A couple days ago, there was a very prominent
diary entitled "Is Barack Obama the next Joe Lieberman?". Now, I don't wish to revisit the question in that discussion regarding Senator Obama's
speech on faith and politics.
I left a comment to the effect that "there is no separation between church and state" and was met with some snide remarks. So if you have any interest in the matter, let's take a stroll though history, church and state, and wikipedia to see exactly what the state of the "separation" between church and state.
And, if there is someone with legal knowledge out there and I am wrong, please let me know and I'd genuinely like to hear the details.
My initial comment (you know its the real thing since it still has its spelling errors).
There isn't really a "seperation of church and state". As far as I remember, the Supreme Court overturned that idea and replaced it with church and state should avoid excessive entanglements - or something of the sort.
Here's the thing, i'm 20 years old and non religous. And I don't care that the pledge has "under god" in it.. I just dont say it. I don't care in the least about money saying "under god". And really, I don't mind if kids pray in schools provided there's an opportunity for people to avoid praying - ie. a minute of silence before class where one could pray.
And, I think the ACLU shoots itself and progressives in the foot when it takes on cases like the POA or coinage. I just don't think it really matters unless you're on a quest to wipe out religion from the public sphere - and I don't see any reason to do that.
Oh well. I'll probably get trollrated now or something.
The responses?
First amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
That is the separation of church and state that poeple go on about - it is "real".
and
I guess if the head of the NSA can't be expected to remember the language of the Bill of Rights, why should we expect Kossacks to.
There seems to be an assumption at least amongst some progressives and Kossacks that the bill of rights has some separation of church and state.
Now, as far as we can tell, the source of the phrase "separation of church and state" comes from Thomas Jefferson.
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, Jefferson referred to a "wall of separation between church and state."
James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote in the early 1800s, "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to "Keep the church and state forever separate."
The Constitution did not include that language - but it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that any challenge to a law for being overtly religious must pass the "Lemon Test"
First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a secular purpose. Second, the statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971).
So with that, my initial point remains. We don't need to go on a quest to wipe religion out of the public sphere. I use money despite the words "in god we trust" and I stand for the pledge, though I go quiet for the words "under god". I just graduated from high school a couple years back and I wouldn't have minded some moments of silent prayer before class. Maybe I'm in the minority. But I'm quite confident that this is not antithetical to the constitution.
Please leave your thoughts, and if i'm missing something please let me know.