The Constitution does include the word "slavery." In fact, amendment thirteen says, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Ostensibly, you do not have a very thorough knowledge of the Constitution, or you are making an unfit comparison.

Touché. You got me there. Yes I was sloppy, intending to refer only to the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Although those documents do not contain the word “slavery,” they have much to say about that “peculiar institution.” Similar to that example, your claim that since the Constitution does not include the precise words “a wall of separation between church and state” therefore that separation does not exist is willfully ignorant. That separation has been upheld by a long history of legal precedent.

I do not believe, as you have insinuated, that Christianity should dominate, nor am I arguing that the Church should control the government. I am merely saying that religion can be incorporated in public spaces as long as the municipality in question is not discriminating against or favoring a religion. For example, like I have mentioned, many liberals have tried to claim that the Constitution mandates a separation, thus meaning that practice of religion cannot be tolerated in public schools (which, keep in mind, are run by local government) under any circumstances. However, since the Constitution does not mandate a separation, students should be permitted to practice and express their religion while in school. As I have stated and proven before, there have been many instances where liberals have tried to limit the practice of religion in schools.

I agree with Brian Douglas’ reaction to this. If we give a millimeter on the separation, religious folks will seek a kilometer on enforcing their specific flavor of religion. However, there may be some common ground. If indeed you do not think Christianity should gain power in public schools and – Good Gawd –> the Church must not control the Government, then perhaps there is some understanding. Well, let’s see what you have to say about Interbane’s musings.

Interbane, if you demand that I reply to your comments, I will. I do not have an abundance of time as I am a junior in high school focusing on my classes, SATs, extracurriculars, and colleges. The reason I did not reply to all of your comments was because you seem to be recycling previously addressed arguments. I did, however, reply to your comment about what I think religion should look like in schools. With respect to your argument about hijabs being allowed in schools, that is the case in certain public schools, but like I said before, there have been many cases in which the school administration has severely restricted the ability of students to express and practice their religion. For example, Fleming v. Jefferson County School District and Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe show this reality. Furthermore, in Mississippi a student in elementary school was forced to remove a "Jesus Loves Me" mask. That is only some of the evidence that liberals are trying to eradicate religious expression in schools. Hope you're happy that you had me rewrite previously mentioned points.

Young Republican has the definitive problem of not seeing the forest for the trees.

He has an originalist conception of the amended constitution. He’s cherry picking words, deeds, precedence to bolster a proposition that has been plowed under since the thirteenth amendment that he himself has cited. The thirteenth amendment is an example of judicial relativism, of constitutional flexibility. It’s inherent in the words of the original non amended document. Simply put.. The constitution allows for amending. Alterations relative to the times.

It is naive to say the least that there is a concrete constitution of the United States. It was designed to be relativistic, its succes, its endurance is precisely because of its relativism.. it’s ability for fluid interpretation is the bedrock of its historical significance. There was no historically official document designed for change as change requires.

The simple fact there there is no religious discrimination allowed can not be implied as an ersatz entrance for any religious influences into the public sector, as it will invariably lead to the favorability of some religion over another.. relative to a time. Local societal preferences, ideologies, education or simple feelings could have undue and profound consequences on a document that is greater than philosophical minorities.

The separation of church and state is clearly outlined in the constitution by the simplicity of the Declaration of Independence. It was a repudiation of the theocratic monarchy of English Rule. (The divine right of kings). We will make no laws favoring religion, period. Separation of church and state is imbedded in the American principle of deriving our power over government from the consensus of the people.

World history is replete with religious tyranny by those in power over the powerless. Americans historically reject religious tyranny. There is no doubt about the constitutional separation of not only church and state but separation of powers within government as well. We have a marvelous system, its will remain that way as long as we hold true to that which is self evident. Libertarians like YR do not value the separation of church and state just as there is little value for separation of powers. The preference is for religious autocracy. Strange that it may be, the libertarian right has a seemingly innate ability to connect religion with governance. He is not looking to be persuaded but to persuade. Clearly he is underestimating an audience.

@YR Why am I getting a feeling, that for you, anyone that disagrees with your perception of the world is a liberal?

A bit of levity... though apt.

Contrary to Taylor's assertions and false accusations, I am not a libertarian nor am I ignorant of the certain truths in the other side of this particular argument. I am open to hear the other's point of view, only as long as they are respectful and non-assuming, though. This is not the case with Taylor, especially given his rampant and seemingly boundless nature of perceptual arrogance. Yes, the Constitution has changed throughout the history of America, but it is by no means a document based upon the faulty principle of relativism. Relativism is the idea that every community varies culturally, and thus, no universal laws should be applied. However, if we take a closer look at this philosophy, it is, innately, a universal law, thereby contradicting itself. By arguing that the Constitution was molded after such a way of thinking, you are implying that our nation is built upon a hypocritical and broken theory. I am not denying that every culture is unique, but I am saying that there are certain principles that should be unconditionally accepted. One such principle that must be adopted is a policy of inclusion and freedom of expression, as guaranteed by the Constitution. The principles set forth by the Constitution apply to the entire United States; therefore, the Constitution was not created with relativism in mind.

