Mousethief, I've been pondering your assertion that separation of church and state wouldn't prevent the incident I described above.

If you think of separation of church and state as being purely a legal principle, where the only means of enforcing it is to sue someone, then I suppose you're right. But I think of it as more than that. For me it's also an ethical principle, a moral ideal, and I wish more people accepted it as such, too.

Here's an analogy: Assault and battery is a crime, punishable by a jail term. But that's not why we teach our children not to fight. Most adults feel that unnecessary violence is morally wrong. (Interestingly, I don't see anything in the Ten Commandments that prohibits punching your neighbor in the nose, so I wonder why so many people consider them the paragon of moral guidance.)

When kids fight, most adults will intervene to stop them. We usually don't find it necessary to call the police or sue the other kid's parents. That's because there is a consensus among adults that fighting is a bad thing. If we did not have this consensus - if, say, one kid's parents encouraged him to assault other kids - then perhaps we would be forced to have the police or the courts intervene.

Now I believe that needlessly flouting your religious beliefs, practices, or lack of them, in front of people whose beliefs are different, is morally wrong. I wouldn't invite a Muslim to my house for dinner and then serve him pork. I wouldn't hide the fact that I sometimes eat pork, but I probably wouldn't cook it or eat it in front of him, either. I would do this because (1) I want to be polite and respectful and make him feel comfortable, and (2) I don't feel that going without pork for a short time is much of a hardship for me.

Separation of church and state is simply politeness extended to the public sphere. Or at least it COULD be thought of that way, if we could count on people to be polite. But I'm afraid we can't. Unlike fighting, we don't have a consensus in America about whether religious practice in public is good or bad, offensive or honorable, uplifting or degrading. It's because of this lack of consensus that we end up fighting it out in court.

I wish religious people all felt that they could refrain from vocally praying in public schools as easily as I refrain from eating pork while my Muslim friend is visiting. That just seems like the polite thing to do. And that's what the majority of religious people actually do. It's only a minority (but possibly a majority in some areas) who claim that NOT vocally praying is a hardship and an injustice. I can't help but feel they are a bit disingenuous (to put it mildly) when they claim to be an OPPRESSED minority.

To get back to my original point - if there were a consensus that separation of church and state is more than a legal principle, but also a moral ideal, then I would have some basis for approaching that teacher who insulted her student's religion. I could say, "Look, this is a public school. You are paid by tax money. You have no business commenting on other people's religion." And I might have some chance persuading her to stop. But without that consensus, the teacher could equally claim, "Hey, you're trying to restrict MY freedom of speech!" And if I had to appeal to the administration, I wonder whose side they would come down on?