church and state (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Victor Steinbok]

It seems, you're confusing "secular" with "nondenominational". The
reason we occasionally breach the separation--such as the cases of
Christian Scientist parents--is because these are cases of a conflict of
rights, not of secular trumping religious. And, in general, there is an
implicit hierarchy of rights that allows courts/government to determine
in which cases one right trumps another. We have a number of rights
being violated by forced imprisonments, but we also have laws that
specify who, when and how should be imprisoned. We take away the rights
to possess firearms and to vote from felons (sometimes for a brief
period, sometimes forever). Yet, we don't see this as "intrusion of
government" into the rights.

In this case, no preference is given to any religion (or lack of one),
but a preference /is/ given to certain moral principles (e.g.,
protection of children) that is independent from religion (or lack of
it). So, yes, this can easily "be seen as [something other than] a
breach of separation of church and state". More to the point, there is
no violation of the Establishment Clause at all.

     VS-)

On 11/22/2010 12:33 PM, Mullins, Bill AMRDEC wrote:
> Allowing "secular laws of the land [to] tak[e] precedence over religious
> beliefs/laws" cannot be seen as anything but a breach of separation of
> church and state.   We as a nation have decided that certain secular
> laws are so important that devout sincere practitioners of a particular
> faith shouldn't be allowed to worship their God as they see fit.
> Regardless of whether you or I agree with those secular laws, as they
> are so interpreted and enforced, they breach the wall.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org