While attending a religious school from first- to sixth-grade, I was stuck on the conclusion that most people in the world were going to hell. It made sense at the time: Why wouldn’t the loving universe-maker punish sinners? Don’t cheat on your spouse or belong to a false belief system and you’ll be fine.

I’ve probably never had better than a bastardized grasp on the Catholic faith, even when I used to practice, but I’d consider myself qualified enough to criticize. For the present, my religion is uncertainty.

Despite any skepticism, I’ve seen how Catholicism has shaped my friends and family for the better, like virtually every religion I’ve observed firsthand. Most nonbelievers or nonreligious-conformists can appreciate the positive guidance and spiritual comfort that organized religion offers.

A Monday New York Times article pointed out that “atheist organizations have flourished in recent years, fed by outrage over the Bush administration’s embrace of the religious right.” And despite fast-growing numbers, the article noted, atheists are ranked lower than any religion or minority group when it comes to whom Americans say they would vote for.

Our country’s fight over religion’s influence in the public arena, from intelligent design to President George W. Bush’s claims of divine inspiration, is a great example for America’s theme of overdoing then overreacting.

We had schools of thought looking to underregulate the financial sector, then a financial crisis, now too much of our populist-esque outrage wants to overregulate. Neoconservatives had ideas about democratizing Iraq, it didn’t go as planned, and a few reactionary groups conveniently ignored the surge strategy’s gains (we now know the surge was the best option). People noticed that America’s “traditional values” about things like sex and marriage didn’t reflect reality; now we have a culture war.

And religion’s influence in government and politics wasn’t justifiable — many argue it still isn’t — so there’s been a reaction of some that see religion’s influence as an enormous drag on progress and American values.

Does it need to be this all-or-nothing? Yes, I think so — it’s how we do public discourse. Selling a product requires bias and spin. It’s up to both sides to sell their respective products, which come in the form of worldviews and political philosophies.

Until more voters become independent, free-thinking and politically interested, the extreme dichotomies we have in America are probably the best we can do. Let’s see more Ben Steins, Michael Moores, Sean Hannities and Keith Olbermanns duke it out, even if they twist the truth. Whatever, market forces work in our favor, especially in the flow of ideas.

I’m not in the middle of the religion debate, but I lean to both sides: Religion’s influence and dominant values tend to make my life as an American better, even just by providing moral compasses for my peers and leaders. Simultaneously, religion plays too large a role in the public sphere, and some of our country’s pro-religion attitudes, publicly and privately, are unfair to the nonreligious and other minority groups.

Though to be clear: I deeply appreciate the level of religious tolerance in this country, and it’s unmatched by most others.

Thankfully, the debate can never be restricted to what religion is true or whether God exists. No logic can disprove God. If there is one, He certainly can divide by zero.

Reach Matt at matt.culbertson@asu.edu.