Comments on Modern Interpretations of the Separation of Church and State

From WorldNetDaily:
"OK for 63 years, now Jesus in manger gets dumped
Privately sponsored scene victim of 'separation of church, state'"

"John Satawa's family has displayed a nativity scene on a street median in Warren, Mich., virtually every Christmas season since 1945, but following an intimidating letter sent by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Satawa's county has put stop to the 63-year-old tradition.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation proclaims its purpose in the letter to the Road Commission of Macomb County was to 'protect the fundamental constitutional principle of separation of church and state.'"

I hate to break it to you, WND and friends, but Jesus didn't get dumped out of the manger, as Jesus wasn't on the median in Michigan. That was a fake. Not real.

And I hate to break it to you, Freedom from Religion Foundation, you don't have the Constitutional point you think you do. Close, but no cigar... or whatever it is you've been smoking.

Firstly, I don't see the big deal about Jesus being a baby, anyway. Oddly, "Baby Jesus" has much more importance and appeal than the "Son of God" in our culture. This is probably due to the baubles and toys associated with the statuettes of unclothed children in December, as opposed to that whole "eternal life" and morality deal with the actual Jesus Christ. Who wants that? *raises hand*

So, the idea of "nativity scenes" has me scratching my Xmas-bashing noggin, but it was a free country, so you can do whatever you want.

The other side of this is the FRF's point about a separation of church and state, the ideology of which, in its original sense, I strongly agree. Now, these people seem to think the First Amendment, which states, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...," somehow becomes, "No person is allowed to freely exercise their religion in public."

While I don't see how putting a nativity scene in public is exercising one's religion, I also don't see how it harms anyone, unless the case is made that it is an obstruction, distraction, etc.

The First Amendment really applies nowhere here, in my opinion.

This is different from my opinion concerning, say, public prayer, which is absolutely protected, even if the act is being done by a civil servant. No matter what religion, including that of Secularism, there can be no Congressional law abridging or preferring it. Congress is to abstain from all matters regarding religion.

Under the 10th Amendment, the door is open for decisions by governments both state and local, or by the people. Being a member of the latter group, in the event of a Muslim exercising his right to pray publicly, I would use my right to free speech to discuss and argue my points concerning the fallibility of his religion, and promote my own. No federal court case needed.