The term "separation of church and state" derives from a letter Jefferson composed, not from the Constitution or Bill of Rights themselves. It is easy to forget that our Forefathers rejected the role of a single church having authority, as did the Anglican church in England; that system poses no threat to the United States. However, many of our Forefathers were deeply religious men, including the author of the Bill of Rights, James Madison (who seriously considered entering the ministry). The Forefathers were concerned about things like states adopting a "state religion"; you do know your history well enough to know that Maryland was founded by Catholics (hence, MARYland), don't you?

As it is used today, the term "separation of church and state" is far removed from its initial use. There is a contingency of people (ahem, ACLU) who clamor for "tolerance" but who are wholly intolerant to some of the less PC beliefs of Christianity (these same people will defend the KKK, Muslim terrorists, and peyote smoking as a Constitutionally-protected right of Native Americans). Regardless of your deep commitment to atheism, you should know better than to join the ranks of those who wish to waste our tax-dollars with more silly litigation over statues.

Read de Toqueville's 'Democracy in America' -- he observed that Americans are deeply religious precisely because of religious freedom; but he also observed its influence in townships, as each community conducted its affairs based up on the principles of its members. Just as you, an Objectivist, couldn't possibly engage in the political arena while throwing out your value system, neither can religious people.

Having said that, Judge Moore in Alabama is violating a basic foundation of this country, rule of law, and I have little sympathy for his methods.

A reactionary mentality has no place within a reasoned debate on the matter. I don't want my tax-dollars paying for public monuments with the Ten Commandments enscribed, nor do I want my tax-dollars going toward offensive artwork. But if private individuals wish to fund offensive artwork or a statue on public grounds (yes, even a statue with the Ten Commandments!), I have no problem with either. You and I should agree on this, should we not?

I think the problem here stems from the existence of "public grounds", as Laurel calls them. Sure, anyone should be able to display whatever they want on their *own* property--but obviously not on others' property. Now when you've got property that supposedly belongs to *everyone*, you've got a serious problem built right in. Who gets to decide what can and can't be done on it, and by what right?

Also, I have to disagree with Laurel's assertion that American's are deeply religious *because* they are allowed religious freedom. I don't think that they are nearly as religious are people in many less free nations, nor that to whatever extent they are religious, it is because of that freedom (just look at the middle east, or Russia). That's a pretty silly claim.

Ashryan,

You are free to disagree with me, but it has been a common observance that Americans have a much more dynamic religious life than most other countries, particularly those without religious freedom or even state-sanctioned religion. I think of it really as the result of "the marketplace of ideas", where religions must compete for members.

Catholicism, while very vibrant in poor communities in other countries, is celebrated more in America than by Italians (who reside next to the Vatican). The middle and upper classes in countries without religious freedom are consistently agnostic, where secular culture replaces religious mores and traditions. The orthodox church in Russia literally became a branch of the government (picture the Ministry of Religion or something like that), and consequently lost all influence (those from the former USSR will often observe the lack of religion in the USSR; indeed, their religious fervor was in large part secularized in a type of worship of government figures). My assertions are generalizations, and as such, there are always counterexamples. But in general, on average, Americans are more religious than, say, Brazilians. Brazil is technically a "Catholic" country, but only the poor make up a large group of regular church-goers.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that religion under Communist Russia was more vibrant in their society than it is in the US; there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Laurel,

I find it interesting that you addressed a minor side-note to my comment rather than my main point, but I guess I'll play along.

I also find it interesting that you considered my evidence even for that side-note selectively, taking on my example of Russia but ignoring that of the Middle East. Now I admit that I should have been more specific if I was going to bring Russia into it. There are indeed some former Soviet nations that are now almost a-religious--if by religion you mean only worship of a "god" and not other forms of mysticism. However there are others, and many parts of Russia that are as fervent in their religion as they were in the days of the Czars. What that indicates is that freedom is not the fundamental issue here. Rather, lack of freedom and dominance of religion may have a common root, rather than one being the cause of the other, which would still explain their general correlation. That root would be a philosophically bankrupt culture.

Also, I have to object to your switching the terms of the argument from Americans being "deeply religious" to their having "a much more dynamic religious life" than that of other countries. This seems like a big equivocation to me. If by "dynamic" you mean that there are many more religions in America than in a fundamentalist Islamic state, I'll concede the point. But the number of different religious views held by Americans says nothing about how deeply those views are held. Are there religious fundamentalists in the U.S.A.? Yes--large groups of them. But does secularism have a much bigger impact on American culture than it does on many other cultures in which the exchange of ideas is less free? Yes.

You claim that it is the free market of ideas in America that leads to its being more religious. As I've stated, I disagree that the culture here is more religious, but I'll agree that the state of the culture here concerning religion has to do in part with the free market of ideas. Given that Americans can exchange ideas freely, the best ones should ultimately win out (the only alternative being for the country to collapse into a dictatorship), namely the ones that continue to support such a free exchange of ideas, namely a secular view of man's rights--with which religion is fundamentally incompatible. To take another example, let's go back to the Middle East--not only are the theocracies in that area the most religious, but notice also that the freest state in the region, Israel, has probably the largest and most rapidly growing secular segment of their population.

Are there a lot of regular church-goers in America? Sure. But there are also a lot of people who aren't. And even those who are, for the most part, do not take their religions as seriously as, say, a Brazilian who doesn't even regularly attend. I don't know all the exact statistics, but this is just what I've noticed in my own (rather extensive) personal experience with people from around the world and their religious views.

Feel free to prove me wrong.