The founding intentions were pretty clear...the separation is to prevent there from becoming a state religeon, such as was the case in England.

The messy part is where we draw the line...is Hamarabi's code or the 10 Commandments, as examples of early examples of law, on display at a court house, a religeous display, implying that these are official government stance on the involved issues?

If employees at a government office want to exchange X-mas presents at an office party, maybe have a tree and some greens...does that imply government involvement/endorsement?

Is the state denying the right of these employees to HAVE a X-mas party a violation of their religeous freedoms?

How does it make you feel if your son comes home and says that everyone in the class says a pledge of loyalty to the government that includes words that refer to another religeon, perhaps ending the pledge with "Praise Allah"...and he's the only one not saying it, and the other kids are looking at him funny and he feels uncomfortable being the only one to not say "Praise Allah".

What if the words were "There is no God"?

What if your kid felt funny being the only one who refused to say there was no God?

Would you complain to the BOE that they should not make the children say there is no God?

Is there a parallel?



Is this even IN the constitution?

I don't think so...I think we took the "No state religeon" concept and expanded it too far.

So - there may be other legal precidents and applicable laws to cover these shades of grey, but I'm not so sure that the constitution is the best venue.