Separation of Church and State

Or more specifically, when this concept is take much too far.

• Link one.
• Link two.

Now, to start off with, I do believe that separation of church and state is a very important part of a functioning democracy. Frankly, however, it doesn't mean freedom from religion, it means freedom of religion.

If I were a judge for this, I would tell these people to make their own memorials and stop pissing on the graves of the dead before throwing them out for basing a case on jackassery.

Well, the United Kingdom doesn't have a separation of church and state so a functioning democracy doesn't need the separation.

Edit: Jerks are jerks regardless of religious/irreligious views.

edited 16th Sep '11 3:11:24 PM by whaleofyournightmare

There is no such thing as taking it too far.

That is a firghtening consept. Is there going to be a punishment for not professing fiath?

It does mean freedom of and from religion.

Government isn't supposed to be a place for fundies to impose their religious views as public policy. People are entitled to live according to their faith (after all, their lives are their own), but they're not entitled to use government to enforce public compliance with them.

True. Point is to illustrate the Not So Different that goes on.

I expected you to want freedom of religious expression. It's privately-paid for, done in good faith without intent to harm, and completely within Constitutional bounds, IMO.

Strawman is straw. I'm saying that although no one is required to believe anything, that doesn't mean you can stop others from professing their faith, so long as they aren't doing it with government money or backing.

I think we're speaking of different things when we say freedom from religion.

What I mean is that stuff shouldn't be criminalized because some religious groups see it as sinful, that government shouldn't endorse any particular belief system and adhere to a policy of religious neutrality, and tolerate (the proper description would be to politely ignore) private expressions of religion.

No faith group should be granted preferential access to putting religious monuments or celebrating their rites or promoting their agenda on public land.

For the crosses to be acceptable, they should've been totally privately funded, to the last dime. The toleration of religious monuments of a particular faith in public land should be subject to the equal toleration of monuments of others. All in all, government should remain both detached and neutral in religious affairs.

edited 16th Sep '11 3:20:17 PM by SavageHeathen

It's impossible to not have laws based on religion because you fail to realize that so many values we don't object to are part of, say, Christianity.

Would you throw away the concepts of "don't steal, lie, or kill" merely because Christians, Jews, and Muslims agree with you? Your Approval Fills Me with Shame is a dumbass reason to throw away good laws.

This would be a problem if they were precluding other faiths from setting up memorials. To my knowledge, they aren't. None of the families are objecting. Private organizations fund the memorials entirely.

The very least the atheists could do is set up their own memorials. They wouldn't seem like such bitching little whiners if they at least proved they would do the same function without religious overtones.

Theft and murder are pretty much universally frowned upon: There are sound, secular, rational reasons to oppose those things: For starters, they're gross violations of the rights of others.

Opposition to those isn't a Christian thing, it's a civilization thing.

edited 16th Sep '11 3:26:18 PM by SavageHeathen

It's taking too far when the lack of religion becomes the religion of the land.

If "no religion" is covered under freedom of religion, then it should adhere to the same rules in the Establishment Clause. Meaning, state cannot endorse it. State endorsing it is basically taking away freedom of religion as it's originally meant.

Re: First article - I think that public mass memorials should be kept neutral, without any religious symbols, since there are definitely atheists or other non-Christians among the dead. Still, I wouldn't go as far to order a desecration of already built memorials.

Re: Second Article - If the crosses are privately funded, I really don't see a problem.

So what's the problem with putting up a cross on the roadside where a loved one died? As far as I know, most of those aren't there permanently, either due to lack of maintenance or because they eventually take it down. Like all sorts of other temporary memorials. I'm all for equal rights and stuff, but atheists are going to have to not be offended by every little thing. Frankly, I find being offended at roadside crosses as ridiculous as the whole "Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays" debate.

And those atheists suing the state shouldn't even have legal ground to stand on if it's funded by a private organization. Which it says right in that article.

Seriously, some people are just looking to be offended by things that aren't even aimed at them.

I didn't say it was. I'm merely noting that not every principle of religion is bad, or even a majority of them. It's only the ones that are very loudly espoused that usually end up being bad or based entirely on religion.

Should the government be equal to all religious faith (or lack thereof)? Yes. But that doesn't mean it has to repress belief. Freedom of religion, expression, association, and speech means that religious people can gather and do their thing just as much as non-religious people. And just like non-religious people, they don't need government funding to do it.

edited 16th Sep '11 3:30:54 PM by USAF713

Separation of church and state isn't an excuse to try and browbeat the government into insulating you from everyone else's faith or lack thereof.

There are a precious few reasons to stop someone from putting up a roadside memorial of any sort on public land, and the only one that immediately comes to mind is if it's so large and unstable it poses an actual road hazard.

edited 16th Sep '11 3:31:40 PM by Pykrete

Part of the problem, I think, is that "separation of Church and State" has had far more read into it than is actually there.

The phrase isn't even found anywhere in law. It's derived from a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut, who were concerned about the government interfering with the free practice of their faith.

The "money quote", in context:

Nothing in that sentence says anything about the government having no contact whatsoever, even if only tangentially, with religion, just that the government can't interfere with the free practice of one's faith.

(Mind you, more than a few folks aren't so sanguine on the notion of the power of government not reaching opinions, but that's another thread entirely. )

I remember the reason for seperation of church and state is because they didn't want one demonation being favored over the other.

I would derive "separation of church and state" from the First Amendment:

The State cannot and should not try to attack churches—either through tax or legal action otherwise—if they remain non-profit, law-abiding entities. Conversely, churches cannot attempt to enact laws based around religion, which would abridge other people's right to freedom of religion by forcing them to acknowledge the superior standing of a different faith.

Is it perfect? No. Is it a reason to attack private memorials for the dead which aren't even permanent? Not a chance in hell.

And hey, USAF, now we have a subject we can agree on all the way! Is there a trope for this?

That lawsuit should probably be thrown out.

These crosses are memorials for dead people that were presumably Christian (if they were erected by their families). I see nothing wrong with that, assuming that people of other faiths have the same right to their own memorials.

That's mostly why, yeah. England was a rather notorious offender of that sort of thing.

I... don't actually know. Strawman Has a Point, if you consider me a strawman for any particular stand on the political spectrum, I suppose.

I hear the sound of gritting teeth and grudging acceptance of the idea that you were being dumb.

edited 16th Sep '11 3:39:51 PM by USAF713

Savage already expressed my opinions on separation of church and state pretty completely. No public moneys for religious memorials/other things, but private funding's A-OK. It would be kind of nice if we could get the "In God We Trust" off of our money, though.

edited 16th Sep '11 3:42:47 PM by Balmung

USAF, that's not the usual interpretation of the phrase, though, at least from what I've seen (acknowledging that "anecdote" is not the singular of "data"). Almost every time I've seen the phrase used in modern times, it's in the sense of the "no contact whatsoever" I mentioned in my last post.

Tangentially, I find it somewhat amusing in an ironic sense that quite a few of those campaigning for "no contact whatsoever" are doing so with a religious fervor that would match that of the stereotypical "Christian fundie".

edited 16th Sep '11 3:43:25 PM by Nohbody

Eh, I don't think you're a strawman. You don't sound enough like a parrot. *shrug*

Anyway, is there anyone on this board would side with the atheists on this issue?

No contact whatsoever is rather impractical in a nation where most people are at least nominally Christian. It's also unreasonable to ban crosses as memorials when it seems like they're trying to abolish all religious symbols anywhere they might see them.

edited 16th Sep '11 3:44:55 PM by AceofSpades

Damn sure not me.