"I'm a brass tacks kind of guy. What exactly is it you want? I have a sinking feeling that you're advocating a system in which individual liberty would be sacrificed upon the alter of the almighty state. I find tyrannical states no more appealing than a tyrannical federal government. It's the tyranny that stinks not the level of government it emanates from."
Please bear with me if you've heard the following from me before.
I'm defending the honest interpretation of the Constitution, particularly where our religious freedoms are concerned.
The problem is that the Bill of Rights was incomplete as formal checks on the 10th A. protected powers of the states were overlooked. The resulting imbalance of state government powers and personal rights undoubtedly helped to precipitate the Civil War. The honest interpretation of the post Civil War 14th Amendment finally put in writing what the Founder's had overlooked concerning limiting the unique powers of the state governments. That was the idea anyway.
Unfortunately, instead of balancing the 10th A. protected powers of the states with 14th A. protected personal federal rights like they should, secular Justices have created a situation opposite to the pre-Civil War unchecked 10th A. powers of the states. Secular Justices have done so by ignoring the 10th Amendment powers of the states and using the politically correct, anti-religious expression interpretation of the 14th Amendment to unconstitutionally force the 1st A.'s prohibitions on religious powers of the federal government onto the state governments.
Fortunately, Justice Reed, undoubtedly frustrated with Justice Black's treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause, noted the honest relationships of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments. Justice Reed indicated that it is the job of Justices who take their oaths to defend the Constitution seriously to balance the 10th A. protected powers of the states with 14th A. protected personal federal rights:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942. http://tinyurl.com/8dzqg
So based on Jefferson's notes about the 1st and 10th Amendments and Justice Reed's notes about the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments, the states have the constitutional power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory (14th) classroom discussions on the pros and cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, for example, regardless that atheists, separatists, secular judges and the liberal media are misleading the people to think that doing such things in public schools is unconstitutional.
My bottom line is that even if I wanted absolute c&s separation, I will not tolerate a Supreme Court that has mutinied against the Article 5 power of the people to properly amend the Constitution by unlawfully legislating absolute c&s separation from the bench. If the people want absolute c&s separation then they can quit sitting on their hands and exercise their Article 5 powers to properly amend the Constitution for absolute c&s separation.
And in case you haven't already guessed, I am no longer a prisoner of conscious to the Court's bogus interpretation of the establishment clause.