Our Supreme Court judges make decisions based on their underlying
personal beliefs. We would be well-served if we had judges that were
oriented to God's truth. If I were a judge, I my decisions would be
influenced by those beliefs. I wouldn't have to appeal to the Bible to
make a case for the judgments, but they would stem from those beliefs.
Secular judges do the same thing. When we get Godless people in such
positions they are able to rationalize any decision and creatively
justify any decision with lots of words. Not that hard to do.

I have no problem with an open market place of ideas, but teaching
stories that are from the Bible about character traits, such as love,
sacrifice, generosity etc etc is not allowed in our schools. It was at
one time, and our culture, in my opinion, is floundering morally now.
Other ideas don't scare me and I am not out to silence them. Christian
ideas, however, are considered a threat to secularists, and my general
sense is that they secularists want to silence that part of the public
discourse in the name of Separation of Church and State and thru
legislation and judicial decisions. “Hate crime” legislation is an
example.

However, the principle of separation of church and state was ALSO quite
clearly and unequivocally meant to provide for freedom FROM government-imposed
ecclesiastical authority as well. There can be no doubt about this. That is
how it allows for the FREE flow of religious values (e.g. the free flow of the
values of those Christian denominations which support gay marriage and of the
values of those which oppose it). It was meant to ensure the free flow of
ideas, and to protect the rights of individual conscience FROM
government-imposed ecclesiastical authority. And it was ALSO meant to keep a
check on those with theocratic aspirations. It was meant to keep those
Christian denominations which might aspire to becoming the “State Church” from
ever having the power to do so. Remember, this principle was supported by
Thomas Jefferson, a “secular humanist” if ever there was one! (He may have
even crossed over the “rabidly anti-religious” line a time or two!)

If by “religous values” in the “public square” you mean general ethical
values, such as those a Socrates, a Confucious, or a Ghandi could ascribe to,
and which are accessible to normal human reason, and subject to normal human
debate, then I would agree that such values should be part and parcel of
public life, and public debate.

But if by “religious values” you mean any doctrine that depends on Biblical or
ecclesiastical “authority”, then I think the principle of separation of church
and state really should apply to such cases.

For example, take “gay bath houses” (the argument could obviously apply to
heterosexual bath houses as well…and please note that I am not suggesting
they are “representative” of “gay sexuality”, which ranges from bath houses to
monogamy to celibacy). It is possible to argue against such places on the
basis of public health. Though I am not sure the argument would ultimately be
valid, or ultimately practical, it nevertheless IS a reasonable argument.

Any argument for making such places illegal that appeals to the Bible,
however, is unacceptable. Such an argument has no place in American public
life. What the Bible supposedly says about homosexuality cannot be used as an
“argument”. But let me be clear: what I mean by “cannot be used as an
argument” is that it cannot be used as some kind of “authority” that our
American legal code “should” follow. One's individual conscious may be
“informed” by the Bible, but when it comes to enacting laws, you have to
translate your beliefs into generally reasonable arguments–arguments based on
reason, science, facts, and ethics. “The Bible says…” is NOT an acceptable
evidence or argument for American public life. Under a theocracy such as
medieval Spain or modern Iran (though it would obviously be the Q'uran in this
cas), yes. But in the United States, no.

One unfortunate side effect of the religious “authority” approach to law is
that it creates an equally unreasonable reaction in the opposite direction.
For example, in large part due to a reaction against fundamentalist theocrats
who would (quite unconstitutionally and in quite an anti-American spirit)
impose their own version of Christianity upon the nation, many gay rights
activists have argued that consensual sex should be legal under all
circumstances. And perhaps it should, I do not know. But the theocratic
argument and the reaction it provokes only serves to obscure the very real and
rationally demonstrable interdependence of all human beings (not to mention
all beings), which, once recognized, suggests that not all “consensual sex” is
morally neutral. For example, consensual sex has, in fact, led to the AIDS
crisis, which is certainly of public concern. And what two people did in the
privacy of their bedroom has, in fact, led to contaminated blood transfusions
which killed some hemophiliac children.

Our private actions have public consequences. We ARE our brother's keeper.

But the authoritarian theocratic approach to such issues only serves to muddy
the waters, to create “equal and opposite” reaction, and to create evils of
its very own.

