In the wake of the kerfuffle over Roy's Rock, this opinion piece
appeared in the local rag:

http://tinyurl.com/kwpd

The author's premise is that it is not possible to separate church and
state. What struck me most is the rather lame apologetics offered, all
the more surprising since the author is identified as a theologian and
an "Associate Professor of Christian Thought".

He starts off with one of the theist's favourite tactics of using
definitions to his advantage. He points out that words like "holy" need
not be restricted to just the religious sphere, and that "religious" and
"secular" are not mutually exclusive, therefore there cannot be real
separation of church and state. (Yup. That's his argument, in part.)

The other part of his argument is that one cannot have both separation
of church and state and yet profess to be "one nation under God". For us
Canadians the problem is how to reconcile with a Charter that recognizes
the "supremacy of God".

Unfortunately, no real argument is presented
here; he apparently just finds it puzzling, that's all. Perhaps he feels
that if you don't specifically acknowledge the authority of the state
then the state forfeits, the remainder of your Constitution
notwithstanding.

It's too bad the prof didn't consult with his deity prior to writing his
piece. As it turns out his deity appears to be an advocate of separation
of church and state:

Mat. 22:21 Render therefore unto Caesar ......