I think what they want to do is essentially separate YOUR church from THEIR state.

This is no doubt what Ken Buck has in mind.

http://blog.makezine.com/ddyrdy.jpg

Oh, now they're dangerous. Steve, the Repukes have only been acting like an insane death cult for a few decades now! Did you think The Handmaid's Tale was just an absurdist fantasy completely divorced from any real-world context?

An example closer to home is Ireland, where an established state religion has also led to extensive censorship: English magazines containing advertisements for abortion clinics, e.g., have pages removed by government censors before they can be distributed. Not so long ago, the Church had the authority to imprison women for indefinite periods and use them for slave labor in Magdalene laundries on suspicion of being sexually active, or even just thinking about becoming sexually active. Do we want that? It all follows very logically from the existence of a state religion. And I say this as someone who loves Ireland.

Papal Inquisition?

Salem Trials?

Sharia Law?

Can I cast the first stone?

I had a conversation with a conservative friend the other day. He tried to explain that, since the separation of Church and State is and Amendment that it is not part of the Constitution, etc, etc.

So I asked him: What about your Guns?

"Oh," he said, hemming and hawing, "But that's different."

"You're right," I replied, "It's the SECOND Amendment. Which makes me think it was not quite as important as the First."

The US is embarking on a second dark age, a time of feudal lordship, courtesy of rampant bank fraud including massive and illegal seizure of private properties, widespread unemployment caused by the wholesale off- shoring of every industry that made the US great; a massive downward spiral into homelessness, bankruptcy and ultimately, disenfranchisement of the vast majority of US citizens, the wholesale jettisoning of law in fealty to cronies, the total corruption of the democratic process that formerly governed our Republic; I could go on but you get the point.

And in that dark age, god, or rather the supply side god worshipped by these hapless dupes (my hands down favorite example of the misguided fools is still http://www.cbn.com/700club/guests/bios/cindy_jacobs102008.aspx)
will be presented, proselytised, packaged, pitched and sold as the only road to salvation, just as it was hundreds of years ago.

And even more tragically, millions who have lost everything and no longer have anything to look forward to in life, will believe them.

"becoming more dangerous"???

This movement is well past the "becoming" point... The destruction of constitutional order by theocracy is the last step in what has been an over 90 year process of despoiling the USA.

As the Pythons said in the "Bruces" sketch, on a slightly different subject, "In addition, as he's going to be teaching politics, I've told him he's welcome to teach any of the great socialist thinkers, provided he makes it clear that they were wrong."

- PonB

Steve Benen wrote: "... what is it, exactly, they'd replace church-state separation with?"

Idolatrous worship of the ultra-rich.

@Mitch - that's awesome!

- PonB

Just remember that all Fascists want to manipulate, dominate, and control all the various segments of society.

When the Nazi's first took over Germany, they first manipulated the churches, then they dominated and controlled them. Those within the churches that did not cooperate with the Nazi's were sent to concentration camps, and many were killed.

The radical extremist republicans control large numbers of the evangelicals--Robertson, Hagee, and Jerry Falwell's son, plus others.
They have turned just ordinary Christians into puppet sheep that will be driven to the polls on November 2nd where they will commit suicide for themselves, their families, their neighbors, their co-workers and their community.

These radical extremist republicans practice the hot button emotional issue shell game on these people that ignore all the important issues.

Amazing, utterly amazing!

Steve, you asked exactly the question that I've been asking recently. Let's say that separation of church and state no longer stands. Then what? Imposition of a state religion? Of 50 state religions? Outlawing of Islam?

Of course none of this can happen because what they're railing against is the phrase "separation of church and state" which is simply an explanation of what is in the First Amendment whether or not that phrase is used to describe it.

This simple question of each of these anti-separation politicians is the one that can be asked on all topics: What is your plan for a state-recognized religion? What religion do you propose and who will create the body of legislation to regulate it?
Re: tax breaks and cost reduction: What programs do you propose cutting and what will replace the social programs that are cut? What happens to people who have no job or other source of income (Social Security) or medical and health coverage? I want to see your detailed program, how it will be funded and who will administer it?

Astonishingly, Buck races to defend the traditional "Christmas" tree that has no basis at all in Christianity. It's a holdover from pagan traditions.

So, why don't they just circle the wagons and start their own quasi-state - like the Amish or the Shakers - and leave the rest of us alone.

One of the things I don't understand about these people is that the cornerstone of their belief system is a personal relationship to God, and personal accountability at death - you are judged by God and either you go to heaven or hell. It's not about what country you lived in, it's about how you lived your individual life. So why the whole "America was / is a Christian country" and "America is being judged" etc ?

I really believe they are scared of the demographics - churches, for the most part, are losing members, and immigrants are bringing their religions with them (Muslims being the most visible group) - as these changes occur I think the right wing is trying to impose their religious beliefs politically, while they still have the power to do so.

Either that, or the Republicans are just trying to push buttons they know will get their base out, using fear to get votes. Once in power, will these politicians actually try to tear down the separation of Church and state? I dunno.

I think they have in mind ad hoc demagoguery on religious issues and creation of nuisance laws for election year wedge issues stretching off into the future forever.