For another example, any argument against abortion which uses Bible verses as
a kind of “authority” has no place in our public life. For example, if you say
that because the Bible says “in your mother's womb I knew you”, we therefore
“know” that a fertilized cell is not just “human” (as opposed to “chimp”, or
“dolphin”), but also “a human being”, with human rights under the law, then
you are crossing the line. An interpretation of a Bible verse is NOT a
reasonable argument in a secular nation. Again, in medieval Spain or modern
Iran, yes. But not here in the United States. The Bible is not an authority
in our secular nation. It might be an authority for you, in your personal
life, but if you want the nation to more fully reflect your understanding of
the way things “should” be, then your arguments have to be “generally
reasonable” (that is, accessible to the general public, including people who
do not believe in the Bible). Any attempt to move the nation in the direction
you want it to move which involves any hint of an authoritarian theocratic
spirit will be, and should be, met with firm resistance.

Otherwise, we have lost our republic, for theocracy is anti-American. You
could advocate for the overthrow of the secular United States of America, and
try to replace it with The Christian States of America, but let us be clear:
you WOULD be advocating the overthrow of the present government. For the
present government is NOT a Christian government. It is a secular government.
Really. That is the truth. I'm no “relativist”!

Though I would also hasten to add that it can be, sometimes, “a fine line”,
and that the debate about separation of church and state is bound to be, well,
“messy”, with fuzzy edges. Which, I think, is a good thing. It keeps us
vigilant.

Our Supreme Court judges make decisions based on their underlying
personal beliefs. We would be well-served if we had judges that were
oriented to God's truth. If I were a judge, I my decisions would be
influenced by those beliefs. I wouldn't have to appeal to the Bible to
make a case for the judgments, but they would stem from those beliefs.
Secular judges do the same thing. When we get Godless people in such
positions they are able to rationalize any decision and creatively
justify any decision with lots of words. Not that hard to do.

I have no problem with an open market place of ideas, but teaching
stories that are from the Bible about character traits, such as love,
sacrifice, generosity etc etc is not allowed in our schools. It was at
one time, and our culture, in my opinion, is floundering morally now.
Other ideas don't scare me and I am not out to silence them. Christian
ideas, however, are considered a threat to secularists, and my general
sense is that they secularists want to silence that part of the public
discourse in the name of Separation of Church and State and thru
legislation and judicial decisions. “Hate crime” legislation is an
example.

However, the principle of separation of church and state was ALSO quite
clearly and unequivocally meant to provide for freedom FROM government-imposed
ecclesiastical authority as well. There can be no doubt about this. That is
how it allows for the FREE flow of religious values (e.g. the free flow of the
values of those Christian denominations which support gay marriage and of the
values of those which oppose it). It was meant to ensure the free flow of
ideas, and to protect the rights of individual conscience FROM
government-imposed ecclesiastical authority. And it was ALSO meant to keep a
check on those with theocratic aspirations. It was meant to keep those
Christian denominations which might aspire to becoming the “State Church” from
ever having the power to do so. Remember, this principle was supported by
Thomas Jefferson, a “secular humanist” if ever there was one! (He may have
even crossed over the “rabidly anti-religious” line a time or two!)

If by “religous values” in the “public square” you mean general ethical
values, such as those a Socrates, a Confucious, or a Ghandi could ascribe to,
and which are accessible to normal human reason, and subject to normal human
debate, then I would agree that such values should be part and parcel of
public life, and public debate.

But if by “religious values” you mean any doctrine that depends on Biblical or
ecclesiastical “authority”, then I think the principle of separation of church
and state really should apply to such cases.

For example, take “gay bath houses” (the argument could obviously apply to
heterosexual bath houses as well…and please note that I am not suggesting
they are “representative” of “gay sexuality”, which ranges from bath houses to
monogamy to celibacy). It is possible to argue against such places on the
basis of public health. Though I am not sure the argument would ultimately be
valid, or ultimately practical, it nevertheless IS a reasonable argument.

Any argument for making such places illegal that appeals to the Bible,
however, is unacceptable. Such an argument has no place in American public
life. What the Bible supposedly says about homosexuality cannot be used as an
“argument”. But let me be clear: what I mean by “cannot be used as an
argument” is that it cannot be used as some kind of “authority” that our
American legal code “should” follow. One's individual conscious may be
“informed” by the Bible, but when it comes to enacting laws, you have to
translate your beliefs into generally reasonable arguments–arguments based on
reason, science, facts, and ethics. “The Bible says…” is NOT an acceptable
evidence or argument for American public life. Under a theocracy such as
medieval Spain or modern Iran (though it would obviously be the Q'uran in this
cas), yes. But in the United States, no.

