In response to Is separation of church and state important...?
by fourwingfive:
This is in response to a journal entry by fourwingfive and several subsequent comments made on the the subject of separation of church and state in America and how it is being applied (or misapplied) in the courts and in public policy and also on the topic of the "persecution" of Christians in general, as well as some thoughts on how secularism, atheism and agnosticism should be regarded by government.

First I'll address the persecution complex that some Christians seem to be exhibiting signs of. In reply to brennalass particularly: I may make disparaging remarks about your religion, because I think that religion is utter nonsense that is damaging to human scientific, ethical and social progress. I think the indoctrination of children into religion is a travesty and an abuse of their developing intellect, but I'm not going to say there should a law against polluting the minds of your children in such a manner, as I don't want to impinge on anyone's civil rights or endorse an unenforceable law, or resort to the methods of a totalitarian regime.

What I, and most atheists/agnostics, as well as some people of minority faiths are against is the integration of the majority religion (or any religion) into public institutions with the sponsorship and approval of government. We are also typically against the notion of teaching dogmatic, non-scientific ideas in science class, particularly in public schools.

How is this, in any way, forcing you to lock your beliefs up in a closet? You can still say whatever you want about your religion, go to church, raise your children in the tradition of your faith and attempt to convert others. You may catch some criticism if you make "politically incorrect" remarks maligning another faith (such as Islam), just as I might for saying some of the things I have to say about your religion, but we're not exactly talking sticks and stones here. Being told that your comments are insensitive, ignorant or stupid doesn't mean you're being "forced" into any particular position. The government isn't going to drag you off to prison for espousing your opinion, and if it does, you can be assured that I'll share your contempt for your government.

Next (this is mostly in response to Hamachi), secularism is not a religion and should not be respected as a religion. It should be respected as thought lacking the bias of religion. You don't have to be atheist or agnostic to look at problems, situations and decisions through a secular lens and in fact most people operate on a secular level most of the time in their decision making, and this includes religious individuals. Our government should be a secular entity not (or not only) because secularism is a more rational way to approach issues, but because it's the only way to preserve equality and protect minority faiths (and, yes, non-faiths too) from the influence of majority faiths.

That is why religion should be a total non-factor in determining the policies and practices of public institutions. There is no practical, ethical alternative that is in line with our constitutional ideals. If we do allow religious doctrine to invade the public space, do we strive to make sure every faith gets its equal and fair share of representation? Do we engrave the Ten Commandments in this courthouse and a star of David in that city hall and quotations from the Qu'ran in the grammar school down the road? Do we teach thinly veiled religious dogma in science class, Intelligent Design beside Evolution beside the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Or do we allow the culture and beliefs of the majority religion to seep into our public institutions unchecked, possibly to gain a dominating influence, ultimately resulting in the alienation those of differing faiths? Should we force a Buddhist or atheist to pay lip service to a god they don't believe in whenever they properly recite the Pledge of Allegiance?

For me the answer is obvious ... a secular government with secular institutions that respect the freedom of people to worship in whatever manner they wish, as long as they respect the law when it comes to things like not lynching heathens or flying airplanes into their buildings. This fulfills Jefferson's desire for a state where minority religions protected from majority religions and all religions protected from the government, because religious favoritism in government is anathema, and free of speech and freedom to worship is respected as a fundamental right.