On this issue I must part with some of my conservative brethren. As we all know, the first amendment prohibits the state from establishing a national church or from favoring one faith over another. Most, if not all, constitutional scholars also think that it also prohibits favoring religion over non-religion. This is what most people are thinking of when they talk about the separation of church and state. We must remember that the state, by its very nature, has overwhelming coercive power, and this was much more so in the time when the Bill of Rights was written. For most of the 300 years prior to American Independence, ones religion was of great interest to the states of Europe. To be a member of the legal church was a requirement of the law. To hold to a faith that was not approved was tantamount to treason. In Catholic countries Protestants were persecuted ,and in Protestant ones Catholics were persecuted. An extreme example was Germany. A 30 year war between Lutherans and Catholics devastated that land, to such a degree that decades later it had still not recovered. So, when we think about the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights, we must consider the times in which it was written. They were not living in today's America with a history of 200 years of religious freedom (for the most part). They were living and writing in a time with a history of centuries of religious oppression. Their intent was to keep government out of religion and religion (as an institution,not as personal faith)out of government. Those who wish for more religious influence over the government, should be careful of what they wish for. What if the religion that gains a degree of influence over the state is one with which you do not agree? Sorry for the lecture. You can take the teacher out of the classroom but - well, you know. 
|