sodium

Church-State separation tends to be desirable, but I don't think religion can really be separated from ideology. Religious people naturally want to promote religion, that's part of their ideology. That affects what they want to do politically. And it makes sense, as long as you believe in the religious worldview.

Of course, maybe we can convince judges to impose state-church separation, despite the wishes of the majority, but I think this is destined to fail in the end. Eventually, the majority gets its way, by electing politicians who want to promote faith, and who can appoint like-minded judges.

And I don't think it's worthwhile trying to get religious people to like atheists. If you believe that atheists are going to hell, then you have to believe that God hates atheists, and so your not likely to form a contrary opinion yourself. The only way to win acceptance of atheism, is to convince people that atheism is right.

The argument of tolerance has a downside. People have become so tolerant of religious views, that it isn't even expected that people should have any reason for their beliefs. People think that they should just be able to believe whatever they like. And legally, that is the case. But it doesn't keep those beliefs from being silly. And it doesn't mean anyone else has to respect them.

When the government is proposing some faith-based initiative, I'd prefer that people didn't criticise it for violating separation of church state. I'd prefer that people would criticise it because they're paying people to spread lies.

Rhaedas

I disagree with your point for one reason. I think it's dangerous to draw a line in regards to the 1st amendment. The gov't should be impartial, period, regardless of who has the better argument, of who is right and wrong. That should be fought out on a different battlefield, not within the Constitution. Because if a line is drawn in regards to beliefs of religion, then a line can be drawn in other aspects of the 1st amendment, and that would be wrong.

But outside the gov't, all's fair...I agree that religion should be exposed for what it is and does to people, and its harm to society.

themistocles

It seems to me that what is permissible and what's not should be rather common sense. Shoving specific religion down everyone's throat through official means, or betraying/threatening the public trust with that religion (such as creationism in schools) is a no-no. On the other hand, I don't think having a Nativity scene on the court steps or providing religious tests for appointments is ridiculous.

Personally, I think the Ten Commandments in court's is proof that few are interested in sober discussion of what is "common sense", I think the fundies are trying to rub it in the face of those who might be over-zealous in the seperation matter, whereas worrying about whether our coins say "In God We Trust" or not seems so trivial, it's borderline embarrassing.

Common sense...

StrictSeparationist

Whoa! "[P]roviding religious tests for appointments" is OK in your book? That sounds like the complete absence of church-state separation to me. Perhaps I've misinterpreted this remark, however- it sounds to me like you're saying that it's all right with if in order to hold government positions, potential candidates are required to express certain religious beliefs. Borderline theocracy.

themistocles

Nope, misinterpreted.

Against religious tests. But it swings both ways, just because someone is known as an...enthusiastic Christian doesn't mean they should be automatically dismissed. I've heard other atheists concerned about certain political appointments ("he'll turn us into a theocracy") when no such things ever happen.

Common sense, says I.

Nathan Poe

and explicitly unconstitutional.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
--Article 6, clause 3.

Vylo

I wouldn't have a problem with any individual displaying their religious affiliation (judge wearing a cross, etc). The problem I have is when they use my tax dollars to do it. Things like that huge plaque of the 10 C promotes a religion (prohibited by 1st amendment) and costs us thousands of dollars. If individuals wanted to go ahead and shell out the money for such a display, that might be acceptable, though I'm a bit shaky still on how I would feel about something like that still being in a public courthouse.

StrictSeparationist

Actually, the situation you've described is exactly what has happened in Alabama, where Chief Justice Roy Moore has erected a massive Decalogue monument on the grounds of the state judicial building. The two-ton granite monstrosity was privately financed, but that hasn't stopped a U.S. District Court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals from finding the display blatantly unconstitutional as an explicit government endorsement of Judeo-Christian beliefs. You can find a thread on the 11th Circuit's decision in Glassrooth v. Moore here.

Vylo

SS yeah I can understand that, I guess I wouldn't want such a thing in a courthouse. I mean a personal display, or something temporary is one thing, but a huge permanent granite display is another.

enfant terrible

But defying the Constitution is very different from being an "enthusiastic Christian." Requiring that the official not mix government and religion is not a "religious test". It is a test of willingness to uphold the law.