What separation?

There is little doubt that as long as this country exists, we'll be fighting over the blurry line that is the separation between church and state, a line that has certainly moved more towards the proper center position as the country (and its law) has matured.

But with the wave of Republicans who have swept into legislatures across the country, you can bet the pushback is going to be strong. Take, for example, South Dakota, where they just passed, with little opposition, a non-binding resolution encouraging schools to teach Bible study courses in school.

This particular bit of legislation is typical of the right in that it's toothless, likely because they know it would never stand up constitutionally (even if they say it's because of that other Great Conservative Truth, the desire that no larger governmental body should ever tell any smaller governmental body what to do). They wanted it only to be a "legislative green light." And what this silliness will no doubt end up in is expensive lawsuits for local school boards who have no business wasting taxpayers' money tilting at windmills.

The whole matter of the right's indignation over supposed removal of religion Christianity from schools has always fascinated me, because it really does come down to a matter of freedom of my religion -- it's not forcing your religion on someone else if you are right. As is typical of the right on a gamut of issues, neutrality is not enough; as Faux News has proven, if you're not with us actively promoting our agenda, you're against us.

As evidence of this, here is a quote from Republician State Rep. Steve Hickey (who also happens to be a "pastor"), who sponsored the South Dakota bill:

 “I would tell those who fear this, now you know how Christians feel when they send their kids off to a public school that is overtly hostile and propagates secular humanism,” Hickey said. “The pressure from that perspective to teach secular humanism in high school and college is far, far greater than proselytizing in a Bible course.”

The problem? Secular humanism isn't a religion -- hence the "secular." The humanism part is more of a philosophy, while the secular part is simply a statement that the humanism isn't bound to religion (there also is such a thing as "religious humanism"). What secular humanism promotes is no religion, not Islam, Judaism, Baha'i, snake-handling, etc.

The separation of church and state doctrine really comes from the goal of "no establishment of religion," so secular humanism would seem to toe the line. But that's not what some people want -- again, freedom of religion means "freedom of my religion." So, if you're not promoting my religion, you are being "overtly hostile" to me.