A Separate Separation?

Seemingly lost in the media controversy of the comments from both NOLA Mayor Ray Nagin and Senator Hilary Clinton is the issue of the religious nature and/or setting of their comments. 

Cathy Young covers that ground on Nagin today and concludes:

When a conservative minister says this kind of thing about George W. Bush, it's widely taken as a sign that America is sinking into a Dark Age of religious fanaticism. Somehow, the rhetoric of the "religious left" -- aside from an over-the-top rant like Nagin's -- is not met with the same condemnation.

I addressed the issue elsewhere Wednesday and noted:

It seems to me that what Clinton did is every bit as great an entanglement of church and state as the much-criticized “Justice Sunday”. She is a leading presidential hopeful who delivered a speech that was expressly political, that criticized a specific politician, and that advocated for a certain party. I would imagine that the ACLU would be all over this. After all, a vital part of our nation’s identity was eroded, or so they say when it’s a conservative speaking in a church.

I have yet to see any of the usual talking heads pointing out that Clinton made such a partisan political speech from the poduim of a church, but I suspect that I won't. I deplore the double-standard I see on this issue.

If "separation of church and state" only means separation for some political ideologies and not others, then it's doing the opposite of what the courts have for years intended that it do. It is, in fact, using the power of the pulpit to have an inordinate impact on public discourse.