It is clear that Constitution does not include the phrase "separation of church and state," and in fact, it never has. It does lay down the foundation for a non-discriminatory government. Under the provisions of this document, the government cannot favor one religion over another. This does not mean that religion cannot be expressed by the general citizenry in public spaces. In this case, students have been prohibited in several different educational institutions from expressing their religious values. Liberals attempt to justify this by asserting the Constitution mandates such unconditional separation, but this argument is invalid. America has, Taylor, rejected Catholic and Anglican tyranny, but in many ways, the early settlers were tyrannical themselves. The Great Awakening is an example of radical religious expression. In the 19th century, furthermore, Catholic Irish immigrants were persecuted by a tyrannical structure established by Protestants, making your claim that America has always combatted tyranny simply incorrect.

Further, Taylor, you misunderstand my stance on this issue. I do not think that the church should control the state or vice versa, as was the case with the Anglican Church of England. I am saying, though, that students should be allowed to express their religious beliefs in the schools setting. I also believe that Constitution does not imply there needs to be a complete and total separation of church and state. Instead, as I have argued before, it is merely saying that public institutions cannot discriminate against religions.

LanDroid, I agree with you that the Church should not control the state and vice versa, and I even say this in my book. I am merely stating that liberals are trying to rid freedom of religious expression in public schools under the false premise of "separation of church and state." This phrase has been misconstrued throughout recent decades, especially with the rise of secularism. Many progressive leaders state that the Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, but this is not necessarily the case. Although that may have been Jefferson's personal opinion, he did not include that phrase of concept in the Constitution. Instead, he included a clause prohibiting discrimination. I am glad that, while we disagree on certain things, we have found some common ground.

YoungRepublican wrote: I am merely saying that religion can be incorporated in public spaces as long as the municipality in question is not discriminating against or favoring a religion.

YR, it's the passive voice you use here that prevents me from seeing what kind of exercise of religion you're talking about. "Can be incorporated"? What does that mean? Who is doing the incorporating? The example you follow with doesn't clear things up. If a public official or a school principle or teacher is directing religious activity such as prayer, then likely that person is favoring one religion over another. It is generally acknowledged that such promotion is improper, and that understanding relates back to the Constitution regardless of the phrase you object to not appearing in the document.

However, since the Constitution does not mandate a separation, students should be permitted to practice and express their religion while in school. As I have stated and proven before, there have been many instances where liberals have tried to limit the practice of religion in schools.

OK, so it's only this student-initiated religious activity that you feel should be allowed and does not go against what the First Amendment is generally understood to mean? I could probably agree with you as long as you don't extend to anything led by the adults. Away from school, of course citizens have the right to practice their religion anywhere they want, except in places where such practice might be interpreted as the government endorsing a particular religion. So, not on the courthouse grounds, for instance.

DWill, what I am saying is that the Constitution does not include the phrase "separation of church and state," and that the document instead offers a principle of non-discrimination. Yes, schools administrations should not promote a certain religion over another or coerce students into engaging in certain religious practices. However, what I am saying is that students should have the right the express their religion, contrary to what some radical liberals have claimed and attempted to restrict under the fault premise of Constitutionally guaranteed "separation of church and state."

The 2nd amendment does not mention the precise word "gun" therefore guns are not protected.
The 4th amendment does not contain the phrase "right to privacy," therefore that concept is a hallucination.
The word "all" is a caucasian code word. We understand the statement "ALL" men are created equal sounds great, but actually excluded women, blacks, and non-property owning whites. We understand the statement "with liberty and justice for ALL" in the pledge of allegiance is a goal some Americans who make that pledge agree to only as a code word for continued injustice.

Considering the above, your statements about "the wall of separation" not being in the constitution are weak.

However, since you seem to be limiting religious expression in the schools to what individual students do while prohibiting influence from administrators, it is possible that some prohibitions are too strict. You're in high school / I'm near retirement, so that's hard for me to say. But you have brought up a court case regarding the Columbine High School where one of the first mass school shootings occurred. You claim students were prohibited from titling artwork as "God is Love." I read a brief summary of the case which actually involved permanent tiles being affixed to the wall of the school. Those tiles would have art or statements that would be viewed for the next 50+ years, likely transferring to a new school even when the old one is torn down. This is not artwork tacked to a cork board to be removed next week, so I can appreciate the need for more control over the content. Did restrictions go too far? Hard to say in context. But I don't think localized incidents like this are a big deal compared to the general risk of Christians seeking to dominate public school curricula.