tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1553151743745860119.post9205820606420270906..comments2024-03-28T01:44:14.671-04:00Comments on Greenlee Gazette: Rick Santorum: Country With Firm Church-State Separation, Vomit-worthyJames Greenleehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05236516115418262727noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1553151743745860119.post-13946229688666271252012-02-27T01:50:16.779-05:002012-02-27T01:50:16.779-05:00Well said, thank you. Love your name!Well said, thank you. Love your name!James Greenleehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05236516115418262727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1553151743745860119.post-15206245740444013332012-02-27T00:37:17.299-05:002012-02-27T00:37:17.299-05:00Separation of church and state, a bedrock principl...Separation of church and state, a bedrock principle of our Constitution, is hardly "absolute"--at least not in the cartoonish sense Santorum supposes President Kennedy meant in his 1960 speech. Kennedy did not remotely suggest that faith is not allowed in the public square. In asserting otherwise, Santorum sets up a silly "straw man" against which he then boldly battles. What nonsense.<br /><br />It is important to distinguish between the "public square" and "government" and between "individual" and "government" speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square--far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views--publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.<br /><br />Nor does the constitutional separation of church and state prevent citizens from making decisions based on principles derived from their religions. Moreover, the religious beliefs of government officials naturally may inform their decisions on policies. The principle, in this context, merely constrains government officials not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion; in other words, the predominant purpose and primary effect must be nonreligious or secular in nature. A decision coinciding with religious views is not invalid for that reason as long as it has a secular purpose and effect.<br /><br />The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.<br /><br />Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnxDoug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.com