Separation of Church and State was ordained by a human tyrant in a black robe that bastardized the meaning of the First Amendment and using a letter sent by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists...your premise stinks, and living in grey areas (secular) has no bearing on the First Amendment.
Words mean things...but your type inserts crap into pretty much everything to get around the truth.
YOU are dismissed.
You may dismiss as many posters here as you wish. It doesn't change the ruling made by the SCOTUS.
And it doesn't mean that SCOTUS got it correct either, does it? They have been wrong on many things starting with Maubury V Madison...
Take it from there. YOUR belief that 9 Tyrants in black robes have the final sayso is scary, and by the way? THEY are NOT the last say in ANY matter.
Got it?
The “but the Supreme Court sometimes gets it ‘wrong’” argument fails as it demonstrates the ignorance of many on the right concerning the process of judicial review.
In fact, that the Court has erred in the past is confirmation that the process works, where the Court is able to address its errors and make corrections accordingly.
In overturning
Bowers, for example, the
Lawrence Court explained the role played by stare decisis and established precedent:
The doctrine of stare decisis is essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law. It is not, however, an inexorable command.
Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828 (1991) (“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather, it ‘is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ ”) (quoting
Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119 (1940))).
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
The genius of the Anglo-American judicial tradition, therefore, is to take into account and accommodate the fallibility inherent in all humans, and in all institutions that humans create.
For example,
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was the law of the land until it was overturned by the
Brown Court. As with
Bowers, the holding in
Plessy “has not induced detrimental reliance comparable to some instances where recognized individual rights are involved. Indeed, there has been no individual or societal reliance on [
Plessy] of the sort that could counsel against overturning its holding once there are compelling reasons to do so. [
Plessy] itself causes uncertainty, for the precedents before and after its issuance contradict its central holding.”
For the last 65 years
McCollum v. Board of Education has been the law of the land, it has been subjected to exhaustive judicial review by the courts and by the people via the political process. And unlike
Plessey and
Bowers,
McCollum recognizes “a constitutional liberty interest, [where an] individual or societal reliance on the existence of that liberty cautions with particular strength against reversing course. [
Casey] 505 U.S., at 855—856; see also id., at 844 (“Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt”).”
McCollum and its progeny remain the valid law of the land concerning the First Amendment and the meaning of the Establishment Clause, where the Framers mandated a separation of church and state, not because the Supreme Court ‘says so,’ but because the holding has withstood decades of judicial review and analysis determining its conclusion an accurate review of the relevant documents and evidence, and where the holding is consistent with protecting a constitutional liberty interest.