President Obama's speech

[Play Angry]

The Constitution is a tool used by the Supreme Court and legislators to justify policy decisions - it can be read and interpreted in a way to support either side of almost any argument. Liberal judges utilize dynamic interpretations of the document when it provides a means to their desired end, and conservative judges do the exact same.

The more decisions you read, especially older ones (if you think jurisprudence produces some historically wacky decisions now, you lack understanding of the first hundred-plus years of our country), the more disillusioned you become with regard to there being a "right" way to approach decisions. The sooner you embrace this, the better. Every judge simply uses the constitution as a weapon to fight for the result he/she believes is right, and they are wildly inconsistent (nay, unprincipled?) on both sides when it comes to changing their favored approach to fit their desired ends.

That doesn't mean folks shouldn't fight for and argue in favor of their desired result - quite the opposite, the opinions of society are probably the most influential power over the court decisions that change our lives. Just know that terms like originalism, strict constructionism, textualism, etc. are just strategies used at different times by both sides depending on the argument. There isn't one universally "correct" approach - they all have holes, and lots of them.

Separation of church and state is an interesting issue where people have strong opinions. I think a lot of those opinions (on both sides) are based on misinformation, which is unfortunate.

[wufan]

Kal and SB provided some much needed clarification and additional information to my original point. Thank you to both! The words do read "separation of Church AND State", not from. They also do not put one above the other, but instead insinuate that each has equal power over different aspects of one's life; spiritual vs citizenship.

[Rlh04d]

I think you're making a good point, even if that wasn't your intent. The founding fathers never intended nor interpreted the meaning to keep religion out of politics but to keep politics out of religion.

This is supported by more than 200 years of factual evidence. It's only been recently, as the country has become far more litigious, that an increasing plurality of liberal jurists are interpreting what I call a least common denominator mentality to laws across the board. In other words, find the most unique circumstance and that's your baseline. It's an argument as old as time. Some people don't want change, others believe all change is good, similar to evolution. Adapt and survive. This day and age however, there seems to be little if any middleground. Both sides are digging in their heels, and a clear victor has emerged, I believe, to the detriment of society. But that's only my opinion.

That's one of the things that makes me most sick about our current political situation. We've made both parties so extreme that there's no longer a middle ground. And when the choice is between two extremes, one extreme is going to win -- and if you're on the extreme end, that means you either get EVERYTHING you want or NOTHING you want. If we as a people could simply moderate ourselves and meet in the middle with workable compromises we can all handle, everyone would be better off.

[Rlh04d]

I am quite obviously less interested or educated about presidential history than you are, and I actually wasn't trying to make a point one way or the other. Was just wondering aloud about something that I have wondered about with not only the current POTUS, but also some of his predecessors. I suppose if I cared enough about it, I would do some research, rather than just wondering aloud. I guess I was just being lazy and hoping someone would say something that would enlighten me. It confuses me that they want everything church related (crosses, 10 Commandments, etc.) taken out of government buildings, but they want to make speeches/statements/eulogies in church settings. Not saying it's right or wrong. Just seems odd to me.

Definitely understandable. I just wasn't sure if you were making a larger point and had just skipped over explaining it.

I don't see as how a separation of church and state Constitutionally should prevent government officials from speaking at churches, though. But then I'm not part of the fringe that wants all religion stripped from all elements of our government, either.

[wufan]

If you think our parties are extreme, move to Europe and see what they're all about.

[Rlh04d]

If you think our parties are extreme, move to Europe and see what they're all about.

Eh. There aren't many extreme European parties with significant support, that I've seen. With the possible exception of France, which is moving in an extreme way in response to Middle Eastern immigrants.

If we had a Parliamentary system, we'd have some insane fringe parties drawing decent support.