On the other hand, rather than read the research, you could simply state that we live in an egalitarian society with a high degree of acceptance to a wide variety of different religions and religious beliefs. One way that we celebrate that facet of our nation is through the important concept of the separation of Church and State. And, after, all, the Pilgrims came to this country to avoid religious persecution in England, so I think that sidestepping a National Religion is quite in keeping with the first founding of our great nation, Joel.

Christians are only ones being persecuted? Come on, give me a break! Throughout our history there have been many groups that have been persecuted, many BY Christians. And here we go again - trying to draw conclusions that "the seperation of church and state" is Communist. The idea of seperation of Church and state is NOT to persecute Christians, or persecute ANYONE for that matter. It is an idea for FAIRNESS to all religions and points of view. If it is not, as you say, part of the Constitution, it SHOULD BE! This is so ONE religion does not DOMINATE people's thinking when it comes to lawmaking, as it is doing with the issue of geigh marriage right now. To ban giegh marriage is INTRUDING religion into law, since the ONLY reason geigh marrage is not accepted by many is because of religion, NOT FACT! THAT IS NOT FAIR TO ALL - and thusly is not following DEMOCRATIC principle. Any who do not see this are BLINDED by Biblical prejudice. Here is fair - "under God" should NOT be removed from the pledge of alliegence, but geighs SHOULD be allowed to marry. Make everyone happy. However, to say that the Founding Fathers wanted this nation to be only Christian - okay - then I guess it was perfectly fine and dandy for Puritians to BURN innocent girls as witches at the stake in Salem. The Founding Fathers would be quite happy with that, I guess - it is so very Christian. "They have demons in them - KILL them!" My point is that this nation has ALWAYS been wrought with hypocrisy - from Salem to the tratment of Native Americans to treatment of blacks to treatment of geighs. We need to change all of that negativity to positives, and fighting only for Christianity is NOT the ONLY answer.

Sorry - a final comment here - just finished reading the article mentioned and thought I better comment that Thomas Jefferson DID say that the government had NO right to infringe upon religion - absolutely agreed - freedom of religion. That menas that Christians are safe and free to worship as they choose - ABSOLUTELY AGREED. But the SAME goes for other groups as well, including geighs. Therefore, government has NO right to ban geigh marriage based on RELIGIOUS reasons, because government and religion ARE seperate, according to Jefferson's view in Barton's article. (For the record, I am straight as well, just see being geigh as a personal choice and not something the rest of the country should worry about or interfere in) - it is NOT a sin or some horrible crime, and should be UNDERSTOOD, not ridiculed and people who are geigh made to feel shameful and horrible. To do so is WRONG, and not ever going to make anything get any better. These people should have the SAME rights as anyone else - PERIOD! Those who try to force geighs to continue to be persecuted are prejudice, plain and simple. Christians don't want to be persecuted - don't persecute geighs - give them the SAME rights as anyone else, so they don't feel subhuman, like they are being made to feel right now.

Amen Joel...and Amen Gary! I could not have said it any better!

Wait a minute - "What "separation" means is that Government should keep its nose out of people's religious preferences." You agree with that, right? Then why are we debating this, now that I think about it. If you say that, you do mean that government and religion should not be intermingled. Therefore, any laws government makes should be based on secular situations and not religious ones. I agree wholeheartedly.

if that is the case, that seems to be to be very unfair and bordering on asinine. Protect faith from government, but not the reverse? So, anyone can make any religious ideals into law, but government cannot make ANY changes to one's faith? Wow, what a one-sided situation! I don't think government should ever meddle with people's faith. But the reverse should be true as well. Besides which, as far as making changes to the Constitution, that's what Amendments are for. Times change and people change. Amendments make allowances for those societal changes. If that was not the case, then blacks would not be allowed to vote, women would not be allowed to vote, etc. Ok, why not go with the original Constitution. See how people feel when blacks and women's rights are taken away so that we live like society was in the 1700's. See how long that lasts. If you want a better America, you have to be willing to change some things to make it better. That means looking at ALL of society as a whole and working for the betterment of ALL, not just what select groups want.

Robert,

I appreciate you understanding the Constitution a bit clearer, but you are still making some statements which are just not based in truth.

First of all, the Constitution says that "All men are created equal". There is nothing in the Constitution endorsing slavery or the suppression of the women's vote. Those were hotly contested issues that eventually did need addressing. But this is entirely different from the intent of the framers when they wrote the First Amendment, which you comically believe they somehow got "wrong".. hehe...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

It does NOT say that "We the People" shall not bring our faith into the public arena.

No one would dispute that people have no choice if they are born male or female. No one would dispute that people have choice if they are born black or white. However, there is a great deal of dispute whether homosxuality is natural or is a choice. There is enough evidence on both sides of the argument that we are not even in the same ballpark to discuss this. As for me, I believe it is unnatural, and it is a choice.

Uh oh! Now you've done it! You've gone and quoted from one of my all-time favorite movies. If I had a dollar for every time I quoted a line from Python... ah....

Your reasoning is flawed. Let's take it to its logical extreme. By your logic, you would have to afford the same liberties to pedophiles and polygamists. Incidentally, there are those who are petitioning to be able to practice these deviant behaviors based on your same arguments.

The rest of your argument, re: comparing deviant behavior to choosing to be a Christian, is just ridiculous. And to quote another classic movie, "That's all I have to say about that". :-)

Robert,

A nice try, but let's reason together.