Theonomists. They are, of course, against democracy and for a theocratic [spiritual] aristocracy.

Read up on Rushdoony.

Quaker in a Basement said:
Astonishingly, Buck races to defend the traditional "Christmas" tree that has no basis at all in Christianity. It's a holdover from pagan traditions.

It would have been more appropriate for Buck to defend the Solstice tree tomorrow, on Odin's Day (Wednesday, or Wodan's day)

I've learned from reading the history of the Christian Church that anytime Church and State get together, the Church becomes corrupted while the State seems unchanged by the experience.

Theocracy has been my greatest fear for many years (even before 911!), but my fear is increasing exponentially of late.

Republicans: I think we should take another look the methods of the much maligned Spanish Inquisition.

So what do Buck and his ilk have in store for us?

Three words: Republic of Gilead.

If you can get your head around the fact that Christian Reconstructionists have spent many years convincing themselves that the man/God they named their religion after meant the opposite of every single thing he said, you will have no trouble understanding how they can apply the same double speak technique to the US Constitution.

Government must not interfere with the Christian culture but rather support it. The Christian culture must direct government at every level.

It is the usual authoritarianism wearing the usual cloak of religious authority. Same as it has always been.

From a factual standpoint, the attacks above are wildly overblown.

By its terms, the First Amendment doesn't mandate separation of church and state -- it mandates only that Congress make no law "respecting an establishment of religion." On the state level there were still state-recognized established churches in certain areas and the Amendment historically was treated as a mere prohibition on setting up a national established church.

The existence of those established churches poses some interpretive challenges when one moves from the federal context to the state context -- using the 14th amendment. It isn't until the 1950s that Justice Black drew on Jefferson's phrasing in Everson -- but the Supreme Court's decisions have never treated the metaphor as a real decider. Witness the Court's endorsement of legislative prayer. And it doesn't help any that the resurrection of the "separation" metaphor arguably has its roots in the KKK.

All this matters in the modern context because of the renewed push to purge religious references from the public and political spheres and sincere policy debates that can be foreclosed by an misunderstanding of the metaphor's status. One doesn't have to be a big fan of school vouchers for nice, suburban school districts -- but it's another thing altogether to suggest that Milwaukee schoolchildren should be trapped in a failing system because otherwise funds might go to a parochial school.

I'd argue that it's also not irrational to believe we have better things to do than be launching lawsuits over the Pledge, the motto on money, or a memorial cross in San Diego. Some people don't like religous references of any kind in the public sphere. Fine. But there are times -- take abolition -- when that's the language it sometimes takes to get to the "right" policy result.

A world in which quoting the "Rev." Martin Luther King Jr. is even arguably unconstitutional at a graduation, while quoting the "Dr." King is not, is a world in which it may bear re-examining the knee-jerk endorsement of a metaphor made by a guy: sitting in France at the time the Bill of Rights was passed; who sided with the anti-federalists; and who was knocking up his slaves while writing "all men are created equal."

I'm old enough to remember the "culture" to which Buck and his ilk wish to return us -- a culture in which no consideration was given to religious minorities, and one in which Protestant Christian hegemony was tacitly assumed.

In that culture, virtually all businesses were closed on Sunday, and there were certainly no liquor sales. Public schools put on explicitly-Christian Christmas pageants. Football games and public gatherings often began with an explicitly-Protestant prayer. Textbooks explained that the moral superiority of the Protestant work ethic begat prosperity.

Roman Catholicism was somehow a bit suspect; Judaism was acknowledged and then ignored. No other tradition was considered a proper "religion".

This is what the cultural conservatives so pine for: a nation in which the dominance of white Protestants is so complete that it can be tacitly assumed, one in which white Protestants need not make the slightest concession in speech or behavior to those of other faiths.

@Mitch - y'know what else is different? The language of the First Amendment is absolute. The language of the Second Amendment is conditional. yet somehow, our conservative friends are convinced it's the other way around.

"separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. -wiki-

I don't think so, bruinrefugee.
What better use of our time and effort in a political system that claims to be inclusive is there than to insist that it be so.
Congress has adopted lots of stupid ideas over the years. The pledge is only one of them. Many have been repudiated. House unamerican activities committee for example.
It is our job as citizens to insist that the founding principles be adhered to in spite of the fact that they have been violated from day one.

The seperation of church and state has never been to deny religion but to protect the rights of people to practice the religion, or none, of their choice. Its exactly why many religious groups came to America. That so many are duped into thinking that religion will be protected by breaking down the wall of seperation is bizarro.

Besides that I dont think many of the establishment conservatives are religious but want to make use of religion as a means of control and follow the definition of conservateur coined by ChateuBriand which is the enon [old] order of aristocracy, clergy and ignorant and powerless masses. What the pilgrims and founding fathers revolted against.

The quickest way to corrupt religion is to merge it with government.

Why is anyone surprised? You're talking about candidates (and a political party) who believe in the literal translation of the Bible. . .therefore it follows they would want/believe a literal read of the Constitution. Just as they ignore the Scriptures that don't bolster their religious dogma, so they will ignore the parts of the Constitution and our laws that don't bolster their version of The Exceptional America (TEA)

Stevo,

I don't like the politics of the conservative Christians, but you really have to do a better job of understanding them. Do you seriously think they are the Taliban in waiting?

