Perhaps it would be difficult, or even impossible to “win over the opinons of a majority of the voters,” but drawing a harder line on the separation of church and state is a very worthy goal, for all the reasons Michael mentioned. If we don’t do this, it’s a slippery slope.

The problem with this is what Thomas Jefferson called “the tyranny of the majority”. The flaw with democracy is that 2 plus 2 doesn’t equal 5 no matter how many people vote for it. You seem to think there is nothing wrong with the majority deciding things and that has gotten this country and the world into grave trouble in the past. Government has to be smarter than the mob.

I heard a story that Thomas Jefferson was going to write “we hold these truths to be sacred” or something like that and Benjamin Franklin convinced him to use “we hold these truths to be self-evident” instead. What a stroke of brilliance. Franklin knew that these rights should not and do not come from god.

We didn’t let the fact that the founding fathers had slaves stop us from stopping slavery in this country. If the separation of church and state erodes in this country, we will be the much worse for it.

We can probably both agree there should be no state sponsored religion. Also no religion should be discouraged unless it involves something harmful such as canabalism (silly example to prove a point). I think we could also agree that no state institution should be run by or tied to a religion. For example, to join the police force you should not have to pass any sort of religious test.

On the other hand, I do not think we have to wipe away any hint of religion in any government function or process. To say we are a secular government does not have to mean we are a government who purges all trace of religion. A secular government is not limited to being a government dedicated to being Godless in all ways.

If a large majority of the parents in a school district want to pray before a football game in some little town in the south, then they should have the right. I am still a big fan of the majority making this sort of decision. If its some highschool in Long Island with a Jewish majority, then I would also not be offended by some form of a Jewish prayer. If its some school in Detroit with a Muslim majority, then I have no problem with a Muslim prayer. I know the last two examples are unlikely, but it makes my point. These guys are not hurting anything and they are not offending a christian minority any more than they would be by teaching creationism in school.

As for the misuse of government property and government funds, lets talk about that for a minute. If the prayer happens at a school, then local sales and property taxes are paying for the bigger part of it anyway. So it if the majority of the local population agrees with the prayer then its ultimately their money that is being used. As for the smaller amount being provided by the federal government, that money is really coming from the top 25% of the taxpayers anyway since the bottom 75% do not put in enough to pay for themselves. So if you are in another state and you hear about some group praying at a football game, then I can assure you none of your money is being diverted to their use of public funds unless you are in the top 25% of income earners. For that reason, it makes me laugh when I hear some athiest with an evangelical outlook on his beliefs who whines about his tax dollars being used for something he does not support.

What about having “In God we trust” on our money? Is that some violation of church and state? I seriously doubt our founding fathers would have thought so. Remember these were not agnostic or athiest people. They certainly were not liberal according to the current definition of the word. They were all wealthy, male, christians of European ancestry. As such, their context for talking about seperation of church and state probably had more to do with not imposing a state religion as we saw in many European countries before our reveloution. They were not saying that a group of people could not have a prayer at a football game. They were not saying that any reference to God must be stricken from our currency and all public buildings. Lets all get a grip hear. If you really are committed to understanding the motives of our “Founding Fathers” then put yourself in the mind of a wealthy, older, white, christian man from 200 years ago and tell me how you think that sort of person would have viewed the seperation of church and state.

Sorry to get on a soap box, but I am tired of hearing people bend the constitution or the intentions of our founding fathers to fit their preferences and prejudices. It reminds me a lot of the evangelical christians who twist the bible to fit their image how things ought to be. Intolerance can take many forms both liberal and conservative.

If you honestly believe that all references to God must be stricken from our government then fine. Win over the opinions of a majority of the voters and make it happen. Just don’t insult my intelligence by telling me your version of a good government was the real intention of the founding fathers.