I agree that the current direction of the USA is decidedly towards removing all open religious expression from our public lives, I have to wonder what will be done with the National Cathedral were this to happen, convert it into a shrine to evolution and secular humanism perhaps? What sort of religious relics would then be placed there that would be publicly offensive to all those with faith in things beyond man? The destruction of morality and descent towards 'each man doing that which is right in his own eyes' is shameful at best. I pray that a generation would rise up that would cast off this oppresion that is being forced on us and that we could be a truly free society in which even when we disagree we can do so openly and honestly and with out having to censor what we believe in order for it to be publicly permissable.

I recently read David Limbaugh's "Persecution" which details the history of religion in the public sector, the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment, and many of the current issues. There is a lot of eye-opening information in that book. I only have one complaint about the book. The first is that he never offers a solid plan for how we can reverse this trend. Although I lean toward a greater separation of church and state than many fellow Christians, I also believe that our society is going too far. I highly recommend Limbaugh's book to anyone interested in the subject.

Thanks, I'll be sure to check that one out.

Actually, I think this drive to eradicate religious expressions in the public sphere is the Atheist Religion's newfound method of proselytizing their faith.

Nathan: I agree that it can be, but there the establishment clase was written for a reason. The difficulty is in recognizing the difference between a legitimate violation of the establishment clause and religious supression. For every atheist who can't recognize the latter there is a zealot who can't recognize the former.

Thanks for that article. The French recommendation is not so bizarre when you consider this is the same country that outlawed the word "e-mail".

I'm a pretty staunch Pagan, and I worry about this trend toward secularism in our culture. Too often it's simply a prejudiced reaction against Christianity - an understandable, yet still unfortunate, backlash against decades of Christian prejudice.

So now, instead of having tolerance and respect for a plurality of faiths, we have a surreptitious war. On the one hand, there's the case of India Tracy (http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/05/12/crusade.lawsuit.ap/), who faced harrassment from administration and classmates when she refused to participate in an extracirricular Christian revival. On the other extra, we have Locke v. Davey (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=12299), where a college student was denied state educational funding because he chose theology as his major.

I hate to say something as soppy and cliched as "Can't we all just get along?", but it *should* be that simple, ne? In order to get there, we have to escape the corrosive climate of anti-religious (and, specifically, anti-Christian) hatred. Non-Christians shouldn't let the zealots determine their treatment of Christianity.

I'm just talking about the recent movement to stamp out nativity scenes and calling the White House Christmas tree the "holiday" tree.
I agree that legitimate violations of the establishment clause should be prevented.
I really think that the operative word should be "force", tho, not merely the currently-in-vogue "observation", i.e., as long as you don't force obesience or give free advertising to a specific sect, it's just free expression covered by the 1st Amendment. Even if it is a nativity scene in front of the town hall.

Nathan: I think that you and I are on the same page. The Constitution does not give anyone the right to not be offended, nor should it.

Kensho, I had forgotten about the French outlawing email.

I do think that it should simply be as easy as "we should all get along", especially from a legal standpoint. I can understand the desire to keep religion out of government, but, with a very few exceptions, government shouldn't be in the business of telling me how I can dress to worship or what symbols I can wear in worshiping.

For the French to say that it's for the good of the students and the safety of the students is really just offensive. That's like the old "she shouldn't have dressed that way if she didn't want to be raped" argument.

When I was a Senior in high school, there was an exchange student from India in one of my classes. He was a Sikh and he not only was allowed to wear his traditional head garment, be he was also allowed to carry a dagger in his backpack because his religion required that all males be armed for self protection. At least I think that was the rationale. It was 15 years ago.

Can you imagine allowances being made for the carrying of a knife at school today?

That sort of thing didn't bother me then and it doesn't bother me now though I have moved from the deist I considered myself then to the atheist I consider myself now. Several other commenters have made this point so I will just reiterate it; the establishment clause is there to prevent the government coercion of an othrodox religous view. It has nothing, or should have nothing to do with policing an individuals free expression of his or her religious beliefs, even if that expression happens to occur on the courthouse steps or in History class.

That young man would have already been banished from the school if he tried to show up with a knife--ceremonial or otherwise. We've lost a lot of diversity in this era that is supposedly devoted to that concept.

Very nicely stated. Thanks.

The idea is separation of church and state. not abolishment of church by state. The state shouldn't have say into a person’s personal ways to profess their religion. People should have the right to wear their crosses, stars of David, kipas, headscarves or pentagrams. At the same time, a government supported by all of these and many more groups shouldn't be allowed to advocate only one. If they post the Ten Commandments in a public building, which is paid for by every American's taxes, it should be joined by some symbolic image or scripture representing every other religion, or non-religion, representing everyone. But isn't it just easier to take them out of our schools and courts?