Is separation necessary?
The separation of church and state is a sticky subject. But it's been shoved in front of our faces full-force in the past several weeks.
First, we hear that a judicial district in California says that in the Pledge of Allegiance, the phrase "Under God" is unconstitutional. It violates the separation of church and state, the ruling says.
A week later, we hear that the Supreme Court has permitted a voucher program in Ohio that will effectively allow parents to use public money toward private-school education.
What's wrong with this picture?
One instance finds the mention of God being taken away from the salute to the flag. The other could give taxpayer dollars to Christian schools where God is central to every classroom.
Not so clear-cut anymore, is it?
After the flag ruling, we knew there would be an outcry — and it came. The voices of the indignant, condemning immoral America in its downward slide.
Everybody said it was ridiculous. And it was — because it showed an unjustified extremism that doesn't reflect the majority of Americans' opinions.
But here's my view — and it comes from a Christian who's much more conservative than most people realize.
The separation of church and state is necessary.
So does that mean if I worked at a private Christian school, I wouldn't accept the voucher money? Yes, because it might come with governmental strings attached.
If you need an example, just take a look at the recent "flag flap" over at Hesston College.
People feared this very thing when President Bush introduced his faith-based initiatives last year. Federal funds would be used to support religious charities.
But many of those charities declined the money — not because they didn't need it, but because they didn't want governmental intervention.
Yes, removing "Under God" from the pledge was ridiculous and wrong.
But no matter what it accomplished, it showed us one thing for certain: the questions surrounding the separation of church and state may never be completely resolved.
— JENNIFER WILSON