They are not for the establishment of a state religion - just look at the first part of Buck's second sentence. What they desire (and what Buck very poorly communicates) is that a conservative Christian cultural and moral ethic inform those who are serving in government. This is far from the establishment of a state religion.

They want religion in government, but not in business. How does that work?

Keep your eye on the ball, folks--theocracy is not coming, but oligarchy is.

As Thomas Frank has pointed out, all this God-talk is just a way to get the rubes riled up and voting Republican. In the end, they vote for morality, and get tax cuts for the rich. They vote for limiting abortion, and get corporate deregulation. They vote for Jesus, and get Ayn Rand.

bruinrefugee wrote: "... the renewed push to purge religious references from the public and political spheres and sincere policy debates ..."

There is no "renewed push to purge religious references from the public and political spheres and sincere policy debates".

The existence of such a "push" is complete fiction.

It's Bill O'Reilly "war on Christmas" BS designed to push the well-programmed hate-and-fear buttons of weak-minded, ignorant, mean-spirited, gullible Ditto-Heads.

If anything, there is a "renewed push" to drown the public and political spheres in torrents of hypocritical, phony religiosity.

Question of the day: What's the difference between the Republican Party and the Taliban?

One group uses radically fanatical religious zealotry, fear and intimidation to take away the rights of its countrymen, especially women and homosexuals. They are determined to create a theocratic totalitarian government that is run on ancient religious dogma. They believe in enslaving an entire class of people and making them work for poverty-level wages, and that if they don't or can't work they should be left to starve to death. They are racist, xenophobic, uneducated, close-minded bullies who insist that, if it's necessary, their ideology should be forced on an entire nation of infidels at gunpoint. They believe that public schools are for teaching their religion and nothing else. They believe that the only way to insure their future is to continue to amass an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and be prepared to use them against any and all enemies. They believe that the West is destroying the morality of their children. They believe the world will end in a great conflagration and that only those who are exactly like them will be saved.

And the other group wears turbans.

While the populace is distracted by an unending argument about church/state, 2nd Amendment, immigration, et al, the REAL rulers of America are stealing us blind.

What they desire (and what Buck very poorly communicates) is that a conservative Christian cultural and moral ethic inform those who are serving in government. This is far from the establishment of a state religion.

In some ways that's nearly as bad in the long run. You don't have to come out and officially declare "This is God's Nation and nonbelievers are second-class citizens" to enact policy and pass laws with conservative Christian morality as their sole justifications, and once in they can be bastards to get rid of.

At the heart of nearly every 'fiscal Constitutional conservative' teabagger is a fervent culture warrior, make no mistake.

"They vote for limiting abortion, and get corporate deregulation..."

...and corporate deregulation leads to environmental degredation and increased pollution which brings us ...:

" Pollution causes many birth defects in China - Heart disease, cleft palate, hydrocephalus are the most widespread birth defects, the leading cause of infant death. In the most polluted areas, like Shanxi, pollution also produces spontaneous abortions..."

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Pollution-causes-many-birth-defects-in-China-14170.html

"I just wrote up a lengthy item on the history here a few days ago, so I won't re-hash it again. Needless to say, the separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of the American system of government, and the foundation for the greatest experiment in religious liberty the world has ever known."

The fact of the matter is that the concept of separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. The history that is provided in the earlier post says this:

"Justice Hugo Black later reaffirmed the wall's significance in the landmark case Everson v. Board of Education (1947). Black wrote "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" The wall forbids government to actually or effectively favor one religion over another, favor religion over non-religion and vice-versa."

That Jefferson letter was just that, a letter, not part of the Constitution, the law, anything. Second, the guy who wrongly included the Jefferson letter was racist liberal Democrat Hugo Black, a Klansman. He and the majority in the case added this clause even though they had no right or power to do so. As a result of using the opinion of this racist, the left has bastardized the First Amendment and the freedom of religion.

Buck, Angle, O'Donnell, Limbaugh, and any others who know that the separation of church and state clause is not in the Constitution also know that this non-existent clause is not one bit related to either the Establishment Clause or the Free Religious Expression Clause that are in the First Amendment.

When some nuts start trying to put the Ten Commandments up on the school/courthouse wall, simply ask which ones--the Protestant or the Catholic?

Then go get coffee. The steam should be coming out of their ears by the time you get back.

Well I am worried that these fools don't know their history or how that history impacted the words and intentions of the founding fathers.

He seem aware that the Constitution prohibits an established church but he doesn't understand that this is like opening the bottle the genie is hiding in. You open the door for religion to have influence over government then the reverse can be true if for no other reason than to limit how.

Guys like this forget that not all Americans are Christians. Heck not all Christians agree with other Christians or consider other Christians other Christian. Of course they don't really care about those people because they are all going to hell and America is only for their brand of Christianity.

I remember reading about when people were so afraid of the Pope having too much control over the Kennedy and now many don't mind a religion have even more influence over a politician.

