After hearing that the state of Florida changed its opinion and let a Muslim woman have her picture on her driver's license with her face covered, one American had had enough. This is an editorial written by an American citizen, published in a Tampa newspaper. Did quite a job, didn't he?

IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT

I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or his culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Americans. However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to America.

Our population is almost entirely comprised of descendants of immigrants. However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity.

As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language! "In God We Trust" is our national motto.

This is not some Christian, right-wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, a fact which is abundantly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture. If the Stars and Stripes offend you, or you don't like Uncle Sam, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.

We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. This is OUR COUNTRY, our land, and our lifestyle. Our First Amendment gives every citizen the right to express his opinion, and we will allow you every opportunity to do so. But once you're done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you to take advantage of one other great American freedom: THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.




-- Modified on 8/8/2002 5:36:59 PM

You sound like an American Taliban. Your type really makes me sick. Don't you know that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion? So I guess from your point of view, if we want to be "really" American, we all have to believe in the same GOD that you do. I hope your God isn't as narrow minded as you are!!

Well, I was born here, speak english and served in the military so that idiots like this can spout off.  No, our founding fathers were not all Christians.  Thankfully they saw the problem that arrises when religion intertwines with government.  You narow minded fools are the greater risk to all that we stand for and what truely made this nation great.

Never mix politics with sex.  Rule number 1.

the idea of allowing a face covering driver license's picture is ridiculous.  It totally defeats the purpose of a pictured ID.  May be in the future, when biometric info are included in an ID, then it will be acceptable.  As of now, decision like this just inflames ordinary people.

p.s. I don't have any religious affiliation.

My grandparents came to this country from Sicily in the late 19-teens. Although they spoke some Italian around our house and with their friends in our neighborhood, they insisted their children learn English, worked hard (amid much discrimination), gladly paid taxes (which they viewed as part of the price of freedom in this country), voted, sent their children to college, and their only son off to fight against the very country they came from. They missed their relatives in the "old country", grieved when they died one by one but never went home. They and millions of other immigrants who came in through Ellis Island asked no favors or special treatment of anyone. Because they were AMERICANS.

The emotion and the language expressed in the Tampa article could be stated in a calmer manner without using the rhetoric of us against them.  Enough said.  This is after all a hobbyist’s forum and not the best place to discuss politics.

Continuing to limit citizens personal liberties, jailing people for using drugs such as marijuana while continuing to allow deadly, but very profitable drugs like tobacco and alcohol, supporting wars across the globe against anybody who does not bend over and let their own government stick it in their ass???  Don't even get me started on gun ownership.  
I love my country but I find it is a lot easier to just ignore all current events, try my best to make the most money I can, and just buy my own personal liberties that are unavailable to the majority of Americans.  Police tend to leave a person in a luxury car alone compared to someone that cannot defend themselves...no different than the playground bully.
If someone wants to have their picture taken with their covered face, it doesn't bother me one bit.  I am not about to cash their check or accept their credit card if I am a merchant, but that is their problem.
I would like to think that through frequent world travel that I am just a bit more tolerant than the average American who doesn't often venture beyond Cancun or London.  
I, for one, do not approve of my government telling me that it is okay to kill myself with tobacco or alcohol but not other less lethal drugs and I certainly don't approve of my government telling me that it is NOT okay for me to have sex with the woman of my choice when there is a monetary gift exchanged.  Don't especially like paying higher taxes to subsidize others irresponsible behaivors either (If we are going to regulate anything, how about taking after the Chinese and allowing one child...why the hell do people feel such a strong need to procreate anyhow).  Penalize some for being too successful while rewarding others for contributing little or nothing???  
Just want the government to keep its dick out of my ass and then I will have no complaints.  Until then, I will have happy feet and continue to travel the globe and with a little luck have a residence or two in lands far away, at least for the summer months!

