Quote:
Why isn't anyone screaming 'separation of church and state' like they were in 2001?

Quote:
My favorite candidate since Ron Paul left(I forgave Ron's history, I liked what he was talking about now).

Quote:
Now let's just factor in that nonprofit part. We have a group that usally has to operate on a shoestring and fight for every contribution to get whatever possible done with it. Here comes the new pimp in charge, Big Sugar Daddy Barack. How well do you think they're going to handle their little windfall? It's gonna start with the purest motives and everybody going 'gee, think of all the good we're gonna do now that we finally have the funds to do it'. It won't take long before the person handling the financial records makes that 'gee, what margins can I move on the record? charity starts at home....my home....my new home...' That might be a little far fetched but you get the gist. A big wad of cash doesn't strike me as the best plan here.

Quote:
Now for the religious part. Like it or don't, believe it or don't, we have that seperation of church and state. Government money is supposed to stay away from any place of a single faith and in return they don't have to part with their money as taxes. This is a supreme court decision and their upholding and defining on the constitution.

Quote:
Why would that problem be exclusive to faith-based organizations

Quote:
since it's not actually in the Constitution, we as a people will probably continue to disagree about what it means.

Quote:
I also think you have a small misunderstanding about what taxes churches do and do not pay,

Quote:
The Supreme Court, for better or worse, made that decision already.

Quote:
They perform services and expect payment in the form of tithing for those services-consider the watchful eyes of those around you if you even 'thought' of not contributing.

Quote:
The 14th Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments, intended to secure rights for former slaves. It includes the due process and equal protection clauses among others. The amendment introduces the concept of incorporation of all relevant federal rights against the states. While it has not been fully implemented, the doctrine of incorporation has been used to ensure, through the Due Process Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause, the application of most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states.

The incorporation of the First Amendment establishment clause in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education has impacted the subsequent interpretation of the separation of church and state in regard to the state governments.[26] Although upholding the state law in that case, which provided for public busing to private religious schools, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to the state governments. A more recent case involving the application of this principle against the states was Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994).


[edit] Supreme Court since 1947
The phrase "separation of church and state" became a definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), a case which dealt with a state law that allowed the use of government funds for transportation to religious schools. While the ruling upheld the state law allowing taxpayer funding of transportation to religious schools as constitutional, Everson was also the first case to hold the Establishment Clause applicable to the state legislatures as well as Congress, based upon the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In 1962, the Supreme Court extended this analysis to the issue of prayer and religious readings in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court determined it unconstitutional by a vote of 6-1 for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when it is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. As such, any teacher, faculty, or student can pray in school, in accordance with their own religion. However, they may not lead such prayers in class, or in other "official" school settings such as assemblies or programs, including even "non-sectarian" teacher-led prayers, e.g. "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country," which was part of the prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the Court's decision. As the Court stated:

The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

The court noted that it "is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America."[27]

Currently, the Supreme Court applies a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test". First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion.[28]

In 2002, a three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sparked a substantial controversy in holding that a California law prescribing the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was unconstitutional, due to the inclusion of the phrase "under God." In reaction to the case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, both houses of Congress passed measures reaffirming their support for the pledge, and condemning the panel's ruling.[29] The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where hearings began in March 2004. It was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court in June of 2004, but on procedural grounds not related to the substantive constitutional issue. Rather, a five-justice majority held that Newdow, a non-custodial parent suing on behalf of his daughter, had no standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place. Many commentators viewed this as a "punt," to avoid resolving the issue in the midst of a presidential campaign.

When the Louisiana state legislature passed a law requiring public school biology teachers to give Creationism and evolution equal time in the classroom, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it was intended to advance a particular religion, and did not serve the secular purpose of improved scientific education.[30] (See also: Creation and evolution in public education)

The display of the Ten Commandments as part of courthouse displays was considered in a group of cases decided in summer of 2005, including McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry. While parties on both sides hoped for a reformulation or clarification of the Lemon test, the two rulings ended with narrow 5-4 and opposing decisions, with Justice Stephen Breyer the swing vote.

On December 20, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in the case of ACLU v. Mercer County that the continued display of the Ten Commandments as part of a larger display on American legal traditions in a Kentucky courthouse was allowed, because the purpose of the display (educating the public on American legal traditions) was secular in nature.[31] In ruling on the Mount Soledad cross controversy on May 3, 2006, however, a federal judge ruled that the cross on public property on Mount Soledad must be removed.[32]

Quote:
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of
freemen.

Quote:
Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Quote:
interpretations of that phrase has been used a s a club to try to drive  religious expression from the public square

Quote:
I actually have a personal interest in that separation(which should be identical to yours possibly after some consideration) which allows all religions to be practiced by their followers while not infringing on the rest of us. Surely you have no problem with a Jew or Muslim practicing their faith so long as it wouldn't interfere with your personal space or beliefs or practices. I hope so, that's how a godless heathen like me feels about each of you 'practitioners'. Do what you like until it's gonna mess with my rights-I insist.