Maybe we should have government regulation of religion. We could have a department of Miraculous Claims, where every religion has to prove the validity of their miracles. We could have a department of religious consolidation, where religions with similar beliefs will be consolidated into one religion. All Christianity will become one faith, with a board of directors reconciling it all, doing away with redundant beliefs and practices.

Each religion will then be taxed and approved by the government, with congress voting on any changes to be made to the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, or any other sacred books or religious writings. Any new religions must apply to the government and await approval and official recognition before accepting any members.

That is what people mean when they say there should be no separation of church and state, right?

What do they want to replace it with? an evangelical theocracy.

The end.

Pretty soon they'll be calling for a religious test for voters - i.e. ya can't haz teh vote if you aren't of a particular religious/ideological bent.

I remember reading about when people were so afraid of the Pope having too much control over the Kennedy and now many don't mind a religion have even more influence over a politician.

But that was The Wrong Religion. Other religions are tolerated just as long as they don't compete for dominance with The Right Religion.

Kinda like how Mitt Romney wears Mormonism as a millstone around his neck. (Oh, how Glenn Beck dances try to make people ignore that.) Or how Keith Ellison is being targeted specifically because he's a Muslim in Congress. Or how the Republican Jewish Coalition is running ads in PA accusing Joe Sestak of being terrorist-friendly. Or how an atheist will be elected President on the twelfth of Never.

Second, the guy who wrongly included the Jefferson letter was racist liberal Democrat Hugo Black, a Klansman.

Wow. So he was a liberal and a Klansman.

Did he also shop at Costco?

Glad to see you hitting hard Steve.

"What we're seeing is, to a certain extent, the rise of the Taliban wing of the Republican Party -- the Taliban rails against secularism, and insists that the law must mirror and be based on their interpretation of a religious text. Buck, O'Donnell, Angle, Limbaugh, and Palin have all argued something eerily similar. Thomas Jefferson said the First Amendment built "a wall of separation between church and state," and these Republicans are anxious to tear it down."

Dead on Steve!!

I had an American Government professor when I was in college who described Hugo Black as a man who, "in his youth ran around in white robes, scaring black people and then later in life traded them in for black robes that he donned to scare the hell out of white people."

thebewilderness wrote:

"I don't think so, bruinrefugee.
What better use of our time and effort in a political system that claims to be inclusive is there than to insist that it be so.
Congress has adopted lots of stupid ideas over the years. The pledge is only one of them. Many have been repudiated. House unamerican activities committee for example.
It is our job as citizens to insist that the founding principles be adhered to in spite of the fact that they have been violated from day one."

There's a significant difference between a stupid idea (i.e. a political question) and an unconstitutional one. Just because one doesn't like something doesn't make it unconstitutional (or vice versa). I don't know a principled way to tear the constitution's words out of the understanding demonstrated at the time absent an amendment.

To take an example -- slavery is explicitly mentioned in the constitution. Nothing in the constitution, however, forbid the outlawing of it until the 2d case of judicial review struck down the Missouri compromise. When it came time to change that policy, the government didn't take any chances -- it passed the 13th amendment through Congress and then took it to the states. Absent further amendment, it's still the same 18th century (or 19th or 20th, depending on the amendment) wording that forms the content of any particular amendment.

But the problem with the original post here -- and much of the commentary -- is that it's factually-misguided and overstates the case significantly. Much of it confuses a political issue with a constitutional one. Just because, for example, voucher programs have passed constitutional muster doesn't mean one has to implement them. But those pushing for such programs after having them ruled constitutional aren't exactly the "Taliban," either.

If anyone doesn't want to accept as a normative point that the constitution means whatever five votes currently says it does, that's fine. But it doesn't really advance the argument to say "the principles" legally require something when those who enacted the constitution didn't see or act that way at all. It's not like the words by themselves (which WERE enacted) tautologically require any particular conclusion.

Which is a long way of saying "it's a deep pool." While ignorance of the finer points of constitutional history and theory is entirely rational, one should hesitate a little more before claiming one side of the debate is crazy or ill-informed.

I don't like the politics of the conservative Christians, but you really have to do a better job of understanding them. Do you seriously think they are the Taliban in waiting?

They are not for the establishment of a state religion ...

Yeah ... all they want is for everyone to believe the same thing, and act in ways approved by their religion of choice. As you even admit (though probably unknowingly) with this comment:

What they desire (and what Buck very poorly communicates) is that a conservative Christian cultural and moral ethic inform those who are serving in government.

So, again, you admit that what they want is someone to act in accordance with a particular religion they like. After all, why shouldn't a conservative Jewish cultural and moral ethic inform those who are serving in government? Or a Muslim one? Or **gasp** even an atheistic one?

Because, once again, they don't want those religions to be part of the American public discourse. They want our nation to be dominated, as you admit, by a "a conservative Christian cultural and moral ethic."

This is far from the establishment of a state religion. Posted by: bobopapal

Actually, it's a de facto establishment of a state religion because, as you admit, they want everyone in government to have "a conservative Christian cultural and moral ethic inform" their decisions, at the expense and exclusion of others.

Another comment of yours stands out:

But those pushing for [school vouchers] after having them ruled constitutional aren't exactly the "Taliban," either.