Polygamy doesn't work anywhere. Men and women are social creatures, with emotions playing a large role in our lives. If it is not obvious that marriage between one man and one woman is the structure upon which our society stands, I don't know how to make it any clearer. I'm sure there are plenty of good articles written on it, but to me it just smacks of common sense.

Why doesn't polygamy work? People need committment. Jealousy and envy set in. Favoritism. It gets nasty.. its hard enough within the context of a regular marriage!

As for your take on morality, allow me to point out that YOU have just done what you accused me, Christians, and the government of doing. You have made a morality judgment and drawn a line in the sand. You have stating inequivocally that pedophilia crosses the line. Whose line, Robert? There are those who beg to differ, and here's the big question.. WHO ARE YOU TO IMPOSE YOUR MORALS ON THEM? See, told you it would be BIG. :-)

Stand back and see where your logic naturally leads you. Our line, and the line of traditional Judeo/Christian values (which have stood for THOUSANDS of years) is clearer then your line.

I would beg to differ that being geigh doesn't hurt anyone. I think there are plenty of victims, but thats another story.

If someone asked what "separation of church and state" meant to me I would say the following...

"Government should do nothing that advances any particular faith nor should it do anything that inhibits any particular faith.

Government should do nothing that could be construed as placing a stamp of approval on any particular faith or a stamp of disapproval on any particular faith.

It is not the place of the government to promote any particular faith nor supress any particular faith.

It is not the place of the goverment to validate any particular faith or invalidate any particular faith."

Would you agree or disagree with me?

I have read writings of multiple persons such as yourself that discuss separation as a myth but never have I seen a writing that discussed the implications of that myth being invalidated.

If separation were finally recognized as a myth and all decisions regarding separation were made using the proper understanding of separation how would the relationship between government and religion change?

I honestly believe that the people who discuss separation as a myth are people who want the government to recognize Christianity as above other religions and who want the government to promote a Christian worldview.

As it currently stands I believe separation benefits everyone and hurts no one.

Could you please comment?

Separation of church and state does NOT exist in the first amendment of the US Constitution nor does it exist in any other amendment of the US constitution. However, that DOES NOT mean that it doesn't exist at all within the government. If i had more time i would make this longer but i will give a short version for now. The right to a fair trial is never mentioned in the Constitution either. But it DOES exist as part of our court system. Separation of church and state was not inserted not just to only protect to the government from the church (whatever "the church" may be) but also to protect people's religious beliefs. W/o separation of church and state, muslims(I think muslims), could pass laws to make wine illegal because it is against their religion. As a Catholic that completely infringes on me drinking wine as part of the communion. Then people will say "Well Christianity is the religion that the constitution is founded on so all the laws should be based on christianity". Well that is even worse. The first argument is "Our founding fathers never wanted christianity to be seperated" . Well this would seem like a good argument but one would have to go all the way with this argument. What i mean by that is if we were to go by what our fouding fathers said then all of you women can just forget about your right to vote. Our founding fathers clearly stated that only white men with property could vote. However we have grown as a nation to become more fair to people and have given women the right to vote EVEN THOUGH our founding fathers said not to. Oh and if there are any african americans that are hiding behind what our fathers said, then you should be working as slaves on a plantation because Thomas Jefferson also owned slaves and the founding fathers said that slavery was okay. But once again we have grown as a nation to be more fair to people and that's why slavery was ended and african americans were given the right to vote.

Now the other argument is that this nation was founded on christianity and all laws should be based of the christianity. Well this is the worst argument of all. Because if the government were to pass laws that were only christian based, then it would be ESTABLISHING A REKLIGION. Now I think somewhere in the constitution there is something about government passing NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. Oh yeah! That's the first amendment. We all know that the first amendment was to protect Americans from living under another Church of England. To say that the government has to pass christian laws would be establishing a religion for the country and in the metaphorical sense it wouuld be creating another church of england.

The arguemnts that say separation of church and state doesn't exist, say a) that any religion can pass any law that would restrict the beliefs of anyone who is not of that religion or b) that christianity is the established religion even though it COMPLETELY AND CLEARLY violates the very first amendment (which BTW was the MAIN reason why this country was founded).

To be on the side that says separation of church and state does not exist is to be on the losing side of the debate. It does exist, folks. The Supreme court believes in it and that's the last word. Anyone who thinks it doesn't exist is wrong. It's as simple as that.

I have examined David Barton�s claim that:

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. The separation of church and state� phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President. See The Separation of Church and State by David Barton

My verdict is:

The statement is misleading. The Everson Court took the separation of church and state phrase from the Opinion of the Supreme Court in the 1878 case of Reynolds v. U. S. It was the Reynolds Court that invoked the phrase. The Everson Court was merely doing its duty to acknowledge legal precedent.

Fred

The "separation of church and state," as a concept popularly known today doesn't exist.

I make this statement while referring to Amendment X of the Constitution that states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Unfortunately, those saying that the phrase "separation of church and state is never explictly outlined" have a point, and a good one at that.

By interpreting the Tenth Amendment, whatever power is not given to the government is given to the States, then the people. I cannot recall(though there may have been, ultimately) a time or instance where the States passed legislation creating such a barrier as it is known today. Furthermore, I don't remember ever reading about the people in the 1800s desiring this to a great extent.

That aside, to argue that we should essentially "read between the lines," and interpret what the Founders desired is not in the spirit of the document itself. The Constitution, I believe, was created to do exactly what it was made to do, and only with the powers clearly defined in the writing itself are valid.

I actually think that the Judiciary's interpretation of the law over the years has moved in the direction of a separation of church and state, but that doesn't necessarily mean the Founders desired such a barrier.