Wow, does YGNinja not understand history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_...ted_States
tldr;
The historical roots of the idea of separation between church and state go back to at least the mid 1600's. In the American colonies, the Christian population was split between Protestants and Catholics. During the Constitutional Convention, the Founding Fathers made it a point for the government to NOT endorse a particular religion (or, in this case, a sect) because they felt it would divide the fledgling nation when unity was needed. Some leaders even felt that churches sanctioned at the state level was a bad idea.
Of course, some of the states did sanction an official church/religion, or had rules in place that led to an unofficial yet still costly (as in, taxes) establishment of churches, but those went away as time progressed and people expressed displeasure at the obvious corruption and cronyism it led to.
But, no, the United States has never been unified in its religious beliefs, even if in the early days everyone could likely be labeled Christian. Protestants and Catholics have a history of, uh, not exactly liking each other.
As for the rest, the first test of the separation between church and state happened in the late 1800's. The modern interpretation was given in 1947. What happened in the past may or may not have been considered a violation of the amendment, I'm not sure. I think it's safe to say, however, that it's natural for things to be interpreted in new ways as time progresses, so it doesn't really matter if public schools did sing Christian hymns or learned from Christian texts in the past. The Constitution is, rightfully, a living document, designed not only to be flexible via amendments, but through Supreme Court interpretation. The Founding Fathers were wise in creating an extensible document that could change to meet the needs of an unknown future. So, yes, things have been reinterpreted over the course of history. That's how it's supposed to work. And all that really matters is the present interpretation.
Regarding the national motto, despite it mentioning god, the Supreme Court has judged that the motto is more patriotic and historical in nature than anything else, and that it doesn't actively endorse a particular religion. I don't necessarily agree (if only because E Pluribus Unum is so much cooler), but whatever. It's not a hill worth dying on.
But, suffice it to say, keeping religion out of political affairs is not a new idea. There's a reason why the First Amendment is worded the way it is, and it isn't to simply protect religion from government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_...ted_States
tldr;
The historical roots of the idea of separation between church and state go back to at least the mid 1600's. In the American colonies, the Christian population was split between Protestants and Catholics. During the Constitutional Convention, the Founding Fathers made it a point for the government to NOT endorse a particular religion (or, in this case, a sect) because they felt it would divide the fledgling nation when unity was needed. Some leaders even felt that churches sanctioned at the state level was a bad idea.
Of course, some of the states did sanction an official church/religion, or had rules in place that led to an unofficial yet still costly (as in, taxes) establishment of churches, but those went away as time progressed and people expressed displeasure at the obvious corruption and cronyism it led to.
But, no, the United States has never been unified in its religious beliefs, even if in the early days everyone could likely be labeled Christian. Protestants and Catholics have a history of, uh, not exactly liking each other.
As for the rest, the first test of the separation between church and state happened in the late 1800's. The modern interpretation was given in 1947. What happened in the past may or may not have been considered a violation of the amendment, I'm not sure. I think it's safe to say, however, that it's natural for things to be interpreted in new ways as time progresses, so it doesn't really matter if public schools did sing Christian hymns or learned from Christian texts in the past. The Constitution is, rightfully, a living document, designed not only to be flexible via amendments, but through Supreme Court interpretation. The Founding Fathers were wise in creating an extensible document that could change to meet the needs of an unknown future. So, yes, things have been reinterpreted over the course of history. That's how it's supposed to work. And all that really matters is the present interpretation.
Regarding the national motto, despite it mentioning god, the Supreme Court has judged that the motto is more patriotic and historical in nature than anything else, and that it doesn't actively endorse a particular religion. I don't necessarily agree (if only because E Pluribus Unum is so much cooler), but whatever. It's not a hill worth dying on.
But, suffice it to say, keeping religion out of political affairs is not a new idea. There's a reason why the First Amendment is worded the way it is, and it isn't to simply protect religion from government.
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
