My head is gonna asplode.BoringSupreez wrote:That's a pretty good summation of the issue. This nation was founded by people with western Christian-influenced (even if some of the founding fathers didn't actually practise it themselves) morals and mindsets. What "separation of church and state" meant to them is that while the government would base it's rules off of what they considered universal standards of right and wrong, ie, God's laws, the government would not sanction any denomination or sect as the state religion. There would be no monopoly on religion like Britain had with the Church of England, or western European nations with Roman Catholicism.Forlorn Drifter wrote:And although the separation of church and state has always been promoted in the US, I don't see it as something that has actually been put into effect. Despite the views of some of the founding fathers on religion, the US has always, up until more recently, been an overall Christian nation in ideology and view. The fact that it is currently changing is part of what causes this controversy, as something like this would have been pretty well accepted in earlier times. It has only become problematic in more recent times as the religious groupings in the US have changed, with Islam, Eastern religions, and Atheism rising in popularity. It essentially boils down to the US being hypocritical in its separation of church and state, and it just now being brought to light.
However, many today interpret separation of church and state to basically mean that the government is to have no moral foundation or standards whatsoever beyond what the majority wants. When they see monuments like the ten commandments in front of a state building to them it seems like a violation of that principle, even though the government is not in any way rewarding or punishing people based on religion.
Regardless of your or my views on what separation of church and state should mean, I don't think this satanist statue has any business being a thing. It is blatantly obvious the group pushing for it is doing it to make a political point, not because it represents the moral foundation the government was founded on, or because it represents what a majority of the populace considers true, or even because it enhances the scenery or artistic value of the building.
There are many varied and valid interpretations of what the "separation of church and state" clause meant/means, and anyone who ever claims any particular interpretation of an idea as being "the intent of the founders" is a fool. The founders were a group of diverse people with diverse interests who created language that allowed for wide interpretation to accommodate many of those differences.
Most people who are upset about the role of religion in government are upset because it leads to tyranny of the majority/groupthink and are in fact concerned that we are creating laws that "have no moral foundation or standards whatsoever beyond what the majority wants" - and that that majority is Christian beliefs. The monument reinforces this fear. How would you feel about being arrested for a crime in a country that put the laws of some religion you disagreed with on their legislature's front porch? Would you assume that they'd just treat you fairly regardless of your own religion?
And finally, of course the statue controversy is meant to make a political statement, which is exactly why is should be "a thing". That's the fucking point.