One unfortunate side effect of the religious “authority” approach to law is
that it creates an equally unreasonable reaction in the opposite direction.
For example, in large part due to a reaction against fundamentalist theocrats
who would (quite unconstitutionally and in quite an anti-American spirit)
impose their own version of Christianity upon the nation, many gay rights
activists have argued that consensual sex should be legal under all
circumstances. And perhaps it should, I do not know. But the theocratic
argument and the reaction it provokes only serves to obscure the very real and
rationally demonstrable interdependence of all human beings (not to mention
all beings), which, once recognized, suggests that not all “consensual sex” is
morally neutral. For example, consensual sex has, in fact, led to the AIDS
crisis, which is certainly of public concern. And what two people did in the
privacy of their bedroom has, in fact, led to contaminated blood transfusions
which killed some hemophiliac children.

Our private actions have public consequences. We ARE our brother's keeper.

But the authoritarian theocratic approach to such issues only serves to muddy
the waters, to create “equal and opposite” reaction, and to create evils of
its very own.

For another example, any argument against abortion which uses Bible verses as
a kind of “authority” has no place in our public life. For example, if you say
that because the Bible says “in your mother's womb I knew you”, we therefore
“know” that a fertilized cell is not just “human” (as opposed to “chimp”, or
“dolphin”), but also “a human being”, with human rights under the law, then
you are crossing the line. An interpretation of a Bible verse is NOT a
reasonable argument in a secular nation. Again, in medieval Spain or modern
Iran, yes. But not here in the United States. The Bible is not an authority
in our secular nation. It might be an authority for you, in your personal
life, but if you want the nation to more fully reflect your understanding of
the way things “should” be, then your arguments have to be “generally
reasonable” (that is, accessible to the general public, including people who
do not believe in the Bible). Any attempt to move the nation in the direction
you want it to move which involves any hint of an authoritarian theocratic
spirit will be, and should be, met with firm resistance.

Otherwise, we have lost our republic, for theocracy is anti-American. You
could advocate for the overthrow of the secular United States of America, and
try to replace it with The Christian States of America, but let us be clear:
you WOULD be advocating the overthrow of the present government. For the
present government is NOT a Christian government. It is a secular government.
Really. That is the truth. I'm no “relativist”!

Though I would also hasten to add that it can be, sometimes, “a fine line”,
and that the debate about separation of church and state is bound to be, well,
“messy”, with fuzzy edges. Which, I think, is a good thing. It keeps us
vigilant.

From wikipedia:

The concept of separating church and state is often credited to the writings
of the British philosopher John Locke.[11] According to his principle of the
social contract, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the
realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could
not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this
created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must
therefore remain protected from any government authority. These views on
religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with
his social contract, became particularly influential in the American colonies
and the drafting of the United States Constitution.[12]

The concept was implicit in the flight of Roger Williams from religious
oppression in Massachusetts to found what became Rhode Island on the principle
of state neutrality in matters of faith.[13][14]
Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, supported the
separation of church and state.

The phrase “separation of church and state” is derived from a letter written
by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury
Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution, Jefferson writes:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man
& his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,
that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I
contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people
which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus
building a wall of separation between Church & State.[15]

Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the
United States Bill of Rights, who often wrote of “total separation of the
church from the state.”[16] “Strongly guarded as is the separation between
Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States,” Madison wrote,[17]
and he declared, “practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government
is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of
the United States.”[18] In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further
expanded, “We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better
without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other
lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid
of Govt.” [19] This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for
Religious Freedom, originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, but championed by
Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion
or denomination.

… no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious
worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained,
molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on
account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to
profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion,
and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil
capacities. [20]

Under the United States Constitution, the treatment of religion by the
government is broken into two clauses: the establishment clause and the free
exercise clause. While both are discussed in the context of the separation of
church and state, it is more often discussed in regard to whether certain
state actions would amount to an impermissible government establishment of
religion.

The phrase was also mentioned in an eloquent letter written by President John
Tyler on July 10, 1843. [21]

The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and
state metaphor more than 25 times, first in 1878. In Reynolds, the Court
denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed
polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom. The Court used the phrase
again by Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in Everson. The term has been used and
defended heavily by the Court, but is not unanimously held. In a minority
opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the
establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion
from federal interference. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a
bulldozer removing religion from American public life.

On the other hand – if it is true, I have no trouble placing the blame at Augustine's doorstep. Miserable man. It's a cruel irony that Christian theology has been shaped by some of the most mean-spirited, dysfunctional personalities in history. Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin (that abomination) – they took a bad situation and made it worse than it had to be.

Universalism was a fairly commonly held view among theologians in early Christianity: In the first five or six centuries of Christianity, there were six known theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Cesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality, and one (Carthage or Rome) taught the endless punishment of the lost.[3] The two major theologians opposing it were Tertullian and Augustine.[citation needed]

In the seventeenth-century and eighteenth-century Europe and America, other Christian reformers came to believe in a universally loving God and felt that God would grant all human beings salvation. They became known as the Universalists.