If the liberal left is accurate, and our nation was NOT established on Biblical principles, why do you suppose the first book published in the new world was the New England Primer, a reading book for children? This was used to teach the Alphabet for decades. Here little rhymes are used to help children learn the Alphabet:
New England Primer, pub 1777
The first assertion of this interpretation, widely accepted today, was in 1942. From 1776 through 1942, the phrase, “Separation of Church and State” was not an issue. It was generally accepted in both education and law that the Framers’ definition referred simply to a prohibition of a State sanctioned religion/denomination as had happened in England.
Take the little quiz below and see how much you really know about the first amendment!
blogsense-by-barb 
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
During his presidency, Madison also vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. He pocket vetoed a third bill that would have exempted from import duties plates to print Bibles. Separation of church and state is not a recent invention of the courts.
You and I have had this debate before, sir. I recognize that you are an attorney and I am not, however, neither am I ignorant on the topic.
(3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion,
The first amendment does in fact, prohibit the establishment of gov’t sponsored Church, but it also prohibits the free exercise of religion. This is where today’s conflict comes in. I believe in the 60’s atheism and secular humanism were declared “religions” by the Court, and yet, the practice of non-religion (atheism) by definition prohibits the practice of religion by ALL other religions alike, particularly at this time of year. To prohibit the placement of a Creshe on public property does no harm to anyone, any more than the placement of a Menorah harms anyone, particularly since it is because of Christianity we celebrate ANYTHING at this time of year! Certainly the pagans enjoyed the Solstice celebrations, but Christianity magnified the celebration which has become a commercial salvation to retailers year after year.
To prohibit me from saying publicly, “Merry Christmas,” is surely an infringement of my first amendment right to practice my religion as I see fit. It does no harm to anyone, even if they happen not to share my beliefs. The fact that Muslim women can wear their religious garb, even though it may pose a security threat, because it would infringe upon her religious freedom, yet students are often not permitted to voluntarily study the Bible in a public school after dismissal with other students is ludicrous. The actual phrase is, I imagine you know, from a letter from T Jefferson, in a matter concerning a specific denomination, not religion at large, and the Supreme Court ruled accordingly until, I believe 1947 in a case concerning the schools.
The picking and choosing of how, when, and to whom this non-existent “wall of separation” applies at this point in time seems rather arbitrary, centering primarily on the practice of the Christian faith. That is my objection! If the Court is going to enforce a “wall of separation between state and religion,” then it must do so across the board including occult, the many Christian denominations, Judaism, pantheism, paganism, Islam, and atheism and secular humanism, both declared “religions” by the Court. They have fenced themselves into a corner, in my opinion. How might it be possible to prohibit the public practice of a non-religion (atheism) and maintain the free expression of any of the other religions? I believe it impossible!
I somehow like knowing that we’re both still at it.
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. So feel free to say “Merry Christmas” all you want. 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.
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/6nnnx
Whether “atheism” should be regarded a “religion” depends not only on how one defines “atheism” and “religion,” but also the context and purpose of labeling it one way or the other. Religion can be defined various ways, some broad, e.g., a world view providing a systematic approach to living, and some more specific, e.g., such a world view associated with faith and belief in a deity or higher power. For purposes of discussing philosophy, whether one treats atheism as a religion likely depends on how one defines “atheism.” To the extent atheism is defined as the lack of any belief in god(s), it doesn’t seem to qualify as a religion in the sense of a philosophical world view any more than the absence of any belief in all sorts of other things, e.g., unicorns. Those lacking a belief in god(s), though, generally have other beliefs, e.g., materialism (the philosophical sort, not the consumer sort) or paganism, that together may be regarded a religion. Fair enough–though I’m not sure “atheism” is the right label for such a religion.
For purposes of determining whether all persons, believers and nonbelievers alike, enjoy the First Amendment’s protection of free exercise of religion, courts have decided, as you note, that atheism should be treated as a religion and, thus, the Amendment equally affords atheists and theists the freedom to exercise their “religion.” It should hardly be supposed, though, that the courts’ interpretation of the scope of the First Amendment to cover atheists as much as theists means that they consider “atheism” a “religion” in any and all contexts and for any and all purposes. Hardly.
In any event, it also should not be supposed that keeping government and religion separate somehow means the government endorses atheism. There is a difference between the government (1) remaining neutral in matters of religion and leaving individuals free to choose, exercise, and express their religious views without government intrusion and (2) taking sides in matters of religion and promoting one view (whether theism [in one, any, or all its various forms], atheism, or whatever) to the detriment of others. By remaining neutral in matters of religion, the government is hardly promoting atheism.
Agreed! It would also have been vital to distinguish beteen “church” and “religion” in general! 😉