That shows a complete lack of understanding of the voucher issue, and I wish I could find the link to the piece that exposed what has been a 30-year conservative quest to de-fund the public school system.

Shorter version: What these people want is their kids to go to a private, almost-always Christian school at taxpayer expense. They know not a single voucher program will actually pay for a private school, but at least some of their taxes aren't going to "those people," and they managed to get some taxpayer funding for their kids' religious education.

It's a neat, if nauseating, trick that will do nothing by destroy secular public schools in exchange for a system of private religious schools.

So, yeah. Just like the Taliban.

While I can respect your tone and attempt to use facts ... well, sorry, dude, but your flowery prose does little to cover up the rank bullshit you're trying to serve up here. Few -- if any -- are buying it.

Isaac Newton was a serious Bible student. Many very enlightened, powerful thinkers, who have done a great deal of good for humanity, have been serious Bible students. Jefferson justified independence on the unalienable rights endowed by a divine Creator. And though considered a Deist, he was a serious Bible student. For over two hundred years, elected officials have sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution with their hand on a Bible - the book of Judaism and Christianity. A quote from the Bible is inscribed on the Liberty Bell.

All of that Bible influence! It's amazing the U.S. has not passed the Taliban in the suppression of civil liberties long ago.

Who is engaging in more paranoia, the airline passenger who is afraid of a bomb-toting terrorist, or a secular progressive who is afraid that a Bible teaching might be seriously considered and advocated in his presence?

Secural animist wrote:

There is no "renewed push to purge religious references from the public and political spheres and sincere policy debates".

The existence of such a "push" is complete fiction.

It's Bill O'Reilly "war on Christmas" BS designed to push the well-programmed hate-and-fear buttons of weak-minded, ignorant, mean-spirited, gullible Ditto-Heads.

If anything, there is a "renewed push" to drown the public and political spheres in torrents of hypocritical, phony religiosity."

Look, the constitution prohibits religious tests for office, but it also doesn't prohibit people from taking into account anything -- whether it be height, good looks, or even purported religious scruples -- when voting. The ultimate test is whether enough people find the relevance in favor on any given factor outweighs those who feel otherwise. Welcome to democracy.

The fact is that the published court decisions and news reports are littered with efforts to challenge or throw out practices that are a far cry from inflicting a theocratic state. Those efforts are a "push" and in a country with much bigger issues -- like improving public schools --one could understandably see these efforts as wasted priorities.

Although I'm agnostic as a policy matter, the Bill of Rights quite clearly favors religion over irreligion in at least one way -- the free exercise clause -- much as it requires the creation of unequal representation based solely on geographic units (via the Senate) that the S. Ct. has declared unconstitutional when done by the states.

Notice how it's possible to disagree on substance without disparaging the other side.

As a registered independent I find the references to the Taliban and ignorance somewhat amusing from partisans for a movement that -- in contravention of a long history of yellow and/or partisan journalism in this country, something quaintly referred to as "freedom of speech" in the past -- have folks advocating shutting down or restricting talk radio and Fox News.

But that's just me.

MKS wrote: "... a secular progressive who is afraid that a Bible teaching might be seriously considered and advocated in his presence ..."

Name one.

Here's a Bible teaching for you to seriously consider and advocate:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

-- Matthew 6:5-6

Mark D wrote:
"It's a neat, if nauseating, trick that will do nothing by destroy secular public schools in exchange for a system of private religious schools.

So, yeah. Just like the Taliban."

I'll happily posit that a lot of folks -- evangelical or otherwise -- support tax breaks for private education because they want to send their kids to religious schools. That self-interest doesn't meant that in some cases it can't also be a good policy.

I'm pro-public education. But let's be clear -- it's failing to do its job for millions of students in the U.S., particularly in urban areas. Not just because of lack of funding, but because teacher's unions refuse to focus on whether the schools are actually accomplishing their goals. Take a look at LA Unified. It has a budget bigger than many countries. LA City is 47% white and is a DEMOCRATIC bastion, but LA Unified is apx. 9 (NINE!!!?!?)% white and has a huge drop-out rate. If we're not going to actually focus on fixing the schools, it's a travesty to force people into a system that's built for their failure. That system does a lot more harm than anything some evangelical in Kentucky or even, heaven forbid, a Republican in the Central Valley could ever inflict in the name of their religion.

bruinrefugee wrote: "But that's just me."

Yes, that's just you who still cannot provide one shred of actual evidence for the "renewed push to purge religious references from the public and political spheres and sincere policy debates" that you asserted was a problem.

bruinrefugee wrote: "... have folks advocating shutting down or restricting talk radio and Fox News."

That's just as fictional as your imaginary "push" to purge religion from public and political discourse.

Who is engaging in more paranoia, the airline passenger who is afraid of a bomb-toting terrorist, or a secular progressive who is afraid that a Bible teaching might be seriously considered and advocated in his presence?

There is nothing wrong with many Bible teachings.

There is nothing wrong with advocating Bible teachings and living according to them in your own private life.

There _is_ something wrong with elected officials demanding that EVERYONE live by said Bible teachings, unless there is a compelling secular case for them as well.

bruinrefugee wrote: "... teacher's unions refuse to focus on whether the schools are actually accomplishing their goals ..."

