Volu m e II - Purdue University Calumet

organizations counters everything Americans perceive to be true. The very message by the secular
organizations to find unity in reason creates dissonance among the religious, undermining the secularist’s
message. This is the case because the organizations distance themselves from part of American society; a
survey by the Pew Research Center in 2008 revealed that 83 percent of Americans adhere to religious
beliefs (U.S. Religious).
Religion does not hinder society because America has become what it is through its religious
tolerance and discourse. God is not the villain for there is a common bond by Americans in their belief in
God as foundational to the nation and the basis of their morality. Because of this societal interpretation,
American society perceives reason as the enemy through the secular organizations’ attempts to remove the
pursuit of religion, their uniting commonality, creating an interpretation of reality that goes directly against
the society’s perception. President Barack Obama in his Call to Renewal address made this point clear
when he said:
[W]hen we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be
practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards
one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we
assume that we will be unwelcome – others will fill the vacuum, those with the most
insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends…[W]hat I
am suggesting is this – secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion
at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln,
Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King – indeed, the majority of
great reformers in American history – were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly
used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not
inject their “personal morality” into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law
53