "Merry Christmas" from public venues? They are, at minimum, part of our history and reflect who we are today as a secular society.

Beyond these symbolic gestures, however, an unhealthy restriction on religion seeps into our more practical, everyday lives. As Smith and Ross point out, old mission buildings in California have faced opposition to their applications for earthquake-restoration grants because of their past ties to religion.

[1]Jessica Peck Corry is a public policy analyst with the Independence Institute in Golden, Colo.

Public elementary school teachers have been punished for providing religious documents in history classes. In Colorado a few years ago, a school attempted to ban a young girl's use of a Bible for a book report assignment she'd received. And last spring, a high school senior was forced to apologize after referencing Jesus Christ in her graduation speech.

The chilling effect is clear. Schools, government officials, and even Girl Scouts avoid conversations on religion for fear of litigation. And while academics can debate all day long about the influence of Jefferson and Washington, one thing is clear: Neither attempted to silence Americans from having an active dialogue on religion.

Whether you believe Jesus Christ is your savior - or that you were reincarnated from a giant ant - an active reflection on our nation's founding philosophies regarding religion is essential to understanding who we are as a country today.

America without religion is like America without apple pie. I wouldn't want to live there.

Editor’s note: Jessica Peck Corry's weekly blogs are part of a feature on PoliticsWest called "Diary of a Mad Voter." The group blog, published in partnership with NewWest.Net/Politics [2], is intended to give a glimpse into the hearts and minds of several independent-minded voters and thinkers in the Rocky Mountain West in the 2008 election year.