Something to bash on

[Occhidiangela]

Can't imagine why you'd want to.
-Lemmy

Because you put, succinctly in a well crafted paragraph, an essential point well worth making amid the noise of the partisan rhetoric typically presented on the topic. Credit where credit is due. :)

Changing perception is exactly why I think it makes more sense to debate the merits of notions like "separation of church and state." When people debate whether T.J. & The Founding Pappas meant one thing or the other, it seems to me that the constitutionality of it takes center stage rather than the merits of the idea. To me, the idea itself is the important thing, and if our constitution supports it, great! But it's possible the constitution neither explicitly supports it nor forbids it. Or maybe it's so vague we can't tell. So if, as written, the constitutionality of the idea cannot be clearly decided from what's written, we should be able to put the brakes on and say, "Let's try another approach." At what point can we say that something is independent of our existing axioms?

My best short answer to your concluding interrogative is: independence is not a necessary condition for improvement. Each "building improvement" on the edifice of values and customs builds on the foundation of what existed before (think levels of Troy) though sometimes the guest bedroom is changed into a Lounge. Little is derived ex nihilo that improves on what was before. Einstein's breakthrough is special for many reasons, its rarity not the least. The best improvements, for an organization or a society, contain critical linkages to what is being adjusted.

Occhi