The issue is not religion based.  It is security based.  We have certain laws in this country that must be adherred to.  If not there would be no country, and whether all you politically correct types don't realize it it's the best country in the world.  I have travelled extensively and can say this with confidence.
Live in many other countries and see what personal freedom means.  There is no such animal.  In other countries people must assimulate and speak the language if there are to become citizens.  Maybe we should stop immigration for a period of time in order to straighten out the mess we have created, especially the many imcompetent politicians who hold office in this country.

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
George Washington

look it up.
or better yet, All Yall, read Aint Nobodys Business If You Do (The Absurdity of Consentual Crimes in Our Free Country) by Peter McWilliams
if its too big for you, to text book-ish, the quotes on all the pages upper corners are woth the price of the book.
really.
Nicole

Often our freedoms are used against us. It takes guys like this to refocus some of those fuzzy people to see common sense.

Enemies of America are really enemies of freedom. They oppose your rights to free speech, free association and your right to defend your freedoms at every turn. The have taken common sense morally correct ideas like equality and distorted it into politically correct hogwash that actually corrupts our free society.

There is danger to a free society. And the enemy knows how to fight. A free society that allows individuals to pursue rediculous and extreme positions, masked as "equality issues," based not on common sense but rather on some lawyers ability to make technical arguements that some other lawer (sitting on the bench) will honor with a supporting legal ruling, is being attacked its very corre but enemies using principlas that make our society free and just.

The enemy incourages "useful idiots" (Stalin's term for people like Ted Danson or Robin Williams) who have the public's ear, spout dogma as fact (the science of socialism is alive and well... even though bankrupt as a moral code or political ideal), live like kings and don't have the slightest idea of how horrible their dogma will make the vast majority suffer. They don't let fact or truth get in the way of their political dogma. Somewhere along the like the've been brainwashed to believe their "champagne socialist" society will benefit those starving poor ignorant peasants living in squalid poverty at the expense of the vast majority of working stiffs like you and me.

The trouble is they tell the lie that working stiffs will benefit if taxes are raised to pay for government benefits that go to "the poor," because "the rich" will be taxed the hardest.  What a blatant lie! Yet many of us believe it. Why? Who pays for "benefits?" Working people do! Those of us with actual jobs.

It blows my mind...

Who signed the "Emancipation Proclamation? A Republican President...
Who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964? A Republican Congress...
Who created the Environmental Protection Agency? A Republican President...

Who claims to be for "the environment and Liberty and Justice for all?  Yeah... it blows my mind...

Do you know who started the movement to sensor music lyrics? Tipper Gore as wife of Senator Gore! Do you know why all CD's and video games are now rated? A Democrat congress and a Democrat President... Sensorship is the first step....

Ideals of liberty and justice to be enjoyed equally by all (and the ability to defend these principles if necessary) are ideals that make the United States stand and prosper where other places with equal or superior resources struggle. Taking attention away from these core ideals and tricking us to focus on the fringes allows our enemies to dilute our core ideals. By incrementally distorting good and decent principals they damage all of us.

My understanding of government is that everybody has a voice.  just that few uses it.  Let's say, if someone was to collect a bunch of signature to legalize pot, prostitution, or what rights of self defication there is, then have it pass by some outrageous percentage like 80-90% then do you think the highest court in the land would strike it down?  Possible but not likely. But there would be a shit storm if they did.  Criticizing the government has merit often times, but it is still a fair government as oppose to a regime ran by king george, the confederate, hitler, castro, or even a taliban.  Obviously there are quite alot of things that could be better about our government, but this is what we have and it is flexible enough to be changed.  If anyone is to be criticized it is the likes of the closed minded morons who sees only christian america.  And there lies your problem, our system gives them a voice too, and apparently their is the loudest. So if you want to have the ability to pay for someone's body or smoke that joint, it is the minds of narrowed minded christians, jews, or what not who oppose the freedom of life that you have to change.  

