?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Constitutional Myth #4: The Constitution Doesn’t Separate Church and State – Garrett Epp - Laurion [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Laurion

[ website | My Website ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Constitutional Myth #4: The Constitution Doesn’t Separate Church and State – Garrett Epp [Jun. 15th, 2011|03:56 pm]
Laurion

“Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?”

Constitutional Myth #4: The Constitution Doesn’t Separate Church and State – Garrett Epps – National – The Atlantic.

 

The latest in an interesting and academic look at the Constitution and some of the current myths being expressed about the Constitution to serve the ends of the individual expressing them.

This one on the separation of church and state ties into the first one in the series, on constitutional originalism, the notion that it is not the role of the judicial branch to extend the interpretation of the constitution, but solely to take it at its word. Where interpretation is to be done, it should be done through the words of the original drafters, found in the constitution, or if necessary, their other writings.

Mirrored from The Black Horse of the Blog World.

linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: faerieboots
2011-06-15 08:47 pm (UTC)
Gah this one bothers me so much. It's the only clause in the Constitution that ANYBODY can enforce, just by virtue of being a taxpayer in the region! Not only does it exist, we arguably take it more seriously than any other clause in the Constitution. I Am Just Saying.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: benicek
2011-07-09 08:16 pm (UTC)
I've always been fascinated by this part of the US constitution. I live in a country (the United Kingdom) with an 'established' church and compulsory prayer in all state schools, but we must be one of the least religious countries in the world.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: laurion
2011-07-09 08:20 pm (UTC)
Sadly, most of those who fight over the issue here are falsely religious anyhow, using more as a tool of distinction (ewe're different from them) than any real expression in the tentes or beliefs of their respective faiths. But they've become so ingrained that their religion is such a part of the definition of who they are as a person that anyone with a different view, or who attempts to establish constraints or barriers of any sort to their religion is somehow maligning them individually. So we have a lot of politics driven by religion, but by the fears and insecurities of the religious rather than any positive motivation.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: benicek
2011-07-09 08:30 pm (UTC)
It sounds like living in the Middle East.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)