Here, IMO, is what the Separation of Church and State
does mean.
It means there shall be no official religion adopted by any level of government.
It means there shall be official separation of the institutions of government from religious institutions. That is, the two kinds of institutions are not allowed to take
complete control over each another. No branches of government, at any level of government, are allowed to hand over their governmental powers to religious organizations. The laws of the state of Utah must be adopted by the state legislature of Utah - which is open, in an egalitarian fashion, to people of all religions - not made by the Mormon Church. The law enforcement powers of the state of Mississippi must be exercised by the elected executives of the state, not by the Southern Baptist Church. The official settling of legal disputes must be performed by the judicial branch of the state of Minnesota, not by the Lutheran Church.
Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc. is one of the rare examples in which I think the Supreme Court applied the Establishment Clause correctly.
OTOH, here are arguments which, IMO, the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state do
NOT mean.
The separation of church and state does not mean a separation of law from morality. Although many people do learn most of their moral beliefs from their religion, that does not mean that religious beliefs and moral beliefs are the same, and it doesn't mean that they must be treated, constitutionally, as the same.
The Mann Act is legislated morality. The Endangered Species Act is legislated morality. Hate Crime laws are legislated morality. Most laws are legislated morality. That doesn't mean that all laws are moral. We all know that some laws are not truly moral. But it means that any legislature and/or set of voters are allowed to
try to legislate their moral beliefs. And when a law is made that does reflect the moral beliefs of a majority of the people - when a government has imposed a moral code on everyone - that does not mean that they have imposed their RELIGION on anyone. Religion and morality are not the same thing. Plenty of immoral things have been done in the name of religion, and certainly religious people do not always behave morally.
The following three statements in
Everson v. Board of Education (1947), are, IMO, mistakes.
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government ... can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. ... No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa." All three of those statements are overimaginative, dubious, unnecessary, and inappropriate assertions of what the Establishment of Religion Clause means. They do not mesh with good legal reasoning, which should include contemplating hypothetical analogies in order to test the logic of the major premises that judges and lawyers work with. (The fact that these statements were put into constitutional law - a SCOTUS majority opinion - by my favorite Supreme Court Justice - Hugo Black - is, for me, rather embarrassing.)
If anyone has any questions about the above post, I will answer you via PM, not by posting in this thread again.