-- Modified on 8/10/2002 12:51:23 AM

It is real simple Zorro.  If you find these other countries that you visit so superior to the United States then I suggest you immigrate to one of them.  After you obtain citizenship in your new heaven then just walk into a U.S. embassy and renounce your American citizenship.  That way you will not have to deal with the U.S. governement and struggle to earn money in this country.

too many beautiful women in the world to just settle for one place.  Eternal summer, my man, eternal summer.  Everywhere I go, I would like to see the ladies out in their summer wear, whether it is in June - September in Los Angeles or December - March in Cape Town.  Maybe for the warmer months of July to August I could be in Amsterdam where I will not get fucked in the ass by the government for doing the same to a provider while smoking a doobie.
I really do appreciate your suggestion though...very original.  Now go catch that sporting event, crack open that six pack of beer and plan out your household chores for the weekend like a good American.

There are two aspects to the melting pot.

People who come to this country should strive to fit in and adapt to their adopted country. Doesnt mean they should completely disappear or be ashamed of who they were and their customs (assuming the customs are not barbaric...)

They change to adapt to the USA, and the USA also changes because of their addition. I get irritated though when people come here and expect everyone to make allowances for them, but I dont like those who want to "stick it" to immigrants just to prove a point.

but that only brought on jealousy from the WASPy types who felt that latinos had no business living on their street and making more money than they did given both their pedigree and degrees.  
I can only imagine how hard it would be on others who were not fortunate enough to grow up in a privileged environment.  Just the same, I gave authority figures the same respect that they afforded me...little or none, and continue to do so to this day.
Even though I have been accused of being anti-American, despite my commentaries, that is the furthest from the truth.  I get teary eyed as well as the next person in times of conflict whenever I hear of a tragic or uplifting story.  Does that make me want to go out and kill every brown person on the globe???  Hardly.  There are evil people of every creed and color and I think that we should focus on those within our own borders before we start campaigning against those 10,000 miles away.  Wish we dealt as swiftly with child molestors, rapists and those who abuse animals.  
Unfortunately I cannot express myself as well as someone like, say, comic George Carlin, about the hypocrisy that goes on right here at home regarding both politics and religion, but he pretty much sums up just about all my political and religous views.
Anyhow, thanks for the response.

To hit a very specific point, and one that I think is does not have to be taken in an overly political context, what is the point in having a driver's license with a veil that obscures the features of the driver's face?  The picture no longer reasonably identifies the person to whom the license is registered.

Driving, in the USA, is a privilege -- not a right.  If the person does not want to bend to the DMV's rules, that's fine; but if the person cannot be reasonably identified by the picture, what is the point of the picture?

Am I missing something here?

-Hoot



-- Modified on 8/9/2002 9:06:48 PM

I agree and disagree with what was said. I'm whole hardingly sick and tired of everyone getting their panties in a wad over every little freakin word anyone says. This political correct crap has got to end sometime. We do need to make English the national language and be able to uphold american culture more.
Who care if it offends people we need to have a culture here.

The part I disagree with is the Christian references. I'm also freakin sick of laws based on religious morales. I thought this country was founded on seperation of church and state and I'm really getting sick of laws that are meant to guide me morally even though I would not find anything wrong with them. A perfect example would be what this forum is all about.

Religion has caused enough problems in this world, let's keep it out of our government please.

We already have groups in our country who have been here for hundreds of years who have not been assimilated.  While they don't have drivers licenses, the Amish do carry ID cards that are issued by the state department of transportation.  They are exempt from having their photo put on it due to religious reasons.  Why do we see a difference between an Amish person and a Muslim.  Didn't our forefathers come here for religious freedom?  There is no such thing in our constitution as seperation of church and state.  There is only a ban on state sponsored religion.  In other words, they can't say that Catholicism, for example, is the official religion of the USA.  If someone doesn't want their picture on a license for religious reasons there is no reason to deny them.  I wonder if this would have been such a big story if the woman had been something other than Muslim since the Bush administration has declared them the greatest evil since Hitler.

Yes, this does seem absurd.  On the one hand, the veiling of the female face can be defended on the grounds that it is required by the customs of certain traditional Muslim societies.  But if the woman feels herself bound by those customs, don't they also require that women not drive automobiles?

