A blurred line

When our country was founded and our constitution written, a distinction was made. A line was drawn separating the institutions of church and state. The very first amendment guarantees that no law will be made concerning the establishment of free exercise of any religion. Earlier today I was made aware of a new government mandate that caused me to wonder: Has that line become blurred?

The mandate I refer to (see also the Short in News) requires that all educational institutions receiving federal funds for a fiscal year must hold a Constitution Day celebration. The manner in which it happens is unspecified, but the celebration must take place. As I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong), the federal funds that EMU receives go to student aid in the form of work-study money, loans, and grants. So, because the government helps us as students to pay for our education, they can put laws into effect requiring us to hold events celebrating institutions of the state--something that, according to this country's constitution, is supposed to be separate from the church.

Don't get me wrong, I am not complaining about getting money to help me pay for school. EMU is a private school and by nature is expensive; I could not afford to attend here if I didn't receive some government loans. And I don't believe that this new mandate was intended to attack the rights of private or Christian schools. I know that the mandate is not infringing upon the freedom that is specifically guaranteed by the first amendment. That is not the issue I am addressing. What I am curious about is the blurring of the line drawn by the first amendment distinguishing church and state, a line that has reached its currently indistinct condition over the years due to the course of history and the changing ideals of our culture. Did it ever have a chance of staying clear in the developing society of our country?