We are a culture of dichotomies: liberal vs. conservative; Republican vs. Democrat; religious vs. secular; evolution vs. creationism. But while we all understand intellectually that these dichotomies are manufactured, each of us persists on making daily judgments based on our emotional acceptance of such black and white distinctions. It’s simply too easy to see a bumper sticker or hear a comment and instantly label someone based on our preconceived ideas of how that person must therefore believe. It’s these labels that are so damaging because they generally trigger hot-button reactions that prevent us from learning about people on an individual basis. And just as there is no such thing as the “average” man or woman, there is no prototypical Conservative or Liberal.

The political reality in the U.S. requires that each of the two major parties target specific voting blocks in order to maintain power. Often these blocks are divided based on demographic data extrapolated from historical voting patterns, but more and more these blocks are created on the basis of black and white distinctions related to specific cultural issues. Abortion is the perfect example where individuals can be labeled as pro-life or pro-choice; if you are not one, then you must be the other. This type of division ignores the possibility that some voters may adhere to neither position exclusively, residing in what we might call a gray area. A dangerous trend in identifying party/ideological loyalists is to create such divisions based on religious belief.

As the major parties have drawn the lines, Republicans are clearly religious while Democrats are undeniably secular. This blatant stereotyping should surprise no one that owns a television; you’ll rarely hear reference to the “religious left” in America. And, by all appearances, the ACLU – as one of the most liberal organizations in the world – is on a crusade to rid the U.S. of any public references to god. And not just “God” (big G), but “god” (little G). Isn’t it true that the only judges willing to stand against the crusade are consistently of the conservative persuasion? But beware the political strategist that adopts these divisions as gospel without first identifying the areas of gray in between.

So let’s state the premise clearly: if we are to be intellectually honest with ourselves we must accept that not all Democrats are secularists and not all religious people are Republicans. I will allow the religious liberals of the country to identify themselves and stand up to be heard but, being of the secular persuasion, I would like to take the opportunity to stand up for the non-religious conservatives of the world.

Unfortunately, the term secular has taken on its own set of negative connotations, but let me state as clearly as I can that secular does not – and should not – stand for anti-religious. I can, of course, only speak for myself, but my non-belief in God does not need to suggest that I harbor some grievance against those who do. After all, the freedom of religion that our Constitution so clearly outlines applies to me as much as to anyone else: I enjoy the freedom from religion. And I begrudge no one their desire to worship in any way they choose, even in public. When I say the Pledge of Allegiance, I can say “under God” with no fear that I have now joined the ranks of the religious right (and the secular liberals among us know this also applies to them, but they have an agenda to promote).

So when I try to find my place in the religious spectrum, I cannot join those on the left because their behavior demonstrates to me that secular really does mean anti-religious – at least to them. I cannot in good conscience support a party that actively tries to remove public and private speech simply because they disagree with the content. Freedom of speech applies equally to secular and religious speech, but our liberal-secular counterparts can’t get past the notion that speaking religiously is some sort of contagious disease that automatically infects those within hearing distance. So while my secular beliefs would appear to be a natural fit for the Democratic party, I cannot abide their form of secularism.

But will the right welcome me with open arms? While I do believe that the Republican party is more accepting of diverse beliefs (can you hear those catcalls from the left?), the implicit expectation that conservatives must believe our country was founded – literally – under God, makes me shudder. Did Christians found the country and develop our revolutionary government? Of course. Did the underlying belief in God and the Judeo/Christian morality play a big part in our beginnings? Once again yes. But as a secularist, I cannot believe that God somehow guided the founding of our country and that we are somehow a chosen people. I can accept that men with diverse beliefs (although generally from the western theology of Christ) began an amazing experiment in self-government and that those beliefs continue to drive our principles of freedom and liberty. But I cannot then accept that we enjoy special protection from The Almighty, as some might claim.

So I find myself in a gray area...