State assaults on the separation of church and state are nothing new.
The United States may be a religious nation. But it is also a nation with a strong commitment to separation of church and state.
I think church and state should remain entirely separate at all costs, and that the decision of religious marriage should be of each faith to debate and decide free of political influence.
Usually, it is not my habit to address religious issues on the floor. I strongly believe in a person's right to religious freedom, as well as the separation of church and state.
When Pat Robertson says there is no constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state, I say he is wrong.
One area where American Jews have something to teach Israel is religious pluralism, something that living in a democracy with a separation between church and state has helped us fine-tune.
The separation of church and state was meant to protect church from state; a state that declares religion off limits in public life is a state that declares itself supreme over all religious values.
When cerebral processes enter into sports, you start screwing up. It's like the Constitution, which says separate church and state. You have to separate mind and body.
There's no question that a public official of either party can take it too far, and it's up to the candidate to be able to strike that balance, the balance that is the separation of church and state. The way I've always looked at this is that every candidate has a right to talk as much or as little about their faith as they deem appropriate.
Ultimately, the court is heading to a doctrine of 'separation of campaign and state.' This doctrine, like separation of church and state or separation of military and civilian authority, is not explicit in the Constitution but flows naturally from its structure and commitment to freedom and democracy.
