Easter, and the wall of separation between Church & State ...

[sear]

Many U.S. presidents claim some religion:

- Q:

What political philosopher or thinker do you most identify with, and why?

- G.W. Bush:

"Uh Christ, because he changed my heart."

- Q:

"I think the viewer would like to know more on how he's changed your heart."

- Bush:

"Well, if they don't know it's going to be hard to explain.

Uhm, when you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as a savior, it changes your heart. It changes your life; and that's what happened to me."
- WHO-TV Republican Presidential candidate debate / Des Moines, Iowa / December 13, 1999
How is that wall of separation holding up, in this Trump administration?

Reportedly Trump's most trusted advisor, the cherry on top of his Oval Office inner circle is Jewish.

Does this Judaic presence influence Trump administration outcome?

Has it / will it influence our federal governance?
U.S. policy toward Israel for obvious example?

Our actions against Muslim extremism?

And if any of that, is it simply Trump secular attitude? Or is there more to it than that?

Happy Easter

[KarlMarx]

Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

There are no words saying 'separation of Church and State' in the Constitution. The intent of this clause was that the Founding Fathers did not want a State Church, e.g. one such as the Church of England that was sanctioned by the State, required taxes to be raised for its support,and required membership in that church.

Furthermore, there is the 2nd part of the clause, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"... like prohibiting religious displays at Christmas Time, and prohibiting prayer in school... seems to me those are violations of that part of the clause.

[sear]

Right.
The free exercise clause has been widely applied, not to prevent display of nativity scenes,
but to restrict nativity scenes on municipal (government) property.

[revelarts]

Right.
The free exercise clause has been widely applied, not to prevent display of nativity scenes,
but to restrict nativity scenes on municipal (government) property.

you left out a word.

The free exercise clause has been widely applied, not to prevent display of nativity scenes, but to ERRONEOUSLY restrict nativity scenes on municipal (government) property.


that's better.

But ALSO I also think those that are misusing it are a more focused on misinterpreting the "establishment" portion rather than the "free exercise" portion.

[sear]

"you left out a word.

The free exercise clause has been widely applied, not to prevent display of nativity scenes, but to ERRONEOUSLY restrict nativity scenes on municipal (government) property." r #4

How would it be possible to do so not "erroneously"?
It wouldn't vary from State to State, as it's federal law.

This is the very first I've ever read of this "ERRONEOUSLY" condition.
That word does not appear in the Constitution. I just confirmed that with a character string search.

I'm sure you have a point to make, perhaps even a valid one. But what you've posted so far about it is obscure to me.

"But ALSO I also think those that are misusing it are a more focused on misinterpreting the "establishment" portion rather than the "free exercise" portion."

Understandable.
The former imposes on a nation. That latter could infringe as little as the right of one individual. Neither is acceptable. But the impact of the former i likely to exceed the impact of the latter. That my cyber-friend is a fundamental of utilitarianism.