At the same time, I am decidedly leary of assimilationist rhetoric.  Assimilation is something our bodies do with the food we eat, and I prefer to live in a culture that does not eat people alive.  Let us eat one another other only in the ways that give pleasure, without compromising individuality.

In particular, I am leary of proposals to make English the official language of the United States.  Quite apart from the usual arguments against it--those arguments which some might dismiss as P.C.--the whole notion that the U.S. Federal Government, with all its track record of abusing the English language, should pronounce in binding official fashion on what is and is not English, is frankly enough to give me the heebie-jeebies.

I vote for secession.

It doesn't have to be original to be correct.  You are not the only person to have travelled to a few foreign countries.  One of the freedoms you enjoy as a citizen of this country is the right to complain about everything.  I just figured since you were tired of this government sticking its dick up your ass and wanted residences in a couple of other countries where the government supposedly does screw you in the ass that you would want to make your separation from the U.S. permanent.  I know that if I found a better country and government and had all your money I would move there pronto.  The hell with just a vacation.  As far as Capetown goes I would suggest you not stray too far.  Even with the diamond mines the rest of South Africa has lots of problems.  If you end up in China because you like their policy of only one child per couple you should have great fun.  With this law and the Chinese culture many female babies are killed at birth or aborted because they want male children.  It is Chinese custom that the husband and wife take care of his parents in old age not her parents.  Naturally the parents prefer male children so that they will be cared for in their old age.  Also if you are caught smoking a doobie while having anal sex with a provider you will probably get a 20 year jail term for your antisocial behavior.  Depending on the size of the doobie you might face a summary execution as a drug trafficer.

In every country I have travelled the most valuable thing I carry is my passport.  Everywhere I have went people have been ready to trade citizenship with me at the drop of the hat. Also the going rate for a stolen U.S. passport on the black market in most countries is $10,000+ in U.S. dollars.  I guess a lot of people would like to live here.

I too sometimes feel like we should stay at home, mind our own business and take care of our own problems.  That concept is usually referred to as isolationism. History has shown that the policy of isolationism has not worked very well in the past for us. I don't have time to expound on those lessons.





-- Modified on 8/10/2002 3:26:44 AM

-- Modified on 8/10/2002 3:30:27 AM

I am afraid I read parts of Zorro's original post a little differently than you did.

I do agree with you and most of the other posters that learning the English language is part of the assimilation process.  My friends from various South American countries think that we are absolute fools for having any serious debate about English being the language of this country.  They point out that unlike Canada and some other countries we started out with a common language namely English.  Anybody coming here to live should figure that they will need to learn to speak it.  They are quick to point out that if I moved to Spain, Chile, Argentina, etc. that I would be expected to learn Spanish and no one would be putting up street signs, etc. in English for my benefit.

The Amish can get away with no picture because they are not asking for the priveledge of driving a motor vehicle.  Being issued a driver's license requires you to satisfy certain conditions. For the d/l there are other requirements such as proving you can handle the vehicle. The Amish don't have to take a road test with that horse and buggy either. Having an identifiable photograph on your license is satisfying one of the requirements. This whole thing is political correctness and pandering taken to the point of insanity.

clerk: hey how was i suppose to know that she was going to blow up that plane.  Her face matched her license right down to the black veil. No one warned  me about her.


Some of you will disagree but it's time to have thumbprints id as well as picture id.  No fraud, no mistakes.  The technology is there, but costs more at first.  People are paranoid and fear the infringement of their privacy.  But it does solve the problem with preserving culture.

Agreed. A photo on the license is a requirment for issuing a drivers license. (Though I once lived in a foreign country where they did not have photos on any license, though it had more to do with technology and inertia I believe than privacy or religion). In that country a drivers license was not considered "ID" sufficient to be used in a bar or liquor store. You had to get another ID with a photo on it to be used in a bar.

She should not have been issued a license without a photo because the main purpose of a drivers license is to allow for identification, something this license will not do. Had nothing to do with her being Muslim, has everything to do with rules created for a specific and legitimate purpose.

