I'm slightly disturbed by a misunderstanding some people here seem to have...

Here are the two most recent examples, taken from the same thread:

ebnelson said:

Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jackson. This country was founded by religious people expressing themselves. It has been led from the beginning by religious people and will continue to be so for the forseeable future. What the democrats object to is that conservative religious people are seeking a place in the public square and are not staying in the backwoods where the liberals want them to stay. [ . . . ] Now as to religion in the pubic square, I believe that religious expression has been censored very unconstitutionally for a long time in this country. I believe that people who wish to express themselves religiously in public should be as free to do so as anyone else expressing anything else. That is not the case in America today.

Tom said:

As for opposing religion in government, the Left opposes religious people in government. Is this now the same thing? Have we twisted "establishment of a religion" to mean that no one in or near government shall be an observant Christian or Jew lest he contaminate us all?

For a state to "establish" a religion means that it becomes illegal not to support that religion. The Founding Fathers came from places where this was the case. Nothing that is currently controversial on this issue comes within a parsec of this definition. It has become an issue of "offending" people who may have to actually look at something that has a religious connection, or the possibility that tax money may have gone to display something religious

I think Ed has confused a very real (and to most of us, clearly discernable) difference between political expression by genuinely religious people, and religious expression by elected office holders. I think Tom has focused on an interpretation of the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment that is far, far narrower than current Constitutional law (and which may be his own).

I'd like to hear further from both of them -- examples would be nice, too, but I won't hold my breath. I'd also like to hear from everyone else. It's an important issue, has been simmering for years, and is likely to become more important -- that is to say, divisive -- in the near future.

Oh, one more thing:

For a real good time, compare the tolerance of the Left towards Muslim religious activity in public places (like schools) to their intolerance of Judeo-Christian activity. That's another whole thread on its own.

OK, Tom - here's that thread. Now, mind telling us what you meant?