R
rr1213
Guest
As might be seen from my comments above about “judicial fiat”, I don’t believe that the Constitution, as opposed to judicial interpretation, mandates a strict separation of Church and State. And, indeed, even under the more liberal Supreme Courts we have not had a strict separation of Church and State. There have always been spheres where the two have co-existed and where support has even been given by the State to the Church. Examples: (1) Public school buses used to transport parochial (usually Catholic) students, (2) tax exemptions for property owned by Churches, (3) legislative prayer that invokes the deity, (4) public ceremonies taking place in Churches (such as the 9-11 service in the Washington Cathedral), etc. There are many more, these are just some that come quickly to mind.
Nonetheless, the general principle of separation holds. And is this bad? Remember that one of the key reasons is to prevent interference *in *the Church by the State. Think back to our early years when Baptists were not allowed to freely worship in Virginia, where the Anglican Church was the established Church. It also happened to the Catholic Church as well. The First Amendment is there to protect all of us folks and it is disheartening to see people trash the greatest protection of human dignity ever enacted by the hands of man.
Nonetheless, the general principle of separation holds. And is this bad? Remember that one of the key reasons is to prevent interference *in *the Church by the State. Think back to our early years when Baptists were not allowed to freely worship in Virginia, where the Anglican Church was the established Church. It also happened to the Catholic Church as well. The First Amendment is there to protect all of us folks and it is disheartening to see people trash the greatest protection of human dignity ever enacted by the hands of man.