Well, it's probably not the right forum but you asked, and I apologize to the rest for this diversion.
As a historical matter, the notion of separation of church and state has never extended to the private expression of faith in the course of one's official duties until recent times. In fact, on the contrary, there is jurisprudential precedent since the earliest times of the country's founding and well into the 20th century that the country is founded on Christian values and it is a Christian nation. This view was not considered to be inconsistent with rights of free expression and practice. In fact, there are even references to "Mohammedans" being present and being able to freely practice provided they conformed to civil laws which were informed by Christian ethics (thusly, why most courts used to post the 10 commandments until very recent times). The singular letter that is consistently misinterpreted and, if read out of context, stands in opposition to the writings of other founders of the period is Jefferson' reference to a wall separating church and state written to a Baptist church in Danbury, Connecticut. In recent modern times, progressive left legal scholars known as positivists seized on that singular instance of language to reinterpret the Constitution's free practice guarantee and prohibition against making laws respecting or prohibiting religion. As a matter of legal interpretation and customary practice for over 150 years, there was never any understanding that prayer was prohibited in schools, in legislatures, in courts or any other place. As pertains Herbst, she reflexively took the public position that a prayer by a coach was intrinsically offensive, and because of his beliefs and expression of them, he was forced out. This is by definition intolerant and an abuse of power under the impratuer of government authority. It is part and parcel of an ongoing sanitizing of Christianity from public life when it was never intended to be the case. Several generations of legal scholars have been poisoned by positivism (the notion that you can interpret Constitutional provisions as you see necessary to fit modern times, when as a fundamental matter the provisions are fashioned on immutable matters of natural law emminating not from man but from the higher authority of God). It is precisely why these rights are not given or granted but exist independently of any state's authority. They are the basis of human liberty and limit a state's power. That is my reasoning. But, you won't hear this in many places because the leftist agenda has infiltrated most institutions of learning and the goal of disconnecting God from mankind to shift authority to the power of the state in alignment with socialism is on the rise. So, there it is in quick nutshell.
I promise the rest of the BY'rs not to further continue this on our football site.
