[The below was originally in response to this article by William Saletan. See also, my response here.]
I listened to Rachel Maddow discuss O'Donnell's 'cockiness' last night in tones similar to Saletan here and was a bit distraught. It brought to mind this plea for religious fluency. This includes at least not being shocked when common beliefs are cited. It's like when CO talked about lust in our hearts being wrong. I did not see one person note Jimmy Carter said the same thing, resulting in similar patronizing ridicule. I admit the masturbation context had an additional titter factor.
It is a broadly shared sentiment that there is no "separation of church and state" protected by the First Amendment. Many now (and in Jefferson's day) think the 1A is in place to protect religion, particularly certain religions, but think it a bit ridiculous to think separation actually does that. Some are loathe to even think of non-Christian (Judaism gets honorary junior partner recognition -- "Judeo-Christian" and all that) groups as even "religions."
Some think a principle that was around in the days of the Pilgrims (by Roger Williams in particular*) was just something Jefferson wrote in a letter one day, not a basic school of thought on what the amendment means. It is one that -- in various degrees (Coons didn't say "strict" separation, did he?) -- shared by a majority. But, especially in connection to certain matters, a strong vocal minority thinks it is an anathema. This troubles many of us and keeping it from being the dominant view is part of why people don't want her side to win in November.
As Coons noted, the principle of separation is not literally found in so many words; it is a principle that grows out of those words. A principle some think is absurd. Many more than someone who is so easy to make fun of.
---
* Roger Williams is often cited as the source of a common metaphor:
With all of this reality (and much more) staring it in the face, how can the Court possibly assert that “ ‘the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between … religion and nonreligion
-- Justice Scalia (with whom The Chief Justice [Rehnquist] and Justice Thomas join; Kennedy did not join this part of his dissent)
I listened to Rachel Maddow discuss O'Donnell's 'cockiness' last night in tones similar to Saletan here and was a bit distraught. It brought to mind this plea for religious fluency. This includes at least not being shocked when common beliefs are cited. It's like when CO talked about lust in our hearts being wrong. I did not see one person note Jimmy Carter said the same thing, resulting in similar patronizing ridicule. I admit the masturbation context had an additional titter factor.
It is a broadly shared sentiment that there is no "separation of church and state" protected by the First Amendment. Many now (and in Jefferson's day) think the 1A is in place to protect religion, particularly certain religions, but think it a bit ridiculous to think separation actually does that. Some are loathe to even think of non-Christian (Judaism gets honorary junior partner recognition -- "Judeo-Christian" and all that) groups as even "religions."
Some think a principle that was around in the days of the Pilgrims (by Roger Williams in particular*) was just something Jefferson wrote in a letter one day, not a basic school of thought on what the amendment means. It is one that -- in various degrees (Coons didn't say "strict" separation, did he?) -- shared by a majority. But, especially in connection to certain matters, a strong vocal minority thinks it is an anathema. This troubles many of us and keeping it from being the dominant view is part of why people don't want her side to win in November.
As Coons noted, the principle of separation is not literally found in so many words; it is a principle that grows out of those words. A principle some think is absurd. Many more than someone who is so easy to make fun of.
---
* Roger Williams is often cited as the source of a common metaphor:
"[W]hen they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the Candlestick, etc., and made His Garden a wilderness as it is this day. And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and Paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and all that be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the wilderness of the World." [Roger Williams, "Mr. Cotton's Letter," Roger Williams: His Contribution to the American Tradition, Perry Miller (New York: Atheneum, 1962), 98.The Supreme Court took it up in the 20th Century, but as noted in the seminal case, the principle was around for some time, including in the 1870s:
The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasion of the civil authority.The pushback was always there too, including a felt need to amend the Constitution to reaffirm God's role protecting our nation, a theme that eventually led to the addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.