No one says she had to get an id card with her photo on it, she wanted one. Now will everyone else who is not a muslim, be allowed to get a license photo while wearing a head scarf?

There are many customs around the world that the United States does not recognize. Polygamy, genital mutiliation for girls, not allowing women to drive (as in the muslim countries). People who come to the US need to accept the norms of this country where they serve a specific public purpose. If they can not, they should not come here.

I am not a big believer in the "English as the only official language" thing either. However, English is the defacto official language, and anyone coming here who wants to advance in society needs to learn it to function. We should not do anything which limits the ability of children from other cultures to learn english, though I dont see of the point of forcing 70 year old people into english classes if small accomodations can be made for them at very little trouble.

This lady can hand this driver's license to any other woman (or anyone dressed as a woman).  And how would anyone know it is not the person to whom the license was issued?  We have now created a generic, one size fits all, driver's license.

No one ever said that Muslims are evil. Bush said completely the opposite. I believe he said that Islam is a religion that preaches peace and we should treat Muslims in the US with courtesy and respecct. Both muslims and christians have shown that they can (as individuals and as groups) be vicious, hurtful and dangerous, and act completely contrary to the teachings of their religion. But this is the exception rather than the rule.

The problem is with certain terrorist groups and govermnents of Muslim countries. Not muslim people in general.

The situation with the drivers license would be the same whether the person is a muslim or not.

You are right though on the constitution. The separation of church and state does not exist as most people believe it goes. Its original intent was to protect religion from government, not the other way around. Its purpose was to prevent what happened in England (a state sponsored official church which was supported by taxpayers) and was already happening in some states prior to 1776.

eom

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....."

Dear Bill,

I rarely agree with you, only watch your show as a form of entertainment when I need a good laugh AND I must agree with your position on the 'Ten Commandments' issue in part exclusively based on our nation's Declaration of Independence which both you and the professor overlooked.

According to the very document that created our country, Governments are:
1.  Instituted among men...
2.  Derive their just powers from the consent of the governed...
3.  (are a function of social contract) to secure these certain unalienable rights...of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
4.  Which are endowed by their Creator.

Not only were the authors of the Declaration of Independence creating a new precedent for the institution and establishment of Governments, it is clear to me that the principle  of universal human equality is firmly grounded in our Declaration of Independence and 'endowed' by the very entity, by whose respects we pay religiously, which our Supreme Court is compelled to temper and restrain,...our Creator.  

I am confronted, on one hand,  by the moral dilemma of restricting State established and/or endorsed religious practices which caused so much suffering for those who, escaping religious persecution, originally  settled the 13 Colonies; while, yet on the other hand, cannot see the congruity between Reliefs of Fundamental Law Givers in the Supreme Court Chambers, our Declaration of Independence AND the Supreme Court's Indiana 'Ten Commandments' decree of upholding a  lower courts position.

It reminds me of the famous lines of Col. Jessup in a Few Good Men which go something like this.... "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

I think that you get the drift of Col. Jessup's words in this current context....In simple AND perhaps circuitous terms, the Supreme Court is using the words of one source document (The Constitution of the United States of America & The Bill of Rights)  to diminish the very source of our rights which our government is created to secure, given by another.  Go figure!

I am of the opinion that our founding fathers, as religious men, needed to bind our 'unalienable rights' with a Divine source, yet , were obliged to abridge the 'Government' from establishing a State endorsed or constituted religion ...as well as AND "prohibit(ing) the free exercise thereof.." I can see both (or all) of their points and refer you to the Separationist web site for further commentary on this issue.

In the final analysis, it is this ongoing dialog between proponents of all sides that keep the principles of freedom, justice and equality alive, current and flexible in our American culture, thank God....Ooops!

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tnpidx.htm

Regards,

Ilk

I, for one, would be really sad.

This is not my area of expertise, but someone like Johnny bin Walker has always been treated differently.

Americans who take up arms against their country or foreign terrorists who attack the united states have not committed the types of crimes our justice system was established to handle.

Its not like they stole a car or even broke into someones house and murdered them. They are part of a larger organized force established to fight and attack the country.

