What Does Separation of Church and State Mean?

PragerU always gives me a laugh. If the argument for government not to promote one religion over the other and the Christian argument is to bring God back into schools then it should be done fairly to respect everyone’s belief. Thus, Muslims can do their form of prayer much like the Judeo-Christian can do theirs. And so on for any other faith. Meanwhile atheists could be excused from the classroom during prayer.
And of course, we can count on PragerU to suggest a prayer that begins with “In God...” and ends with “Amen” is a universal prayer accepted by all faiths. I’d like to hear the opinion of others on that.
And of course, associating lack of religious identity in school and government as a cause for increased crime and fatherless families is absurd. Faith along with values, morals, and ethics begin at home not in school, church or government. This issue isn’t black or white but layers of cultural grey influences.

There's a very old and rather dubious legend that states a mysterious figure was present at the Constitutional Convention. According to the story... the same was only heard once; during the debates surrounding what would become the First Amendment. Variations on this myth abound, but the "gist" of the tale is that this mysterious speaker advocated against the establishment of any "national religion"-against the previously established sentiments of many present. Similarly, it has been told that during the forming of the modern state of Israel, a nearly identical debate prevented Judaism from being recognized as the "official" religion.

I don't know if there's any truth behind either story; frankly-I doubt either unfolded as told. However, these tales do illustrate the feelings of many (myself included) regarding the relative futility of attempting to codify national law without either endorsing or rejecting divine law. In my opinion, such "compromise" only serves to convince the faithful (of any faith, that is) that their beliefs are subservient to legislation... while leaving those without faith believing they must always struggle against the presence and influence of faith within government.

That being said, I believe it has "worked" by and large, for more than two centuries in the United States, for the simple reason that throughout much of that history... the vast majority of Americans endorsed "Christian" values. This is always subject to "interpretation", and while these beliefs have sometimes been "twisted" from their original frames to defend everything from "Manifest Destiny" and slavery, to Segregation... so too have these same beliefs formed the basis of civil opposition to the very same evils. Many early American religious leaders (Juan de Escalona, John Eliot, and William Penn just to name a few) feared from the very beginning, the melding of human greed and power with the selflessness and brotherhood taught by Christ.

Ultimately, I believe the "high water mark" for the conflict between patriotism and theology occurred in the first half of the 20th Century... initiated by the excess of the "Roaring Twenties", hardened by the "Great Depression" and World War II, and burnished in the continuing moral debates begun during the "Cultural Revolution". We are now several generations into a post-patriarchy, post-monogamy, post-ecumenical society that can no more universally embrace the tenets of any one "religion"; especially not one that harkens back to these abandoned cultural principles...

... and yet, these principles remain, often protected by law.

This means that for those who regard certain faiths as being "counter-cultural", there is an uncomfortable reality that stands in the way of total ascendancy. I believe their current strategy is to wait for these theologies to "die a natural death", spurred along by unceasing conditioning of each subsequent generation through everything from media to academia. However, they seem to be having inconsistent success... as each generation brings forward its own crop of traditionalists, theologians, and true believers. Again, in my opinion, this will eventually compel the opposition to more direct, more substantial methods. We may, or may not, be seeing some of that unfold before us in the present day.

CPT Jack Durish - you know, of course, that PragerU is just parroting the position of the moneymen that pay Prager to do this, the Christian Dominionists Wilks brothers, Faris and Dan. Second, he's got his facts wrong, or at least he doesn't go far enough back. While it is true that Jefferson wrote the phrase in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, the idea of separation of church and state started about 167 years before, see https://www.au.org/church-state/april-2003-church-state/featured/the-forgotten-founder when Roger Williams argued that an oath to God should not be required for a civil office. Williams was then persecuted and fled to what is now Rhode Island, where he established a colony with true religious freedom for all, and with a built in separation of church and state.

Williams said that a "hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the world" was necessary to keep religion out of government, and government out of religion.

Plus Eastman is just wrong about the phrase appearing only in 1947. It was first mentioned at SCOTUS in dicta in 1910, in American Federation of Labor, Arizona State Federation of Labor v. American Sash Door Company Lincoln Federal Labor Union No 19129, 335 U.S. 538 (1910). And it was first mentioned by a state court, much earlier, in 1857, see Miller v. Kirkpatrick, 29 Pa. 226 (Pa. 1857). This was followed by cases in Missouri (1873), South Carolina (1883), Indiana in 1891, and so on. There are thousands of cases on the subject, most of the predating the Everson v. Board of Education (1947) SCOTUS decision.

Like most videos by PragerU, this is just more propaganda, and it's poorly researched propaganda. Plus Jack, you should know this, or if not, should have fact checked it. You knew that I would.