NY Times Magazine article Options

[Blakjak]

If anybody has acces to the NY Times magazine available with the sunday NY Times should read the article about separation of church and state in there, it's a very interesting proposal.

[Druid]

Holden BJ is talking about this
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/magazine/index.html
Heading is "Church state solution"'

Or if you went through the free signup here is a direct link
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/magazine/03CHURCH.html

The article is well written and not biased as I assumed it would be.

My thoughts on the subject would be most of the debate misses the meaning and ideals set forth by the framers of the Constitution, not just the people who singed it
If you ever spent time reading supporting documentation of the Constitution ( Federalist papers, personal corespondents, etc )
The Constitution's is in 2 parts.
The Articles which setup the FEDERAL government
The bill of rights which limits the power of the FEDERAL government as a way to protect it's citizens.
For me this one of the most important parts but is also the most overlooked.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Which brings me to some of the dumbest Supreme Court rulings regarding seperation of church and state.
In a Kentucy courthouse a framed copy of the Ten Commandments was declared unconstutional. The exact same court ruled a monumment of the Ten Comandments at a Texas Courthouse didn't violate the Constitution.
What the hell where they thinking? Was it a backwards Rock-Paper-Scissors decision, where rock beat paper?
In my opinion neither violated the constitution because they were both STATE courthouse. The only thing it could of violated was their individual STATE constitutions and thats only if it addressed speration of Church/state on the STATE level.

Here is a copy of Cheif Justie Rehnquist's opinion on the Texas case.
I think it sums up my point rather well
The State should accommodate religion, but should not endorse it. It could be argued that the Constitution only prohibits the establishment of a state church. Even with government endorsement, religious freedom is not harmed as long as there is no government enforcement. And even then, according to Christianity Today , “the closer church and state get, the more the church looks like the state.” So, we theists have more to fear from a state church.

But it is our belief that “the Constitutions do not demand that the State of Texas remove the Ten Commandments monument. In fact, the Constitutions demand the opposite, that the State allow such a display,” and the Court agrees.

Funny thing is the court had almost the exact opposite decision in regards to Kentucy.
Idiots