- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
I would like to propose some solutions:
1. Public schools should not be teaching religion. Likewise, they should not be teaching and unproven and unprovable set of speculations we know as evolution, especially while presenting them as fact when they have not been proven as such. Private schools, religious or otherwise should be free to deal with the issue as they see fit.
2. In general law, while most common law has a foundation in customs which spring from religion, it is still a matter of the rule of law and equality before it, not a matter of ecclesiastical standards. That said, it makes me wonder why our leftists who do the most screaming about any visible manifestation of religion in the public square virulently oppose such measures as the Oklahoma law prohibiting the use of Sharia (which is based on religion and state being inseparably intertwined) and foreign law in Oklahoma courts. Maybe they are OK with eliminating the separation so long as it is a religion that promotes totalitarianism.
3. The Constitution is quite clear that free practice of religion (or the lack thereof) is the right of all citizens. This does not translate into a right to be shielded from the existence of religion or non-religion. The First Amendment also guarantees the right of free speech. It does not guarantee a right to be shielded from speech one does not particularly want to hear and does not guarantee a right not to be offended.
If we can manage these thing, I believe that separation of church and state will largely become a non-issue.
1. Public schools should not be teaching religion. Likewise, they should not be teaching and unproven and unprovable set of speculations we know as evolution, especially while presenting them as fact when they have not been proven as such. Private schools, religious or otherwise should be free to deal with the issue as they see fit.
2. In general law, while most common law has a foundation in customs which spring from religion, it is still a matter of the rule of law and equality before it, not a matter of ecclesiastical standards. That said, it makes me wonder why our leftists who do the most screaming about any visible manifestation of religion in the public square virulently oppose such measures as the Oklahoma law prohibiting the use of Sharia (which is based on religion and state being inseparably intertwined) and foreign law in Oklahoma courts. Maybe they are OK with eliminating the separation so long as it is a religion that promotes totalitarianism.
3. The Constitution is quite clear that free practice of religion (or the lack thereof) is the right of all citizens. This does not translate into a right to be shielded from the existence of religion or non-religion. The First Amendment also guarantees the right of free speech. It does not guarantee a right to be shielded from speech one does not particularly want to hear and does not guarantee a right not to be offended.
If we can manage these thing, I believe that separation of church and state will largely become a non-issue.
