The separation of church and state is a concept that is often talked about, but there's hardly a national consensus on what that should look like–or whether it should exist at all. In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has been shifting towards an "accomodationist" interpretation, say the authors of The Religion Clauses: The Case for Separating Church and State. To Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman, this is a dangerous approach. In this episode of the Modern Law Library podcast, Chemerinsky and Gillman explain to the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles the difference between separationist and accomodationist views, the reason they felt that it was an opportune time to write this book, and what they hope to accomplish with its release. They also stress that a separationist view is not hostile towards religion; rather, it maintains a neutrality to not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs or prioritize one religion above another. (Note: This podcast was recorded before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.)