The wall of separation between church and state may not be encoded in US law - but the philosophy should be upheld, both at home and abroad.

To pursue foreign policy without recognition of the role religion plays, and particularly religious persecution, seems foolhardy to me.

At the most basic level, religion doesn't need any more influence than it already has and it is not the role of government to make it a foreign policy position.

At the level your are speaking to, nations make their own decisions about these things - and, as the article stated, the US doesn't have clean hands when it comes to dealing with those nations that have less than sterling records of religious freedom. When it stands to benefit (ex.: Pakistan), the US is more than happy to turn a blind eye. That makes our foreign policy utterly inconsistent on this issue - and completely toothless as a result. Better to say nothing than prove how permeable US foreign policy can be when it suits us.

If the US was consistent, I'd say we had a leg to stand on when discussing religious persecution (and only that - we have no business preaching anything else to other nations). But clearly we are not consistent in our words, actions, and policy. Given that - we need to get out of the pulpit. It is foolhardy to preach mixed messages.

It's about recognizing and addressing the influence it has.

And it's also about protecting civil liberties as part of our foreign policy.

Again, it would be foolhardy to deal diplomatically with countries without some recognition of the role religious persecution plays in their politics. This would also apply to persecution of those without religion.

I agree with the editorial that we need to be consistent about this and not just pursue policies in selected countries, depending on whether we consider them friend or foe.

the influence of religion is in clearly stating that it realizes that many varieties exist. Religion has too much influence already - it is disturbing to me to see any president attend "prayer breakfasts" and make policy statements to such a group in his official capacity. He didn't attend as Barack Obama, the man - he attended as Barack Obama, POTUS.

I believe that recognition of religion in foreign policy has only one place - when a nation uses religion to abuse its populace (or some subset thereof), then the US should condemn the behavior and make it clear that such a nation will not be a friend to the US unless and until it ceases to practice the persecution.

And yes, I am aware that this particular horse left the barn a long time ago, but that doesn't change how I feel about it.

and look forward to the day when it evolves into something else, something more inclusive of both believers and non-believers. Or even just unnecessary.

I think we agree completely on when the recognition of religion may be necessary. Unfortunately, the situation you describe occurs very frequently and very violently.

It's no coincidence that freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of religion are all in the same Amendment.

The real question, as always, is how does a society navigate among these values that are often in direct opposition?

The difficulty of implementation does not negate the value of the principle.

rights issue.

And we need to be consistent, as the article points out.