Definition crucial in religion debate

The Herald reported on Aug. 27 that Mr. Rob Sherman filed a lawsuit seeking $100,000 in damages against the village of Buffalo Grove. The suit claims that, because the village included publicity for a “Pig and Corn Roast” hosted by a Long Grove Lutheran church in its electronic news publication, Sherman suffered “emotional distress” for alleged violation of his civil rights.

Despite Mr. Sherman’s hiding behind his idea of his civil rights, I think he has a problem with the fact that the offending publicity promotes a function sponsored by a religious organization. Despite the wording of the Constitution’s First Amendment, Sherman apparently believes in strict separation of church and state, a concept existing only in the personal correspondence of Thomas Jefferson.

My dictionary defines religion as “the service or worship of God or the supernatural.” I am sure other definitions refer to religion in similar terms about which people may disagree. People’s beliefs deal with things “manageable” by logic. But they cannot be understood using scientific principles alone.

Therefore, I submit that “religion” is only the human response to God and the supernatural. While this may appear simplistic, it explains why there are many different religions with varying practices. These depend upon how people know or at least think of a Supreme Being. With this definition, Mr. Sherman’s belief (atheism) is merely his response to God. That is, he denies God and the supernatural. Under my definition, Sherman can be considered being religious as the most faithful Muslim, Jew or Christian.

Is Mr. Sherman using lawsuits to proselytize atheism? If so, is his religion exempt from separation of church and state? If not, perhaps Sherman either has too much time on his hands or he may be promoting his law practice via frivolous lawsuits.

Charles E. Glomski

Elk Grove Village