The problem with much of the discussion on this issue is a kind of sloppiness. There's a good reason "separation of church and state" didn't make the Constitutional cut - it's far too vague and open to interpretation. The founders were wise enough to phrase religious rights in terms of what the federal government could not do (specifically Congress) as opposed to what citizens could do.

A good example is found in Thomas Jefferson's practice of attending church ...at the US Capitol, during his VP term and his Presidency. The author of the phrase "a wall of separation" had a very different idea of what that meant than the Supreme Court revisionists of the 20th Century.

Separation of church and state is used as a sledgehammer to restrict religion in public life. I suspect Santorum is responding to that as much as anything. We would do well to set aside the phrase and spend our time engaged in a more profitable discussion of what the appropriate Constitutional relationship between church and state is.

I appreciate the correction on the specific origin of the phrase. I should have at least remembered the use of the phrase in the correspondence. I respectfully amend my earlier comment to "the presumed author" for clarification (as the error is a common one).

That said, and your elaboration on the use of the concept by Madison, it still remains that the Founders clearly had a different vision of what such a wall meant, based on their own historical practices. I suspect the modern interpretation would surprise them greatly, and it is precisely because the concept of a "wall of separation" is open to such interpretation. The Amendment is much clearer, and accomplishes an ends much closer to the confluence of the writing and the practice of the Founders.

Very unsatisfied with the original post and even some of the responses.

We often forget the language was a sign of the times - all the religious restriction type phrases within the constitution were a direct result of the church of england and its head - the english monarch. That is the basis for no religious tests for office and the freedom of religion language - there could not be a church of the USA. State organized churches were not illegal under the constitution and in fact existed in the early years of the republic. Eventually most state constitutions eliminated their right to exist as well, although I wouldn't guarentee there isn't some place where they could exist. But on that basis alone every federal intrusion into the schools on religious matters is infact in direct conflict with the constitution as written and as understood. Since the school is not a part of the federal govt - it is governed by other chartres.

Frustrates me no end - the author misses everything. Doesn't anyone read history anymore?

And by the way - I am glad govts don't have organized churches and state support of religion as occurs in the mainland of Europe. The state has taken over religion - and no one hardly practices it. Govt kills just about everything it touches.

"Separation of church and state is used as a sledgehammer to restrict religion in public life."

Yes, I think this is right. Irrespective of what Jefferson and Madison thought about the concept of a "wall of separation, I think both men would be dumbstruck if they knew a valedictorian could not give an address at her graduation ceremony that expressed her belief that faith was instrumental in her academic success. Quite simply, that young woman cannot utter the words, "Thank you God". But in point of fact, that is exactly where many public schools are today when they (the school administration) apply the so-called separation of church and state.

The shield that Madison and Jefferson and others fashioned out of law to protect the rights of the people has been turned into a cudgel to beat the faithful that originally needed protection. Like so many things in America that were created with the best of intentions, the wall today is nothing more and nothing less than a tool of oppression.

Read the letter to (I believe) Dansbury Baptist, which was written by Jefferson. It contains the phrase wall of seperation.

Separation of church and state is usually just code for a naked public square in modern usage -- a one-way barrier that allows the state to do what it will, while de-legitimizing any response grounded in religious belief. People of faith do their cause no favors defending this concept.

Granted that often the most fervent advocates of the wise separation are to be found among the most religiously fervent.

Not suggesting that there was intention to hide the ball, but I think it is worthwhile to provide just a few words more from the quoted article at the point where Mike broke off:

Santorum seems to understand half of this equation, as he is rightly sounding the alarm about the federal government’s Health and Human Service mandate, requiring Catholic organizations to provide contraceptive coverage in their employee health plans. But he often seems too eager to use the government to promote religious ends.

That last sentence gets right to the problem, n'est-ce pas?

It's fine to refer to separation of church and state in the vernacular, and it is certainly in the American tradition to avoid religious litmus tests for political office or any other public function. It is simply misleading, however, to claim that the first amendment was intended to do anything other than prevent the establishment of a specific state religion or to prevent the government from interfering in the free expression of religion within acceptable societal and legal grounds (no sacrifice of virgins allowed). Any argument to the contrary is as ephemeral and unsupportable as the "right to privacy" Justice Brennan extracted from his alimentary canal.
I am not a Santorum supporter, although I certainly prefer him to Romney. Nor am I particularly religious myself. I'm at best a back-sliding Protestant and haven't attended a church for anything other than a wedding or a funeral in three decades. But having said all that, I have heard Santorum say nothing over the course of his entire public career that would lead me to believe he would seek to impose any specific religion upon the country as a whole, or do anything other than defend the free expression of religion in the public square; where it has been under consistent assault.
As for the Kennedy speech, it would have been one thing for Kennedy to say that as President he would not seek either permission or blessing from the Pope for any public policy initiative and would in no other way give the Vatican any veto or greenlight over public policy. What he said instead was that he would not allow his Catholicism to inform his public decision-making in any way. That was a morally vacuous statement, since it relied on the premise that the beliefs which guide your moral and ethical compass should not be consulted at all. It was also a statement which William F. Buckley, Jr. deplored as much as Santorum, for much the same reasons.
Judaism and Christianity have been the most civilizing, enlightening influences in the modern world. The 10 Commandments are echoed throughout our legal system -- both criminal and civil -- and the belief that a divine spark animates each individual is the greatest argument and the most powerful weapon against tyranny and the collective. The fact that we are even debating whether religion has a place in the public square is a sad commentary on how far America – and the conservative movement -- has drifted from its original moorings.

Once again Mr. Potemra strives to give a Christian patina to the Establishment. His less than subtle jabs at Santorum and for Romney remind one of this, Matthew 19:24.