Protecting the minority is an important purpose of the Constitution, especially when it comes to religion, said Fred Gedicks, a Brigham Young University law professor who Hellewell invited to speak to committee members about the separation of church and state. Citing his experience living in Macon, Ga., he said that without those protections he feared what evangelical Christians in Georgia — the majority who spoke about Mormons "like we sacrificed cats in the basement" — would have taught his children in school.

"I was glad that in public society . . . they did not have to defend their religion," he said.

The real distinction made in the Constitution, he said, is the public endorsement versus the private practice of religion.

"Whether it's a government official or a private citizen making the prayer makes all of the difference," he said.

He said that distinction is often "lost on education officials and government bureaucrats," which can lead to decisions that are either too supportive of a specific religion or too restrictive, such as prohibiting students from verbally praying over their lunch. But to extend the right to practice their religion to publicly endorsing it, such as at a graduation ceremony, is not correct, he said.

"It's not that people just want to have a religious ceremony, they want the government's stamp of approval," he said. "They want their religious ceremony to be the official ceremony."

Rep. Eric Hutchings, R-Kearns, said that he would prefer to see the religion debate couched in terms that open up the government and general society to everyone, instead of driving wedges between groups by making some religions right and others wrong.

"We need to say that your God is OK and my God is OK," Hutchings said. "We need acceptance instead of segregation."

---

E-mail: jloftin@desnews.com