Freedom of expression

Originally posted by Rank outsider
The fact that you think you have the right to demand preferential treatment for your religion on the grounds of being in the majority does rather demonstrate the moral bankruptcy at the heart of most organised religion.

Since when do I demand preferential treatment?

In fact, personally, I think sonhouse is right in wanting to be free of religious influences on his life in the public realm.

Religious people should keep it to themselves. On the other hand so should big mouth atheists.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
However, if they deviate too far from the definitional norm, then communication is impaired.

If one is going to use a non-standard meaning for a term, one ought to say so up front, to avoid confusion.

Well, Jefferson's "wall of separation" letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was intended to assure them that the Bill of Rights would keep the government out of religion, not the other way around. It has since then become a way to keep both sides out of each other's business, although it's messy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists_in_the_history_of_separation_of_church_and_state#Wall_of_separation

Originally posted by josephw
Since when do I demand preferential treatment?

In fact, personally, I think sonhouse is right in wanting to be free of religious influences on his life in the public realm.

Religious people should keep it to themselves. On the other hand so should big mouth atheists.

If the kids at that high school had wanted to pray somewhere quietly before the match they could have done so without any problem. However, it was they that wanted to parade their religion in a state school with a monument in praise of their own religion.

Let's assume that this practice of touching a stone with biblical verses had never occurred in this school. Suppose a Muslim member of the team had asked to put up a similar monument with a verse from the Quran saying Allah is the one true God, and with him all things are possible.

Do you think this would have been allowed?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Actually, I think it is you that don't.

Have you any good reason for why Christians should be allowed discretion to put up a symbol of their particular faith in a state school, when there is supposed to be separation of church from state?

Atheist's don't understand the true meaning of separation of Church and state and twist it!

Originally posted by josephw
Maybe because they own the state? Would that be reason enough?

Separation of church and state means that the state shall not designate a particular religion as the official state religion. It does not mean that citizens cannot run their country according as their faith dictates.

If the majority rules, then the rest can cry like babies. They can start their own schools and run their municipalities as they wish.

Does this go for Sharia moslims as well?

Originally posted by RBHILL
Atheist's don't understand the true meaning of separation of Church and state and twist it!

Isn't it ~ indeed ~ atheists and members of minority religions who get protection from the "separation of Church and state" and if so, isn't their perception of that protection, and their perception of the state and its actions pertaining to religion, absolutely key to "understanding its true meaning"?

Originally posted by RBHILL
Atheist's don't understand the true meaning of separation of Church and state and twist it!

Actually, I think that most of the atheists protesting at the high school would have no issue with the school allowing a space before a match to be used privately by kids of all religions to pray before the match.

Indeed, most atheists I know are strong defenders of an individual's right to the free practice of their religion, providing that this does not involve the use of state funds and is accorded to all religions on the same basis.

The irony here is that this makes many atheists much stronger defenders of the rights of theists than the theists themselves, who are often motivated to protect only the rights of their own minority brand of religion.

If you look at the Facebook comments, they are nearly all focused on the fact that Christianity is correct, and that therefore the practice should be allowed to continue. Not one of them suggests that non-Christians should be accorded the same privilege and that the erection of such a monument was crass and insensitive to people of other faiths and no faith.

And no theist here has as yet agreed that the school would have not allowed a Muslim monument with equivalent verses from the Quran and the double standard this implies.

So please do not whine about defending the rights of people to practice religion, as the so-called 'Fight for faith' is only a' Fight for our faith' and the rest, as Josephw admitted in a rare burst of insight and honesty, can go and 'cry like babies'.

Originally posted by FMF
Isn't it ~ indeed ~ atheists and members of minority religions who get protection from the "separation of Church and state" and if so, isn't their perception of that protection, and their perception of the state and its actions pertaining to religion, absolutely key to "understanding its true meaning"?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/07/09/the-true-meaning-of-separation-of-church-and-state/

http://www.lc.org/resources/myth_of_separation_church_state.html

Google: true meaning of separation between church and state

Originally posted by RBHILL
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/07/09/the-true-meaning-of-separation-of-church-and-state/

http://www.lc.org/resources/myth_of_separation_church_state.html

Google: true meaning of separation between church and state

So you don't have a personal response to my personal response to your comment. Fine. You are probably overestimating what effect you urging me to Google something is going to have on me.