Let's see now, you have asserted without evidence that:

There is a "push" to "purge" religion from public and political discourse.

Liberals advocate "shutting down" talk radio and Fox News.

"Teacher's unions" (i.e. teachers) "refuse to focus" on whether students are being educated.

There seems to be a pattern here.

Namely, rote repetition of standard, scripted, utterly bogus, right-wing, liberal-bashing, union-bashing bumper-sticker bromides.

You want links, fine -- here's links. Enjoy.

On Fox News, you have the Journolist debate about pulling their FCC license and a concerted attack policy from the White House, as well as a nifty website dedicated to shutting them down. Because I appreciated the irony, one of the links is FROM Fox News. Go ahead and factor in the DREAM Act if you want, or even the government subsidies for NPR -- where the editorial policy is, um, a bit inconsistent.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/19/white-house-urges-networks-disregard-fox-news/

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/liberal-journalists-suggest-government-shut-down-fox-news/2/

http://shutfoxdown.com/

And here's just a sampling of the national ACLU's religious cases. It doesn't include affiliates and I don't think it includes the really pointless Solano cross case that's been pending for years. Add in Newdow and others. I don't know where you draw the line -- 100 cases, 300 cases? -- but challenging tuition tax credits, vouchers, land swaps, and all other manner of actions is par for the course. The whole Ten Commandments campaign or the creche campaigns are also a bit on the pointless side (as was that guy in the South's reaction).

http://www.aclu.org/search/?show=100&type=legaldoc&cpi=i647&logic=any

http://www.aclu.org/search/?show=100&type=legaldoc&cpi=i648,i650&logic=any

In the meantime, of course, the programs that was helping DC's inner city students attend better schools was cancelled and Michelle Rhee resigned after trying to fix DC's schools. Hey, maybe the land swap for a homeless shelter IN DC was some sub silentio attempt to turn that deep blue area into a crusade-era Jerusalem. But I doubt it.

I tried posting links, but it's held up by the system for further review.

Secular animist wrote:

There is a "push" to "purge" religion from public and political discourse.

Liberals advocate "shutting down" talk radio and Fox News.

"Teacher's unions" (i.e. teachers) "refuse to focus" on whether students are being educated.

There seems to be a pattern here.

Namely, rote repetition of standard, scripted, utterly bogus, right-wing, liberal-bashing, union-bashing bumper-sticker bromides."

Actually, teachers are not the same as the unions. Far from it. And they don't call the shots at the unions, which don't put their political positions up for votes. (I'd love to see the results of that!). I love my mom -- the teacher -- but not the union she has to join. Take a look at the LA Times articles on value-added metrics for a look at the union's opposition to tools that can be useful (and even wanted) by individual teachers.

And I'm happy to look at the debate about pulling MSNBC's license among conservatives. In the meantime, Journolist itself set itself up as "liberal," as does Obama, so I fail to see the harm in honoring those decisions.

Similarly, I think MLK's "I have a dream" speech is one of the most powerful pieces of oration in US history...and it's overflowing with religious imagery. Neither it nor his policy prescriptions are somehow suspect because he makes biblical references. If some graduating senior indepently wants to thank their (alleged) maker or legislative sessions are opened with prayers -- big deal. At that point, from my perspective, we're all adults, deal with it, whether that's references to Christ, Buddha or Allah. If their the valedictorian they've earned the right to spout of a few minutes of nonsense -- religious or otherwise. Yet case after case challenges these things. In a world with genital mutilation, "honor" killings, and the like I rank these sensitivity issues a little lower on the scale. You don't like a Christmas tree, fine, stick a festivus pole next to it. But it's not exactly earth-shattering stuff.

You can engage in ad hominem if you want, but I fail to see the controversy in wanting public schools that work; roads built instead of tied up through red-tape; affordable homes because there's sufficient stock; and the like. Regulatory capture by public unions isn't any more admirable than capture by business interests -- and in many cases is worse because it's siphoning off massive resources from the limited public fisc. I guess that's somehow "conservative" but I fail to see how the left wouldn't want government that works more effectively in order to sell additional programs.

bruinrefugee, your links don't substantiate your claims.

Urging legitimate news organizations to "disregard" the openly partisan Republican propaganda -- including a steady stream of outright lies and vicious hate speech -- of Fox News is not the same thing as "shutting down" Fox News.

And you've got exactly ONE person who raised the question of whether the FCC "could" revoke Fox's license.

As for a "sampling" of the ACLU's "religious cases" you conveniently ignore the numerous cases in which the ACLU has defended the rights of Christians to freely practice their religion and freely express their religious beliefs without government interference:

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

And your comments about the DC schools and Michelle Rhee's resignation are both irrelevant and ignorant. Rhee resigned for the simple reason that her boss lost an election and the incoming mayor wants to bring in his own people.

You've got nothing -- except some baseless beliefs that sound suspiciously exactly like the scripted BS that the phony "conservative" media is paid to spoon-feed to gullible dupes.

bruinrefugee wrote: "You can engage in ad hominem if you want .."

