Separation of church and state

[Scooter]

Having had his ass handed to him once again by the fact that this

one finds that the U.S. Founding Fathers were totally ignorant of the "wall of separation between Church and State,"

was demonstrated to be complete bullshit, just like anything else he posts, Dave decides to switch gears and engage in the most transparent of strawman fallacies.

[Grim Reaper]

Only dgs49 (and Mitt Romney) would use a tragedy to try and score points.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I pray everyday that I remain sober. My higher power is not a person nor figurehead nor anything I can even describe in a post. (maybe a long narrative, but certainly not a post on a topic not pertaining to my higher power) And I choose not to call "it" (my higher power) God.
But I understand where the words "thoughts and prayers" are sent to those who knew and loved the deceased. I usually will just say "sorry my thoughts are with you and if you need anything, let me know". Dealing with the living relatives and friends of the deceased is not my strong suit (even when I am one of them).

I see no problem with what Hillary said here.

[Sue U]

Who, exactly, is this "we"? What exactly is a "prayer," and to whom is it directed - and for what purpose?

Was she speaking for herself, the State Department, or the Federal Government?

If I didn't know better (after reading the wisdom imparted above) I would think that this was a religious statement, grossly violative of the "wall of separation between Church and State."

As I have explained to you on numerous occasions, the mere mention of God or prayer, even in an official government statement, let alone the personal expression of an individual government employee, is not any kind of automatic violation of the separation of church and state, even viewing that separation as a wall (as the Supreme Court has said for the last 135 years, expressly adopting Jefferson's statement of the matter). The test of a constitutional violation of the Establishment Clause is whether the particular act has a primary or principal effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, or fosters excessive etaglement with religion; the government may even use religious phrases and symbolism as long as it does not appear to endorse one religion over another, or religion over non-religion, when taken in context.

This is not rocket surgery and is a standard that is easy for anyone to understand. Even those who apparently slept through first-year ConLaw.

[Scooter]

Or even those who pretend to have taken it.