Enemy combatants on the battlefield are not entitled to counsel and they are routinely murdered (killed) without being offered the chance to surrender. Americans captured are being given more rights, but they are still enemy combatants and are treated differently because they could use the justice system and rules of discovery to aid the enemy side by transmitting information.

Americans caught aiding enemy powers during world war 2 were subject to military courts and were shot by firing squad when found guilty.

There is no evidence though that the current administration is getting even close to how the US government treated foreign soldiers and American traitors during world war 2. As far as I can tell, they are all being given access to lawyers at some point (I have no problem with the government interrogating them thoroughly without a lawyer present advising them of their right to remain silent, again because it is not a "criminal act" in the style that our justice system was established to handle). If they were captured while in the service of a foreign army, the US has the right to obtain as much information from them as they can (not advocating actual torture though...though them being heavily leaned on and made uncomfortable doesnt concern me in the least).

I was just teasing.  

My reference was actually to a story I saw on Fox News Channel regarding a secessionist group.  The idea was that this group would populate a small state, like New Hampshire; gain control of the legislature in a democratic fasion; and petition the Congress to secede from the Union; or something like that.

This is a link to the group you were talking about

I think that many of the "values" that are shared by the average joe in our country, including many people who frequently visit ladies (YES!), are so deeply ingrained by our society that most people never even notice they are there or think to question their validity. Thus, ingrained from childhood and beyond, there is a deep moral belief that ... "prostitution is WRONG, drugs are WRONG," etc... a knee jerk reaction having no basis whatsoever in facts.  THAT is more of what we are combatting than those religious right wing folks alone.  Part of why (IMO) they are so successful with their (to me) sick messages, is that these messages reverberate on many levels, even with folks who are NOT religious. It's not even a matter of just how you vote or IF you vote.

We DO have the power to change our government and change our laws, but it won't happen anytime soon without some serious money behind a huge campaing to change people's views or at least make them *think* about them for a change. Your average American looks at Operation Flea Ccollar and thinks "GOOD!, Those sick f*cks!" I have met clients of my OWN who feel that prostitution is not only legally, but morally wrong. (Hypocrisy??? YES, absolutely. But it happens. Drives me crazy. Please don't come to see me if you feel that way because I do NOT AGREE)

That's my take anyways... if ONLY it were as simple as fighting only those members of the religious right, I believe that we could make changes much faster than how it will actually happen.

Who here has read Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged? (John Galt, I know YOU have LOL!)

Hugs*
Nicole

MYTH: Separation of church and state is not in the U.S. Constitution.

FACT: It is true that the literal phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but that does not mean the concept isn't there. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

What does that mean? A little history is helpful: In an 1802 letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson, then president, declared that the American people through the First Amendment had erected a "wall of separation between church and state." (Colonial religious liberty pioneer Roger Williams used a similar phrase 150 years earlier.)

Jefferson, however, was not the only leading figure of the post-revolutionary period to use the term separation. James Madison, considered to be the Father of the Constitution, said in an 1819 letter, "[T]he number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church and state." In an earlier, undated essay (probably early 1800s), Madison wrote, "Strongly guarded...is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

As eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church, State and Freedom, "It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American people....[T]he right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial' is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that 'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including 'separation of church and state,' have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles."

Thus, it is entirely appropriate to speak of the "constitutional principle of church-state separation" since that phrase summarizes what the First Amendment's religion clauses do-they separate church and state.

(credit: http://www.au.org/myths.htm)

However, keep in mind that our country was also founded with a hefty dose of hypocrisy. Religious freedom meant "If it is a religion we find acceptable."  Quakers were whipped out of town back in the day, not to mention Catholics and heaven forbid you were Jewish!

We should stick to the general *principles* established by our founding fathers vs. what they actually did... LEARN from our history vs. repeat it... which is what I think they tried to ensure we would do by keeping as much LITERAL language out of the Constitution as possible.

(That said I do think it's silly to allow a drivers license picture to be obscured. SILLY!)

Hugs*
Nicole