4. May religious beliefs inform public policy?

Government officials’ religious beliefs may inform their policy decisions so long as advancing religion is not the predominant purpose or primary effect of governmental action. In other words, the predominant purpose and primary effect of governmental action must be nonreligious (secular) in nature. When the Supreme Court considers whether a governmental action has a permissible purpose, it says that the government’s “stated reasons [for its actions] will generally get deference, [but] the secular purpose required has to be genuine, not a sham, and not merely secondary to a religious objective.”

In cases where the Supreme Court has found an impermissible purpose for government action, it says it has done so because “openly available data supported a commonsense conclusion that a religious objective permeated the government’s action.” For an example of a governmental action that had an impermissible purpose, see the discussion of the McCreary County v. ACLU case in question and answer 20 of this statement.

The mere fact that a law coincides with religious tenets does not mean it violates the religion clauses of the Constitution. For example, just because various religious teachings oppose stealing does not mean that the government may not enact laws prohibiting larceny. And the Supreme Court has found that a federal statute that denied government funding for certain medically necessary abortions did not violate the Constitution. The Court said that, although the law “coincide[d] with” certain religious tenets, it had a secular purpose, neither advanced nor inhibited religion and did not foster excessive government entanglement with religion.