I haven't, and I won't. I have simply pointed out that you repeatedly build your comments around assertions that are not true. I have said nothing whatever about your "hominem" -- I have only addressed the content of your comments. And you know that.

Oh, and by the way -- that website you linked to, shutfoxdown.com ?

That sure sounds like it must be a perfect example of your claim that "folks are advocating" shutting down Fox News.

So when I go to the site, it's got a lot of video clips from Fox News, illustrating the network's well-known partisan Republican propaganda. And when I look at the site's "About" page, what does it say?

"Shut Fox Down is interested in Fox behaving in a better manner. Show some restraint would ya?"

Imagine that -- showing clips of Fox programming and politely asking them to "behave better" and "show some restraint"! Oh, the horror!

Do you even look at these links before you post them?

Secular Animist,

You like questioning people's good faith, don't you?

I didn't "sample" or "ignore" anything -- I posted a link to the ACLU's own website for the cases they identified relating to the establishment clause. They have their take on how to reconcile the free exercise and establishment clauses that others can -- and do, on both sides of the political aisle -- rationally disagree with. Nevertheless, they're very open about the systemic nature of their efforts.

I haven't seen you identify a quantum of evidence that you might find persuasive -- or even put up any yourself besides the acluforchristians site. Others can decide for themselves who's "take" is closer reality, but I've been happy to supply representative stats and links. I must, however, respectfully disagree with you about the import of what's happened in DC. Rhee is a well-intentioned Democrat who took on a failing system and its powerful union and effectively lost (with her supporting mayor) to old school union politics despite making progress. Similarly, the limited number of kids that were getting a better opportunity through the old program didn't deserve to have the rug yanked out from under them. From my perspective there's a human tragedy for each and every child that finds themselves now trapped in a system that has failed year after year and it's a tragedy that transcends anyone's political affiliations. To a limited extent that overlaps with the voucher debate, even if it's not determinative.

I personally liked this little blurb from the right hand side of the shutfoxdown link:

"Shut Fox Terrorism Down
Our world would be a much better place if Fox News and News Corp would simply drop dead. People deserve better than your lies and FEAR. You are a Terrorist organization, plain and simple."

Then you have the 2005 Democratic Underground link, which is probably just a coincidence:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=109x17887

Maybe the UCLA law professor and these folks are somehow just nut jobs, but I seem to be having trouble finding any similar links for MSNBC. Perhaps you could help?

And I guess NPR is all conspiratorial too:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11478180

If you want to maintain the invocation of a renewed Fairness Doctrine isn't targeting Fox, that's your prerogative.

bruinrefugee, just two items:
1) Perhaps you would explain just how the re-establishment of the "Fairness Doctrine" would adversely affect Fox News? Your defense would, of course, have to be based on the presumption that said network ISN'T a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. Since Fox News proclaims itself as being "fair and balanced", if it is actually abiding by that motto, then there is nothing to "target", is there? Logic, ya gotta love it...
2) There is NO mention of "slavery" or "slaves" in the Constitution - I checked. The subject was already so toxic in parts of the country that directly mentioning it in the Constitution would increase the numbers of anti-Federalists, something the writers of the Constitution were determined to avoid.

Doug,

On the first point, since it's Democrats who've identified targeting Fox with the Fairness Doctrine, I'll assume they see it as a form of opposition and assume the Fairness Doctrine will impact it. On the first point, the White House certainly does. I don't rightly care if Fox or MSNBC or the NY Times is partisan or biased, since I see freedom of speech (particularly political) as a core civic right -- and TV is arguably protected as "press" as well, although that's actually an interesting question. In a "marketplace of ideas" without the govt. putting a thumb on any side, we'll eventually see who -- if anyone -- wins out. As you can see I'm not particularly bound by Fox's marketing slogans.

On the slavery front, there's a reason I didn't use "slavery" in quotes. Although the word isn't used, there isn't any ambiguity in the Constitution's references to slavery:

(1) "by adding . . . three fifths of all other persons" in contrast to "Free Persons" and "Indians not taxed" Art. I, s. 2.

(2) "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" Art. I, s.9, which was promptly followed in 1808 by legislation forbidding importation of slaves and

(3) "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall . . . be discharged from such Service or Labour but shall be delivered up . . ." Art. 4, s. 2.

Although the exact word was not used -- and there are arguably several reasons for that -- these are explicit references to slavery; they're just artfully phrased. Whether one treats them as explicit or implicit references, however, they're certainly there.

While the populace is distracted by an unending argument about church/state, 2nd Amendment, immigration, et al, the REAL rulers of America are stealing us blind.

Thank you for that!! And I hope a lot of people here read what you said.

I also think we have some responsibility. Read Chris Hedges article. It's good.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/the_world_liberal_opportunists_made_20101025/

He also gave a speech at The Sanctuary for Independent Media .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYCvSntOI5s

Great speech. Worth listening.

Imagine the donnybrook when the different churches begin fighting over the question: Which Church?

These Republicans are nucking futs.

The Taliban obviously are against church-state separation. The Wahibbists in Saudi Arabia are against church-state separation. The Vatican is probably still against church-state separation, based on their history. Hassidic Jews are against church-state separation.

