The concept of a "wall of separation" between church and state is a lot older than 60 years. Here is an excerpt from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802 (204 years ago, for those keeping track).

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Thomas Jefferson is the person who came up with the idea of a "wall of separation between church and state". I don't think Newt (or you) is qualified to say that he knows more about what the founders of this country had to say about the matter than Pres. Jefferson.

Paul, Jefferson described and defined the wall clearly: "make no law respecting" and "or prohibiting the free exercise" His comments to the Danbury congregation confirmed their autonomy from government tyranny. I am as certain as you that the folks at Danbury would never have given their assent or support for a government that was in any way hostile toward their beliefs.

What we have allowed to evolve is something else.

Somehow the Supreme Court embraced an interpretation that truly does prohibit the free exercise of religion. In fact the Court has acted as a de-facto legislature by making laws respecting established religions.

It is this set of facts that not only I, but any reasonably educated person is qualified to observe.

We must not take the "idea of a wall" and expound beyond the words which specifically guarded against creation of a state religion. Such is the folly of believing the Constitution is "living" and must take meaning from the changing winds of contemporary social climates.

Oh poor conservatives! How oppressed and ignored are they. Oh pity them, for they have no power! Oh poor Christians, how oppressed are they in American society. Liberals control society, it just isn't fair! Oh if only the conservatives controlled the government, then we could really get America on the right track!

Oh if only the conservatives controlled the government

Missed the point, there, Josh. It is not about control. Purely and simply, it is about preventing the government from restricting religious observance. That means NO LAW RESPECTING and NO PROHIBITION against the free exercise.

It is a shame that none of you guys were around to advise the folks who actually gave us the original protections -- but your ilk have surely been present to corrupt them!

This applies to government bureaucracies too, Larry. You can't say "Congress can't make a law establishing religion" and then have bureaucracies established by Congress and the institutions they've created (such as government-run schools) promoting religion, in any form. Trying to do so is just trying to make an end-run around the Constituion.

Government institutions (as they are all established by Congress) should be free of religion, period. They shouldn't be promoting any religion - as that is making laws that respect the establishment of religion, whether it's in a small way or not.

I'm a BIG fan of Newt (politically speaking). His knowledge of history and politics makes him a valuable asset to the GOP. He may not be elected President but I believe he could serve in some fashion within a Republican Administration.
The problem with this 'culture war' is that the political right act as if they are 'losing' and so does the political left. This causes both sides to act in extreme manners. The piece by Linda Campbell and Larry's piece above are good examples of that. It's no longer a 'debate', its' 'war'!
Unfortunately, in a war, someone has to win, lose or surrender, right?

Your statement "should be free of religion is exactly what I have been writing about!

Where in history, in what way, and by what reasoning did the idea that government (or its creations) must be devoid of religion??? Are you aware that public schools began as religious bastions specifically espousing Protestant doctrine as a matter of policy and intent??

I acknowledge that the Georgia Constitution specifically prohibits public funds from directly or indirectly benefiting any religious organization. Yet I further acknowledge that failure to teach religion, doctrines and belief systems is to deprive students of any real understanding.

Slamming this door, I think, is proving fear of something neither the ACLU nor teacher's unions can control.

By what reasoning did the idea that government or it's creations must be "free of religion"?

By the reasoning that by involving religion in government (including it's bureaucracies) government gets into the business of promoting religion. Unless you're going to promote every possible religious viewpoint equally (which is impossible) then you're going to be using government power to promote one religion or another, and that is making laws that are respecting the establishment of religion (by more firmly establishing that religion through promotion). Since we cannot promote every possible religious viewpoint equally, then the only way government can be prevented from making laws respecting the establishment of religion is to completely prevent the government from being involved with religion whatsoever, or religion involved with government. By creating a "wall of separation".

We got too much government is the problem. Get the government out of our neighborhoods and schools and restaurants and social clubs and we can have all the religion we want.

"This applies to government bureaucracies too, Larry. You can't say "Congress can't make a law establishing religion" and then have bureaucracies established by Congress and the institutions they've created (such as government-run schools) promoting religion, in any form. Trying to do so is just trying to make an end-run around the Constituion."

The end run around the Constitution is the establishment of such things as government run schools. Why should the fact that the government ignores the Constitution be suprising?

Larry: "What Newt is saying is the obvious truth that 99% of Americans believe: We are who and what we are in relation to a higher power and neither politicians nor judges can change that fact."

I'd venture to say that more than 1% of the US are atheists, Larry.

Larry: "Somehow the Supreme Court embraced an interpretation that truly does prohibit the free exercise of religion. In fact the Court has acted as a de-facto legislature by making laws respecting established religions."

Larry, you're mistaken about what an "established" religion is. America has no "established" religions.

Chris: "We got too much government is the problem. Get the government out of our neighborhoods and schools and restaurants and social clubs and we can have all the religion we want."

I completely agree. How can we separate government and religion if government encompasses our entire lives? One crowds the other out.