All totalitarian religious fundamentalists are the same which is why our nation's founders decided that for the newly-formed United States of America to make a clean break from the state-sponsored religious tyranny and terrorism in the Old World, they'd have to put in writing a ban on religious fundamentalists trying to use the new democratic institutions to subvert the democratic principles and freedoms of American citizens...and religious fundamentalist fanatics still refuse to accept this democratic prohibition on their worst and almost always evil tendencies.

Thus, these religious freaks continue to propose the overthrow of our democracy and the establishment of a right-wing theocracy. Any true, patriotic American citizen will oppose any such insane right-wing attempt. Otherwise, it'll be like our military fighting against the Taliban religious freaks over in Afghanistan, but instead the fight will be being waged inside America, for the very heart and soul of our democracy.

Isn't Buck the nut who wants a constitutional amendment to give fertilized (human) eggs the same rights as citizens? Republicans apparently want the excess fertilized egg vote. We will have press conferences in sperm banks. etc. This Congress will take crazy to new places.

The oracle wrote:

"All totalitarian religious fundamentalists are the same which is why our nation's founders decided that for the newly-formed United States of America to make a clean break from the state-sponsored religious tyranny and terrorism in the Old World, they'd have to put in writing a ban on religious fundamentalists trying to use the new democratic institutions to subvert the democratic principles and freedoms of American citizens...and religious fundamentalist fanatics still refuse to accept this democratic prohibition on their worst and almost always evil tendencies."

It must be nice to live in a world where denigration gets rid of the need to address pesky facts. The hallmark of the original colonies was that many were set up for specific religious groups (and several were quite intolerant). Puritans in Mass., Quakers in Penn., Catholics in Md. At the time of the constitution, there were ESTABLISHED churches in the states. Our history is littered with blue laws, whole parties devoted to religious discrimination (e.g., Know Nothings), and state-support for religious charitable institutions. And key political movements have been driven by religious leaders or couched in religious language. Yet the country and a multiplicity of religions have thrived.

Watch a movie like Afghan Star and then try again to trace the parallels to pre-Enlightenment movements like the Taliban. I seemed to have missed the news the day that conservative christians lined up folks in the soccer stadiums for the executions like they did in Afghanistan. One could note that for sheer totalitarian bloody-mindedness, the dictatorships with "socialism" in the title -- Stalin, Mao, Guevara, Hitler -- created body counts that put the centuries of the Inquisition to shame. But then again, why let facts get in the way of a good rant?

Cue the inevitable debate about "liberal fascism" ...

bruinrefugee, you're not seriously going to turn this discussion into a debate over who's bloodiest, are you? Besides being irrelevant to the 1st Amendment, religious wars in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries cost how many lives? Add in the Crusades, the expansion of the Caliphate, etc ... and I'm going to suggest there's plenty of blood to go around for everyone.

Who needs fascists when you have communists? The point is it's not much of a "discussion" when one attributes evilness to the other side without any consideration of facts.

Western continental Europe's post-world war ii political parties are rooted in religious affiliations and yet the world hasn't fallen apart. Heck, even looking at countries that signed onto the UN Charter re: freedom of conscience v. those that didn't shows a stark difference between the Taliban and let's say evangelicals. Since evangelicals have no centralized authority (like the Pope) or state-sponsorship history (like Episcopals) or any functioning umbrella of leadership, it's hard to see how they're going to "revolutionize" or "subvert" our democracy. The Taliban argument is a silly point raised again and again against fellow citizens -- I find it kind of sad.

When it comes to old Europe, history's a bit more complex. Wasn't the primary sponsor of the Swedes in the 30 Years War Catholic France? But the backdrop of the 17th and even part of the 18th century does inform the First Amendment, particularly the English perspective on it all. That said, there's certainly enough blood to go around for everyone, which is why it's a cheap (and inadequate) point to make the Taliban assertion.

Getting back to what triggered this all -- and why I keep coming back -- I've seen lots of assertions or moral or intellecutal superiority, but I'm hoping someone might take on the constitutional point(s). Namely:

(1) The establishment clause by its terms only applies to Congress and arguably only applies to state establishments.

(2) State establishments -- as well as other state-support for religious-affiliated charities and the like - existed at the time the Constitution passed, and in some cases for long afterwards.

(3) Textually, it's unclear how exactly to transpose the establishment clause into the state context via the 14th amendment.

(4) The free exercise clause embodies SOME level of constitutional preferential treatment of religion over non-religion.

(5) Everson -- written by a former KKK member -- invokes Jefferson's metaphor, but other cases do not.

(6) Since the current case law is more nuanced than the wall metaphor (and in some flux), how can those who disagree with Mr. Benen on either the meaning of the Est. Clause in the state context or issues like vouchers, or faith-based funding "stop being merely wrong, and start becoming even more dangerous?"

Not every political (or even legal) disagreement amounts to treasonous behavior or even irrational behavior. Just a slight tamping down of the self-righteousness and self-regard from some might be helpful. Notice that doesn't prevent anyone from endorsing the "wall" metaphor as the be-all, end-all, it just shows a little intellectual humility at the same time. I'll even submit that this is a legal area where's that's particularly called for.